OpEdNews - Diary: Suddenly we need a "War Czar"?

::::::::

Earlier this week, George W. Bush created a new official U.S. government position: "War Czar" Huh? This nation has gotten along just fine for more than two centuries, and through several wars, without a "War Czar". Why do we need one now? Is this Bush's way of making the "War on Terror" seem more urgent, or more important, than all those previous wars (such as WWII), for which we did not have a "War Czar" on the payroll (as far as I can tell)? Or is it that this administration is so bloodthirsty that it needs to appoint yet another official person in charge of war operations, in addition to the Secretary of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff, etc.? Or perhaps is it that the administration, deep down inside, really does see that this "War on Terror" thing is truly out of control, so they need another scapegoat? As of yesterday, at least three retired four-star generals have spurned the idea. To read their views as published by the Washington Post, click here. War is supposed to be a defensive activity of last resort. We shouldn't need a freaking "War Czar" now. But then, we shouldn't be at war now at all. -----