data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3cbc0/3cbc09a60cc1420436e3f92f72591f8aff4dc063" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"
For years, conservatives have talked about the importance of “making the Bush Tax Cuts permanent.” With their recent call for a “War Czar,” they seem to have similar hopes about George W. Bush’s war in Iraq.
While it makes some kind of sense to have a “Drug Czar,” or a “Terrorism Czar,” because drugs and terrorism are insidious problems that will always be present at some level, war has always been a temporary response to a world crisis. A war is something that most of us expect to occur only as a last resort. If conducted well, a war should end as soon as a desired de-escalation of the crisis is achieved.
Naming a “War Czar” gives the psychological impact of permanence, in the same way that the “Drug Czar” and the so-called “War on Drugs” have been woven into the fabric of American society.
However, it makes about as much sense as naming a “Flood Relief Czar” during a flood, or a “Power Outage Czar" during a power outage!
If we really want to look for an insidious, long-term, problem requiring its own Czar, how about naming Patrick Fitzgerald as our nation's “Corruption Czar?”
I have an idea - if Bush wants a War Czar how about General Shinseki or John Kerry.
ReplyDeleteI liked Rahm Immanuels line "we already have a war czar, its called the Commander and Chief - unless the "Decider" is now the "Delegator"