Three retired generals, including retired Army Gen. Jack Keane, a major proponent of the "surge", have turned down the job. Another candidate who spurned the job, retired Marine Gen. John J. "Jack" Sheehan had the following thoughts. From the Washington Post:
"There's the residue of the Cheney view -- 'We're going to win, al-Qaeda's there' -- that justifies anything we did," he said. "And then there's the pragmatist view -- how the hell do we get out of Dodge and survive? Unfortunately, the people with the former view are still in the positions of most influence." Sheehan said he wrote a note March 27 declining interest.
That's probably true, this isn't a job for a pragmatist, it's one for a lackey, a yes man, a bootlick, and realistically, a whipping boy to replace former whipping boy Donald Rumsfeld.
The Post also quotes Carlos Pascual, who hits the nail on the head. From the Post:
Some administration critics said the ideas miss the point. "An individual can't fix a failed policy," said Carlos Pascual, former State Department coordinator of Iraq reconstruction, who is now a vice president at the Brookings Institution. "So the key thing is to figure out where the policy is wrong."
Yep, if you're trying to drive a ten penny nail into solid steel, it isn't because you have the wrong carpenter.
I would also like to add that there seems to be something a little more sinister going on here. If you notice, the administration isn't looking to hire an Iraq war czar, they're trying to hire a czar to cover both wars. Thus, they are trying to inexorably link the wars, both in scope and purpose to promote the idea that Iraq is a central front in the Global War on Terror. It isn't, it never was. Don't get fooled by this.
Found via Kevin Drum