Cheney in Charge

By Scott Horton

Historians in a later age will, I suspect, come to view this period as the regency of Dick Cheney, the decider’s decider. For those close to the center of things in Washington today there are few illusions on this score. Strong evidence comes in a Washington Post article out today. It seems that the White House has decided that it wants to appoint a “war on terror tsar” to help it keep track of whatever conflicts are seen as a part of the current “war on terror” blend (but certainly Afghanistan and Iraq). So far, it seems, there are no takers.

The White House wants to appoint a high-powered czar to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with authority to issue directions to the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies, but it has had trouble finding anyone able and willing to take the job, according to people close to the situation.

At least three retired four-star generals approached by the White House in recent weeks have declined to be considered for the position, the sources said, underscoring the administration's difficulty in enlisting its top recruits to join the team after five years of warfare that have taxed the United States and its military.

Those who make a profession of tracking the Pentagon brass will not be surprised by any of this. Indeed, in the view of many of the nation’s military leadership, the Bush administration has committed serious errors from the get-go. As one general explained to me, “It’s a matter of fundamental policy, that you define a war in terms that allow you to quickly and convincingly achieve your goals. The reason is simple. It allows you to claim victory. For a paramount power like the United States anything short of that will be seen as defeat.” But of course the Bush-Cheney administration defined the “war on terror” from the very outset in the most nebulous terms. It was unclear exactly who the “enemy” were. It was unclear exactly where the war was being fought. And it was unclear exactly what would constitute a victory, indeed, even what the major interim objectives would be. This makes for excellent domestic partisan politics, but abysmal military strategic planning. Which shows what the emphasis was from the beginning. And which brings us to the current dilemma, and explains why career military men are so uneager to be connected with it.

But there’s another major draw-back. Namely, who’s in charge? The view of most who have studied the White House know who’s calling the shots. Said Marine Corps General John J. (“Jack”) Shaheen, the former NATO commander,

Vice President Cheney and his hawkish allies remain more powerful within the administration than pragmatists looking for a way out of Iraq. "So rather than go over there, develop an ulcer and eventually leave, I said, 'No, thanks,' " he said.

Bush has been quick to claim that he listens to his generals and takes their advice on how to conduct the war in Iraq. Those close to the situation have a starkly different view.

Interestingly, the generals are not the only people raising questions about Cheney. The New York Times also had a piece on the controversy out at Brigham Young University resulting from the school’s decision to invite Cheney to speak at this year’s commencement. Three quotations stood out:

“The problem is this is a morally dubious man,” said Andrew Christensen, a 22-year-old Republican from Salt Lake City. “It’s challenging the morality and integrity of this institution.” . . .

“It just feels like too much sleaze and not the right values for B.Y.U.,” Mr. Woodworth said. “We espouse honesty, chastity, integrity, ethics, virtue and morality, and he does not epitomize those values.” . . .

Tricia Campbell, 21, a senior from Orem who is a Republican, said Mr. Cheney’s behavior in office “just doesn’t fit” with what she had learned from the university’s mission of promoting of “integrity, character and moral development.”

Last spring I was invited out to speak to a crowd of college students in Ogden, Utah. They were remarkably smart, articulate and extremely conservative, I thought. In fact, far from being the coddled college kids I am used to encountering, the Utah students were well traveled and offered some extraordinary insights into things going on in remote corners of the world. For the most part this was a result of involvement in LDS missionary work and a culture that demands self-reliance from an early age. The critical remarks quoted in the Times article ring true to me. But the reader shouldn’t think this audience is a bunch of liberals or Democrats – far from it. They are a group of traditional conservatives, to whom, as Karl Rove would say, “character matters.” Indeed it does.