Anybody out there as puzzled by this as me? I heard a reference to this on Amy Goodman's Democracy Now this morning and thought it was some kind of joke, only to pick up my Wash Post and see it on the front page, above the fold.
A war czar? Isn't that what the Secretary of Defense is? And aren't there a couple of layers at the uniformed military level for this, someone who's the military chief of the region, another person that overseas the Iraq war broadly and another who's the on-the-ground chief?
However unusual this is or what the position is supposed to entail that would distinguish it from the warriors above, no one seems to be taking, and what's more, they're willing to state publicly that they aren't and why.
Not sure where this is going but I wouldn't count it as indicative of competence in the war-room.