Donald Rumsfeld once said that “you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.” He could have said the same for Presidents—we go to war with the president we have, not the president we might want or wish to have.
But Senate Democrats have a new wish: that President Obama appoint a new “czar” responsible for the nation’s war with ISIS. Senator Harry Reid unveiled their proposal this week, saying that the “ISIS Czar” would be “one person, who is fully empowered and unifies the federal government’s efforts in fighting ISIS.”
And, he added, “I’m pleased that President Obama has taken a first step in this direction.” That “first step” is Robert Malley, the NSC officer whom President Obama elevated to “czar” despite having once ejected Malley from his 2008 presidential campaign due to Malley’s past meeting with Hamas.
Senate Democrats’ call for an “ISIS Czar” is ironic, to say the least. For in mid-2007—roughly the equivalent point in President Bush’s second term—Democrats denounced his own appointment of an Iraq war “czar” as evidence that Bush’s war was a fiasco:
Indeed, at Lute’s confirmation hearing Senator Jack Reed was scathing toward the Bush administration, characterizing the new “czar” position as nothing more than public-relations spin:
Ultimately Democrats were wrong in their diagnosis, as the Bush administration’s 2007 “surge” strategy proved correct. But one wonders whether their embrace of the “czar” approach today reflects the very admission of defeat, of loss of faith in the President, that they announced in 2007.
Regardless, the more fundamental point remains. President Obama and Senate Democrats don’t need a “war czar.” The Constitution already provides for one. If President Obama is looking for his war czar, he should stop looking down the hall and start looking in the mirror.
