Has the War Czar Gone AWOL?
[Have a question for Stumped? Send it here. Questions may be edited.]
Dear Stumped,
What happened to the 'War Czar'? The Post and other papers extensively covered the search to fill this -- perhaps risible -- position. A number of candidates passed. Gen Douglas Lute was widely praised as someone who could help coordinate the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq better. But where has he been? Does he not do interviews? Is he effective? Is he making progress? Is he being undermined by various agencies?
Lev Raphael
Dear Lev,
I don't know how Gen. Lute is doing as war czar, to be honest. I do know that he has been in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House, as recently as Nov. 26, when he took 19 questions. He's probably been there a few other times as well.
But listen: I'm trying to write an advice column here. You have dilemmas, I try to solve them: How do I get over my hatred of George Bush? How much should I care about experience when deciding among presidential candidate? What's the polite way to address a neocon?
These are the kinds of tough, vital, future-of-the-republic questions Stumped is all about. Stumped is not an investigative reporter, nor is he a human Google, nor is he a kind of Walter Scott for wonks. (Actually, I wouldn't mind being a wonk's Walter Scott. So strike that last bit.) My point is, there are better places to find the answers you seek. Had you asked me if Gen. Lute's competence should influence your choice of a candidate, or whether you should pay attention to generals when they talk about politics, or should you netflix "Patton" or "MacArthur" (it's no contest!) -- now we're talking.
All that said and since you asked, the "surge," by all accounts, is helping to stabilize the situation in Iraq, but that strategy was decided upon before the general's coronation as czar, and he was reportedly skeptical of the surge in the first place. To his credit, Lute has been blunt in pointing out the failure of Iraqi politicians to capitalize on the improving security situation. He was also quite blunt -- or is it czar-like? -- in suggesting in an interview that the United States may need to resort to a military draft.
But this notion of having a "war czar" is bogus. If President Bush, Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld hadn't been so incompetent in managing the Iraqi occupation in the first place, there never would have been calls for a "czar" to do the job of others. Whether it's to fight drug use or rebuild New Orleans, people only yearn for omnipotent "czars" when government has broken down.
As far as I am concerned, the last czar who did a credible job was Alexander I, the Romanov who vanquished Napoleon.
Dear Stumped,
How much can a candidate, who is not dining at the public trough while holding office, and who has no visible means of support, pay himself from campaign funds while running for office?
Thanks,
Jim O'neill
Dear Jim,
Earlier this week, I addressed a question about the president's salary and whether there could be some way to tie the commander-in-chief's pay to his or her performance. Stumped got an avalanche of reader reaction and ideas. (We'll return to the subject in a future column.)
So it seems fitting to turn today to this intriguing query about compensation for candidates as opposed to officeholders. More than an intriguing query, it's an intriguing career question: Could, say, a newspaper columnist raise millions of dollars to run for Congress or the White House -- and pay himself a good chunk of those dollars in salary?
Alas, this particular daydream didn't last long. Bob Biersack at the Federal Election Commission had some disappointing news: Yes, according to FEC regulations, you can pay yourself a salary from campaign funds as a candidate for federal office. But FEC rules cap the amount you can earn at your income the year prior to your candidacy, or the salary of the office you seek, whichever is lower. That means a journalist running for the presidency can only pay himself his meager journo pay, while a hedge-fund manager running for president can pay herself $400,000 (if she is not pumping millions into her campaign, which is of course more likely). Paging John Edwards! Maybe he's onto something with this "two Americas" thing.
Incumbents obviously can't pay themselves an additional salary for running for re-election, but members of Congress have long done the next best thing -- they've put relatives on the campaign payroll. This practice is so commonplace and so icky, the House was recently shamed into passing legislation that would ban paying a spouse to work on the campaign. (And if your husband or wife doesn't want to volunteer, take the hint: Either you shouldn't be married or you shouldn't be running.) The Senate has not taken action yet.
As a general rule, campaign funds are not for personal use. So each time a campaign spends money it is supposed to engage in a lawyerly "but for" inquiry -- as in, would I be making this purchase "but for" my candidacy? As in, would I be ordering this latte if I were not working for the campaign? These are the kinds of questions that make lawyers wealthy.
Thinking far bigger, I asked Biersack if I, as a candidate for public office, could use the campaign's money to go off to a posh Caribbean resort for two weeks with some buddies to "prepare" for some debate. After a slight hesitation, he said, "Sure." So maybe there is a way to compensate for that lowly candidate salary.
By Andres Martinez |
December 14, 2007; 12:00 AM ET
Previous: How Much Should George Bush Get Paid? |
Next: Can Bush Hatred End a Friendship?
Posted by: votenic | December 19, 2007 3:32 PM
There's a mindset in Washington that you aren't successful unless you go around tooting your own horn and getting reporters to write about how important and good you are. General Lute is not a "czar" and has never claimed to be. He is a special advisor to the president for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Has anyone noticed that the news in Iraq has gotten a lot better since Lute started his job? I suspect he probably is responsible for some of this success. He doesn't go around town promoting himself and currying favor with the press.
Posted by: Woodhill | December 15, 2007 4:27 PM
"Incumbents obviously can't pay themselves an additional salary for running for re-election, but members of Congress have long done the next best thing -- they've put relatives on the campaign payroll. This practice is so commonplace and so icky, the House was recently shamed into passing legislation that would ban paying a spouse to work on the campaign. (And if your husband or wife doesn't want to volunteer, take the hint: Either you shouldn't be married or you shouldn't be running.) The Senate has not taken action yet."
I agree that putting your spouse on the campaign payroll seems extremely icky. However, spouses (OK, the wives) are expected to drop everything for their office-seeking honey, lest they seem like hairy-legged, bra-burning feminists who don't like to bake cookies (recall the derision heaped upon Howard Dean's doctor wife when she declined to effectively give up her job to become his professional campaign booster). If a candidate can receive his previous salary from the campaign, why not apply the same rule to a spouse who works for the campaign, assuming of course, she does real work? Or perhaps only those who are so wealthy that they don't need their spouse's income to support their household should be allowed to run for public office?
Posted by: MAG | December 14, 2007 1:20 PM
Der Stumpd;
How is it possible to deny you do investigative journalism re: the question on Lute, and then do precisely that kind of digging for sources on candidate self-pay? Is it the difference between having to find one source or two?
By the way - Lute was right on the surge. The surge strategy formed by Fred Kagan is responsible for very little of the change - mostly Petraeus benefitted from the decision of some Sunnis to lay aside resistance and go after those AQI guys instead, who, believe it or not, insisted that the Iraqi tribes give them wives to cement their alliance, and started killing people when they were refused. (I'm getting this from the Small Wars blog of David Kilcullen, an advisor of Petraeus.
So now that the threat of AQI is become contained, we have 1 to 2 Friedman units to work out our mission with these former members of the resistance, or they're likely to take arms against our troops once again.
Your humble servant out here in the sticks far from the wisdom of Washington,
Bumpkin
Posted by: Country Bumpkin | December 14, 2007 2:40 AM
How effective is a 3 star General going to be in a job where everyone around him outranks him, does he ask them "pretty please" the last time I looked President Bush was the Commander in Chief, and he has a Joint Chiefs of Staff made up of 4 stars, even General Petraues is a 4 star Admiral Fallon is a 4 star, the Chief of Staff of the Army is a 4 star, what exactly is this 3 star general going to do? Claim if you don't do what I want you to I am going to go tell Daddy? General Lute was a fool for taking the job, even retired 4 stars had enough sense not to get into the middle of this fiasco and head butting billy goats, besides Darth Vader wins most of the inner office battles anyway.
Posted by: mikey30919 | December 14, 2007 2:27 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
http://www.votenic.com
New YouTube Video!
The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Tuesday Evening At Midnight.