The Bush administration has announced that it is looking to appoint a “war czar” who would… The Bush administration has announced that it is looking to appoint a “war czar” who would oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and would have the authority to issue direct orders to the Pentagon and Sate Department. The position will not be paid in rubles.

The “war czar” would report directly to Bush and national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley and would help to coordinate war policy between different government agencies, which often have their own agendas.

Currently, the highest ranking White House official responsible exclusively for the war is deputy national security adviser Meghan O’Sullivan, who plans to step down soon.

O’Sullivan’s departure has inspired the White House to rethink the way it organizes the war effort, deciding that it would be beneficial to create a position that would be similar to O’Sullivan’s, with a few exceptions.

The new czar – or czarina – would have the title of assistant to the president, just as Hadley and other high-ranking White House officials have, and would have “tasking authority,” or the power to issue directions over other agencies, according to The Washington Post.

Ultimately, by creating this position, Bush is delegating his own authority – and accountability – onto others. The executive branch is structured with multiple departments and one commander-in-chief for a reason. It is supposed to be the role of the commander-in-chief to coordinate and oversee the agendas of different departments.

But we guess you really can’t be the “decider” and the “czar” – that’s way too much responsibility for one person. It’s a much better idea to expand the bureaucracy, spend time and money creating a position and then slap a fancy name on it.

The White House has approached at least three retired four-star generals to be considered for the position, but all three have turned it down. Apparently, a fancy title like “czar” does little to add to the appeal of overseeing the current international disaster.

One of the candidates who rejected the czar position was retired Marine Gen. John J. Sheehan, a former top NATO commander, who expressed concerns on the administration’s priorities in Iraq.

“I’ve never agreed on the basis of the war, and I’m still skeptical,” he said in an interview with the Post. “So, rather than go over there, develop an ulcer and eventually leave, I said, ‘No thanks.'”

Accepting a position with the name “war czar” will be taking on a large amount of accountability for our progress in Iraq and Afghanistan, so it is no surprise that the White House is having a difficult time recruiting someone to fill the position.

But, rest assured, the Bush administration has a backup plan. If it is unable to recruit an adequate candidate for the position, it will just retain its current structure.

For the sake of the potential “war czar,” however, here’s hoping he doesn’t encounter a “war Rasputin.”