"The positive side of this appointment is that Gen. Lute is highly qualified, knows the region, has proven operational capability, has worked well with those in Iraq and Afghanistan, and is one of the more objective voices in dealing with the Iraq war," Anthony H. Cordesman, who holds the Arleigh A. Burke chair in strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in a statement Wednesday.

Cordesman also welcomed the fact "that Lute's appointment gives Afghanistan a high priority as well as Iraq. Far too often, the politics of the Iraq war have tended to treat the Afghan war as a secondary priority."

But Cordesman also pointed out that Lute faces an uphill battle.

"The negative side of the appointment is largely beyond Gen. Lute's control," he said. "If this had been done in 2002, or in 2003, the United States would have had far more freedom of action and Lute would have had far more flexibility."

But Lute is caught in a lot more dilemmas than that.

For all his experience and impressive record, he is taking over a position as a relatively lowly three-star general who had already been turned down by at least four well-qualified four-star commanders. And he will be overseeing four-star rank commanders, like CENTCOM commander Adm. William Fallon and Iraq ground forces commander Gen. David Petraeus.

Also, Gen. Lute will not be reporting to President George W. Bush directly but to national security adviser Stephen Hadley.

This arrangement looks likely to be filled with confusions and ambiguities.

First, wars involving the United States have always been run by the War Department, and then, since 1947, through the integrated Department of Defense. The National Security Council and its chief have never had responsibility for running or even overseeing any war directly in the 60 years since the NSC and the position of national security adviser were created.

Second, Hadley has been one of the most low-key, and arguably ineffectual, national security advisers in the history of the office. This has been especially true of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, where former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld kept a jealous and exclusive grip on war policymaking throughout his long tenure at the Pentagon.

Hadley never directly challenged Rumsfeld on any major issue relating to Iraq or Afghanistan during the years he served as Condoleezza Rice's deputy national security adviser during the president's first term of office, and as national security adviser himself in the second term. And he has been largely overshadowed in the position, especially on Middle East affairs, by his own hard-driving deputy, Elliott Abrams.

Further, as The Washington Times reported Wednesday, Lute, for all his experience and intellectual distinction, has primarily served as a staff officer and has had little combat experience. This will put him at a further disadvantage when dealing with ground commanders in Iraq who are not only senior in rank but far more experienced in the realities of the low-intensity conflict or guerrilla war currently being fought there.

Gen. Lute may therefore find himself in the position of Adm. Michael McConnell, the current director of national intelligence. While being popularly described as a "war czar," or, in McConnell's case, "intelligence czar," both men, for all their undoubted experience and ability, instead find themselves in situations where they are constrained in exercising real authority -- and holding posts that appear much more likely to function, at best, as clearinghouses for the exchange of information and assessments.

Email This Article

Related Links
Center for Strategic and International Studies
The Military Industrial Complex at SpaceWar.com
Learn about the Superpowers of the 21st Century at SpaceWar.com

Memory Foam Mattress Review

SPACE MEDIA NETWORK PROMOTIONS Solar Energy Solutions Tempur-Pedic Mattress Comparison ... Newsletters :: SpaceDaily :: SpaceWar :: TerraDaily :: Energy Daily XML Feeds :: Space News :: Earth News :: War News :: Solar Energy News