Democratic Conversation

George W. Bush has placed a help wanted ad: he needs a “czar” to run both of his failed wars: Afghanistan’s just war that he neglected and now is in nearly as chaotic a situation as before the Taliban took power in 1996; and the Iraqi Murder Expedition. While Mr. Bush continues to put on his war face, he is no Henry V, and has failed his troops, his field commanders, and the people who elected him. As for the people who didn’t elected him…. Let’s just say it’s a wonder no one has taken the sword to relieve us of this “king.”

Already this help-wanted ad is a failure: at least three four-star generals have turned it down flat. We all know why. The mid-term elections told us why. Democrats are starting to show the country why (sort of). Yet Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney have no ability to save face—and no will to save lives.

In Shakespeare’s time, and in his plays, such a king was overthrown forthwith. Kings knew that people could take just so much war, and not a lot of losing battles. Soldiers followed a victorious king with relish for the victorious battle; they surreptitiously murdered a loser. Loyal subjects that paid for war with treasure expected a return on their investment. When that king lost both soldiers and the public, No Confidence usually spelled The End.

Now a failed would-be king, Mr. Bush has seemed to give his last gasp: a call for someone competent to run his spoiled campaigns where incompetence and political meddling have failed miserably, torturously, deathly, murderously. Such a plan worked for Abraham Lincoln when he hired U.S. Grant to run the Civil War. Grant succeeded because he knew a thing or two about war: destroy your enemy wherever he is, whatever border you have to cross. It’s not so easy to run on that strategy these days, especially in the Middle East, when it’s not your fucking enemy that needs a bit of the strap.

One of Mr. Bush’s problems in his play for a new commander, I think, is word choice. Never known for his grasp of the English language, Mr. Bush has pulled out a Russian term, “Czar.” It’s not a particularly new word in American politics. There have been Drug Czars, Education Czars, and a few others. They failed, as will this Czar, even if Bush finds a willing candidate.

Perhaps Czar is a star-crossed term, and this is the problem. You can see how when you learn its meaning—king—and understand why there are no more Russian Czars (and here I mean no offense to Catherine the Great, as she was a Czarina). There are no more Russian Czars because Russians Czars were either despotic and murderous, or weak and cowardly. Hey now! Seems like Mr. Bush fits well inside all those words.