There's an old saying: when things go wrong, committee it to death. So when the City Council wonders how to deal with a water main break or Congress discovers that money is disappearing from the public kitty, they hold a press conference and declare that We Are Setting Up a Distinguished Committee to deal with the problem. Then the committee meets a few times, eats some doughnuts, runs off with the free pens and issues a report that no one reads.

George W. Bush knows that the Iraq War is not going well and that four years after Mission Accomplished we are spinning our wheels and no one knows what to do 'cept send more troops and money into the hell-hole and hope to God that somehow things take a turn for the better. The Committee thing didn't work, because the distinguished blowhards assigned for that task told Bush what he didn't want to hear. So the next best thing is to appoint a War Czar, you know, some military guy to take charge of the war and wrap the damned thing up. Problem is, Bush ain't got no War Czar. No one wants the job. Not even the war-mongers.

Here's the story:

The White House has been quietly attempting to appoint a “high-powered czar to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with authority to issue directions to the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies.” It hasn’t publicly disclosed the position, which was today reported by the Washington Post, because it hoped to “find someone President Bush can anoint and announce for the post all at once.”

But so far, the White House hasn’t found anyone willing to take the job. At least three retired four-star generals have turned down the White House’s offer, including a key administration ally and escalation proponent.

The Washington Post reported that "At least three retired four-star generals approached by the White House in recent weeks have declined to be considered for the position, the sources said, underscoring the administration's difficulty in enlisting its top recruits to join the team after five years of warfare that have taxed the United States and its military."

The following quote from the Post is priceless:

"The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going," said retired Marine Gen. John J. "Jack" Sheehan, a former top NATO commander who was among those rejecting the job. Sheehan said he believes that Vice President Cheney and his hawkish allies remain more powerful within the administration than pragmatists looking for a way out of Iraq. "So rather than go over there, develop an ulcer and eventually leave, I said, 'No, thanks,' " he said.

Asking an ambitious military man to take on the role of War Czar is like asking a fraternity boy to work as the madam at the whorehouse. But the military guys reacted as if you walked them to the shit-yard and gave them a shovel. Nobody wants to be steering the Titanic into another iceberg.

What makes this story so profound is that (1) the Constitution of the United States already gives us a "War Czar" in the form of Commander in Chief. Article 2, Section 2: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." The Commander in Chief is George W. Bush. If Bush can't handle it, there's the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of State, the National Security Advisor, the Vice President and a bunch of Cabinet officials from Secretary of the Army to Secretary of the Navy. Can't we save a few bucks and ask them to be the War Czar?

What also makes the story profound is that this scenario was predicted some time ago by the Onion, America's greatest satirical newspaper, which reported in October 2005 that he was appointing an administrator to run the country:

In response to increasing criticism of his handling of the war in Iraq and the disaster in the Gulf Coast, as well as other issues, such as Social Security reform, the national deficit, and rising gas prices, President Bush is expected to appoint someone to run the U.S. as soon as Friday.

"During these tumultuous times, America is in need of a bold, resolute person who can get the job done," said Bush during a press conference Monday. "My fellow Americans, I assure you that I will appoint just such a person with all due haste."

The Cabinet-level position, to be known as Secretary of the Nation, was established by an executive order Sept. 2, but has remained unfilled in the intervening weeks.

"I've been talking to folks from all across this country, from Louisiana to Los Angeles, and people tell me the same thing: This nation needs a strong, compassionate leader," Bush said. "In response to these concerns, I'm making this a top priority. I will name a good, qualified person as soon as possible."

Among the new secretary's duties are preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution of the United States, commanding the U.S. armed forces, appointing judges and ambassadors, and vetoing congressional legislation. The secretary will also be tasked with overseeing all foreign and domestic affairs, including those relating to the economy, natural disasters, national infrastructure, homeland security, poverty, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The secretary will report directly to the president.

Don't you think the Onion should get the Pulitzer Prize for this? I think so.