An April 30 New York Times article on national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley's quest to fill the newly created “war czar” position, a job that oversees the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, reported that Hadley “is interviewing candidates, including military generals,” for the “new high-profile job,” but not that several retired generals have reportedly turned the administration down. At least three retired four-star generals have reportedly declined to be considered for the position, and, according to an April 11 Washington Post article, one of the generals, Marine Gen. John J. “Jack” Sheehan, declined because those in the Bush administration currently in charge of the Iraq war's conduct “don't know where the hell they're going.” Sheehan later wrote in an op-ed that appeared in the Post that he withdrew himself from consideration for the job because the “current Washington decision-making process lacks a linkage to a broader view of the region and how the parts fit together strategically.”

The Times article, written by staff writer Sheryl Gay Stolberg, focused on Hadley and his role in trying to fill the “war czar” position:

Stephen J. Hadley would be the first to tell you he does not have star power. But Mr. Hadley, the bespectacled, gray-haired, exceedingly precise Washington lawyer who is President Bush's national security adviser, is in the market for someone who does -- with the hope of saving Iraq.

Mr. Hadley is interviewing candidates, including military generals, for a new high-profile job that people in Washington are calling the war czar. The official (Mr. Hadley, ever cautious, prefers “implementation and execution manager”) would brief Mr. Bush every morning on Iraq and Afghanistan, then prod cabinet secretaries into carrying out White House orders.

Yet nowhere in the article did Stolberg mention reports that retired generals have “declined to be considered for the position,” as Media Matters for America has noted. While CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reported on April 12 that “at least five retired generals have turned down the 'war czar' job,” The Washington Post identified three such retired generals: Sheehan, Air Force Gen. Joseph W. Ralston, and retired Army Gen. Jack Keane. According to the Post article, Sheehan was the only one to give a detailed account of why he did not want the job, and the article quoted Sheehan saying that he “never agreed on the basis of the [Iraq] war” and asserting that those currently in charge of the conflict “don't know where the hell they're going”:

In an interview yesterday, Sheehan said that Hadley contacted him and they discussed the job for two weeks but that he was dubious from the start. “I've never agreed on the basis of the war, and I'm still skeptical,” Sheehan said. “Not only did we not plan properly for the war, we grossly underestimated the effect of sanctions and Saddam Hussein on the Iraqi people.”

“There's the residue of the [Vice President Dick] Cheney view -- 'We're going to win, al-Qaeda's there' -- that justifies anything we did,” he said. “And then there's the pragmatist view -- how the hell do we get out of Dodge and survive? Unfortunately, the people with the former view are still in the positions of most influence.” Sheehan said he wrote a note March 27 declining interest.

The Post also quoted Sheehan saying: “The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going. ... So rather than go over there, develop an ulcer and eventually leave, I said, 'No, thanks.' ” The Post added that 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.”

The article further reported that each of the generals who turned down the job has strong ties to the Bush administration: Ralston is a former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who was named by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as a “special envoy for countering the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, a group designated a terrorist organization by the United States”; Keane was one of the chief architects of the troop increase adopted by Bush in January 2007; and Sheehan “served on the Defense Policy Board advising the Pentagon early in the Bush administration.” According to the article, unlike Sheehan, Ralston declined to comment on his decision not to take the job, and Keane offered only a brief statement.

From Sheehan's April 16 Washington Post op-ed:

It would have been a great honor to serve this nation again. But after thoughtful discussions with people both in and outside of this administration, I concluded that the current Washington decision-making process lacks a linkage to a broader view of the region and how the parts fit together strategically. We got it right during the early days of Afghanistan -- and then lost focus. We have never gotten it right in Iraq. For these reasons, I asked not to be considered for this important White House position. These huge shortcomings are not going to be resolved by the assignment of an additional individual to the White House staff. They need to be addressed before an implementation manager is brought on board.