Words like "czar" always make me nervous, especially when they are used to describe administration officials. The intent is to make it more likely that the official can get their designated job done by streamlining the bureaucratic system underlying the job. This has its benefits of course, but one person's efficiency is another's tyranny.
Past "czars" have been appointed over energy and drugs, but now a story has appeared in the Washington Post on the President's so far unsuccessful search for a war czar.
The anti-federalists were nervous about the single headed executive established in Article II of the Constitution because they thought it would lead to the development of a military-king, a czar if you will.
Were they right to be fearful? Is it a good sign that there have been no takers thus far? Or perhaps an ominous sign? What type of person is likely to take the job? Perhaps the story is intended to be a trial balloon that the administration will float up in order to determine whether the public will support the creation of the office. If the reaction is negative, they will pull support. This assumes that the administration cares about public opinion of course.
