Why Rumsfeld should stay
By AcademicElephant Posted in War — Comments (37) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
It is a slow news week, even worse it's a holiday, and on any given slow news week Rumsfeld Resignation Speculation seems to be the people's choice to fill the vacuum. But this most recent round has a new twist--it's being instigated by six retired generals who are, for various reasons, calling for the Secretary of Defense to resign or to be fired (for an excellent overview of the scorecard as it stands while I type, see this LATimes article). Their stars lend legitimacy to their opinions, and the media is breathlessly wondering if, at last, this will be it. It might surprise some to learn that I do not think the generals are operating from some sinister partisan position. Nor do I question their patriotism--these men are distinguished soldiers with long careers of service to the nation. But I do have a somewhat different take on the "The-Generals-are-Dissenting-the-Sky-is-Falling-Rumsfeld-Must-Go" story that they have provoked than what is being eagerly carried in the media.
What surprises me is that there are only six of them. Given the circumstances, that's an extraordinarily low number.
It seems to me that at the root of this issue is the fact that civilians control our military. In some ways, the very command structure of the Pentagon is an oxymoron, because logic suggests that a military man should head the military. After all, the military is a culture unto itself with highly-specialized protocols and rituals, not to mention highly-specialized information and tactics, which are best understood by those on the inside. But the makeup of our DoD has since 1947 specified civilian leadership, which creates friction in the top tiers of the Pentagon. I think that's okay because we don't really want these guys sitting around singing kumbaya together. Such deliberate conflict is designed to force the military to take civilian priorities into consideration and to ensure full oversight of the military--and the military resents it. How could they not? They're supposed to. That's the point. The only time they don't resent their civilian leadership is when that leadership is weak and so does not step on the military's toes, as was the case with, for example, William Cohen. It's natural enough that the generals in question long for the "business as usual" days of Cohen. But such a SECDEF, while perhaps popular in the corridors, would not be doing his job under the circumstances in which we now find ourselves. He would not challenge the military or second-guess them, as he should--and, for that matter, the military would not be challenging or second-guessing him, as they should. This state of affairs might have passed muster in the Clinton era, but in 2006 we can not afford such a comfort level.
Beyond the internal conflict inherent to the civilian controlled military, there are three particular circumstances surrounding Mr. Rumsfeld's tenure at the Pentagon that have inflamed the normally simmering state of affairs. The first is the length of his stay. Mr. Rumsfeld has been SECDEF for more than five years now, which makes him the third-longest serving secretary in American history. If he makes it to Christmas, he'll be the longest-serving; that's Rumsfeld for you--he's a survivor. But his survival comes with a price. Since most secretaries last about three years, when the generals who served under them retire they've gone too, making speaking out against them rather beside the point. Because Mr. Rumsfeld endures even when these various tours are up, he remains a target for the pent-up frustrations and disappointments of his subordinates.
And then there's the issue of what Mr. Rumsfeld has been asked to do. These five years have not been a cakewalk. He's been tasked with fighting two proper wars as well as the more shadowy and nebulous Global War on Terror. Even before these conflicts broke out, the President asked him to undertake a major overhaul of our armed forces, which had limped out of the Clinton years in dilapidated shape. All that appears to have been grist to his mill; not only is Mr. Rumsfeld a workaholic who seems to feed off additional challenges, he's a born reformer who relishes what to most would be an unsavory if not downright impossible task like reforming the military. But again, those very characteristics come with a price. Warfare is more art than science, and there is no single solution to every challenge. Different leaders will interpret challenges and priorities differently. Furthermore, wars are by their nature unpopular. They should be. They're expensive and difficult and the stakes couldn't be higher. People die. In a long hard slog like this one, inevitably someone will think that if only we had done it my way, we wouldn't have suffered that setback. We wouldn't have lost that soldier. And they may well be right about specific episodes, but of course who knows how such individual changes would effect the larger picture? Such second-guessing is not always helpful. But it is to be expected. As is the backlash from institutional reform. Not everyone enjoys reforming or being reformed, as appears to have been particularly the case with the Army under Rumsfeld's hand-picked General Peter Schoomacher. And there is no plan for military reform that will satisfy everyone in an outfit of this size. Someone's toes will be stepped on. Someone's nose will get out of joint. Someone's pet project that they've nursed along for years will get cancelled. Can you blame them for being disgruntled?
The third issue is more difficult to define, since it has to do with Mr. Rumsfeld's personality, and so his combative and/or aggressive management style. I've only met him once, and then briefly, so I claim no first-hand knowledge of his character, but enough publicity surrounds him to allow one to make an educated guess. It seems to me that there is something about Mr. Rumsfeld that provokes either intense loyalty or intense antipathy. He is a series of extremes--the youngest SECDEF, the oldest SECDEF, and potentially the longest serving--in other words, he's a somewhat unusual personality type. There's probably a reason why a highly-successful individual with a devoted family gets up every morning at 5:30 to go to the Pentagon and do daily battle with the bureaucratic hydra that is the DoD, and it doesn't have to do with being touchy-feely. It might not have to do, as General Batiste would like, with being a "team" player. Rather, it has to do with Mr. Rumsfeld's famous self-reliance and confidence in his own judgment, which have made him extremely effective because despite the thousands who work around him in the Pentagon, his is a lonely office. In reality, he's a team of one. Everyone has an opinion, offers a report, or sends a memo in an overwhelming avalanche of information. But he has to be able to tune out the interference and make an ultimate decision--sometimes very quickly--that he believes is in the best interests of the country regardless of his personal inclinations or concerns for others' feelings. Mr. Rumsfeld has this ability, and, in the context of DoD culture, it has allowed him to not get too bogged down in the details of the many tasks he has in hand. But once again, it comes with a price. Some consider his decisiveness the equivalent of ruthlessness, and his inability to suffer fools gladly a sign of disrespect. I wonder how far he would have gotten at the Pentagon without such qualities, but certainly they can get people's backs up--especially if the people he's saying "no" to are themselves highly motivated achievers who are used to calling the shots.
While we're on the subject of Mr. Rumsfeld's character, it seems to me another aspect of his personality--let's call it a subset to point three--might understandably provoke the sort of conflict we see now. This is his historical mindset, which is informed by the date of his birth. Many have accused the Secretary of being a Cold Warrior, and they are right. He is. He understands our current conflict through the prism of the Cold War as a long and non-conventional struggle not so much for individual pieces of territory as for an ideology, a way of life. As I have argued before, I don't think that's a bad thing, because, after all, we won the Cold War. It took a long time and cost a great deal, but we achieved victory. The generals who are speaking out against Rumsfeld, on the other hand, are all veterans of the Vietnam War. Their world view, and their view of warfare, was profoundly shaped by that searing and demoralizing experience. There's nothing like it in our history, and it's still very much a part of living memory--particularly for those who fought it. It seems to me that given their mindset, these generals are far more willing than Mr. Rumsfeld to pull the plug on the current course of action after three years--a period that to them seems well into the mission and a time to begin forestalling defeat if things are not going the way they want them, while to the Secretary it is barely the beginning of a much longer effort. Mr. Rumsfeld intends and expects that the United States will win in Iraq and prevail in the war on terror. He's just not so sure he's going to live to see it, but that's okay with him. I'm sure it's frustrating to those who consider such a long-term view impractical for the day-to-day needs of the boots on the ground, but I fear if we insist on understanding Iraq in Vietnam-style isolation we will lose sight of why we are fighting in the first place, which would lead to a sense of purposelessness far more dangerous than any individual tactical error.
All these circumstances return me to my opening statement: I'm surprised the number of disgruntled generals stands at only six. And ultimately, the issue has little to do with why they're doing what they're doing; the crux of the matter is whether or not Mr. Rumsfeld can continue to be effective in his position. I say yes. The man is unchanged. His abilities that have simultaneously made him an exceptional Secretary of Defense and have provoked the dissent of these generals are unchanged. And, most significantly, the confidence of his boss is unchanged.
The argument has been made that the President supports Rumsfeld out of some sense of misguided loyalty, or out of a stubborn refusal to admit the failure of the Iraq mission. He's "circling the wagons." He's "sticking together." The experts shake their heads at his simplicity--doesn't Mr. Bush understand, as they do, that only new blood will save this Pentagon? But new blood in and of itself is meaningless--rather like a fresh start with no destination. And while Mr. Rumsfeld is not indispensable--no one is in our democracy--I am at a loss to come up with an alternate who has the vision, dedication and drive--not to mention the international presence--to do a better job in the nigh-impossible position of the civilian head of our military at this juncture in our history, so I don't see the point of disposing of him now when we don't have to.
Furthermore, I think Mr. Bush, who is after all the true architect both of this administration and its policies, has a somewhat different viewpoint than these generals. Here's the thing: he does not think Iraq is a failure, and so he does not think that the plan was fatally flawed or irresponsible. He looks at Iraq as one evolving component in a much larger struggle that will inevitably erupt onto another battlefront, very possibly while Mr. Bush is still president. And when it does, be it in Iran or elsewhere, Mr. Bush wants Donald Rumsfeld as his Secretary of Defense. He wants the indefatigable Cold Warrior with his arrogance and his wire brush who will harass the military until he's satisfied he's got their best possible product. He wants the inveterate reformer whose goal is results, not personal popularity. He wants the lighter, leaner and more technologically advanced force that can be rapidly deployed to multiple fronts around the globe because let's face it folks, barring an unforeseen miracle we're going to have to multiple fronts. He knows that, as General Pace said on Tuesday, America is indeed "exceptionally well-served" by Donald Rumsfeld. He knows that, as General DeLong said Thursday, that Mr. Rumsfeld is an highly "effective" SECDEF who has achieved remarkable things during an extremely difficult time. And he knows, as General Myers pointed out yesterday, that the Generals' dissent could be "bad" for a country that values a civilian-lead military while it is at war because, among other things, it suggests that the Secretary of Defense serves at the pleasure of the top military brass, not of the President.
I strongly believe that it would be in our nation's best interest for Secretary Rumsfeld to keep challenging the military and second guessing it and hounding it because, as I said above, the stakes couldn't be higher. These generals are not dissenting because Mr. Rumsfeld cannot do his job. They are doing so because he does do his job.
Rumsfeld should stay.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Tall Afar Revisited — Comments (2) »
Why Rumsfeld should stay 37 Comments (0 topical, 37 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
It strikes me that the media will probably focus more on the third -- Rumsfeld's personality -- because personalities and drama are what the media do best. It also lets them do he-said-she-said reporting that doesn't require any heavy lifting from lazy reporters.
I think you also get the first issue -- the civilian/military divide -- about right. Always there, always deserving attention, nothing much new in this instance.
It's the second issue -- disagreements over policy -- that may resonate more widely with the public. Six flag officers compared to nearly 1000 in active duty is not a big number, but some of them are saying things that resemble statements by those in the broader debate, from Hackett and Pelosi to Buckley and Gingrich. That's potentially a big deal.
From a purely military point of view, it probable doesn't matter very much if Rumsfeld stays or goes. The die is cast. The specific circumstances of the war's run-up, initial phase and current status will be debated and argued over for years. The resolution of this conflict has yet to be played out. No doubt there will be a mini publishing boom as the various politicians, appointees, military members and pundits seek to emulate Winston Churchhill's immortal words, "History will be kind to me because I intend to write it."
From a political perspective, the fate of Rumsfeld is critical but of a second order. Let no one doubt it, this is a direct assault on Bush. And an assault that has the potential of resonance. Iraq has evolved into a cultural issue not dissimilar to the civil rights battles of the 1950's and 1960's and of course Viet Nam.
There will always be those on the left who will protest any military conflict even those necessary and needed as there will always be those on the right who applaud the projection of power even when the action if foolhardy and damaging to our nation's interests.
A significant portion of the electorate tunes out the daily clash between those calling for rallies around the flag versus those calling for rallies around the barricades. In general this group is generally conservative within the meaning of supporting the status quo and granting broad latitude to those in power to exercise power on behalf of the nation. At critical times this group looks ups and decides the key elections and determines the ebbs and flows of power. If the party in power looks and sounds competent and appears to have a plan, the status quo gets the benefit of the doubt even when the opposing forces have a credible case. In physics this force is called inertia; in politics it is called the swing vote.
This critical part of the electorate is now tuning into to the Iraq conflict, sorting evidence, and culling facts. "What is happening, why are we in this situation, is it worth the cost? " The President's tenure is constitutionally secure short of impeachment regardless of the verdict of this class. Politically, however his presidency and place in history is in balance.
It is to the President's benefit that this critical block is naturally conservative and supportive of the status quo. The anti-war left does not have enough credibility to sway the swing electorate. The danger is the very conservatism of the swing electorate. The unprecedented criticism of Rumsfeld by these generals will be considered much more persuasive than the cant from the left or even calls of support of the President from the right.
If more generals come forth to criticize Rumsfeld, it is likely that the swing electorate will rule that the war a failure. At that point whether the Rumsfeld stays or goes is moot. The President and the critical policy which will define him will have been deemed a failure. And once that happens; the rest of the political structure (including the Right) will move out of self preservation to render Bush irrelevant and impotent.
Ackey's six plus the venerable Wes Clark, are ignominious fools who will be shortly forgotten along with the likes of John Murtha.
Zinnie's on a book tour, I'm guessing the other Marine is just jealous of Pete Pace who's clearly a better man and a better Marine.
The four Army Generals are likely hacked off because Rumsfeld cut the Crusader cannon and wants a "mobile" Army. The very idea that people whose jobs are to break things and kill people could get upset because Rumsfeld yelled at them is beyond the pale. These idiots retired 20 years too late.
When I told my Marine Corps son that some Generals were upset and got their feelings hurt because they got yelled at he just chuckled. "Heh. They should have known 1stSgt Diaz. They wouldn't have lasted ten minutes." and then he shook his head in disgust.
Disgust, by the way, is what all seven of these fossils have earned. I hope Zinnie's publisher has to build a new warehouse to store books he can't sell. As for the rest of them, they will fade away, lonely and bitter that their wonderful advice wasn't heeded by their superiors. Good riddance.
We have had what are arguably the two most profoundly impressive campaigns in modern history and its a matter of debate to remove the man that ran the organization ??
The only reason this discussion is occuring at all is that the left !!! HATES !!! this administration. The only thing that they hate more than this administration is its successes. The D.O.D. under Rumsfeld is a magnificent success. Thus the argument over Rumsfeld. What the MSM is trumpetting as failures Alexander the great would look at and say "damn I have to do better", especially seeing as we conquered Iraq faster than he did. Is the MSM and the left worried we will do even better with Persia ?
And some others. But our military system has produced very few. 6 out of 9,000 is not a lot.
Forget for a moment that he is in charge of hundreds of thousands of people, as a huge machine, fighting wars and killing and being killed. Forget that he is leading these people in 2 simultaneous wars with at least one more on the very near horizon. Just consider him as a CEO of a huge company telling all the employees with 30 plus years time in the company(more time than he himself has at this company) that they have to change everything about what they do and how they do it. Do this, and you're going to find a handful (statistically speaking) who are going to have a problem with some or all of the plan.
I saw Rumsfeld with Hannity a couple weeks back while I was locked in a hotel room, and what struck me about this man was his matter-of-fact conviction that his job, and the US military he is responsible for, is ALL history...history still in the making. He even commented as much, by saying that he and his are judged daily, but none of the judging is done in the context of history...and that long after his time, it will be clear that he and we did what was right and what was necessary and that the actions of the Defense machine will be reflected on as exactly right for the challenges we face(d).
I found an op-ed from him the other day called "What We've Gained In Three Years In Iraq" in line with the anniversary of the Liberation of Iraq, and while too long to reproduce here, I'll leave you with this excerpt which I believe bears reading in the context of your very well done post AcademicElephant:
Consider that if we retreat now, there is every reason to believe Saddamists and terrorists will fill the vacuum -- and the free world might not have the will to face them again. Turning our backs on postwar Iraq today would be the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis. It would be as great a disgrace as if we had asked the liberated nations of Eastern Europe to return to Soviet domination because it was too hard or too tough or we didn't have the patience to work with them as they built free countries.
The sad thing is, Haystack, that Rumsfeld got savaged for precisely that quote.
http://elephantsinacademia.blogspot.com/2006/03/cnn-quotes-kissinger-out-of
-context-to.html
Oh well. It was a good op-ed and it will endure in his collected writings, for history to judge.
didn't see that...but if I may (with no intended threadjack):
KISSINGER: In Germany, the opposition was completely crushed. There was no significance resistance movement.
All this ole cowboy can say is that if Rumsfeld had been ALLOWED to take Iraq like we took Berlin, we would have no resisitance there as well.
Many hate me for saying this but I still contend that if we had left the reporters in their hotels (where many cozy up in to this day) and had returned fire at Mosques that were protecting the resistance...and had "crushed" them instead of trying to sift through who WAS and was NOT the bad guy, I dare say we would be looking at a very different Iraq than we see right now...but that is a sidebar to your piece...another thread perhaps.
Your analogy of Rumsfeld as a CEO battling the resistance of an entrenched corporate bureaucracy is apt. An agent of change must expect to be unpopular with some element of the rank and file. Even if some of the rank and file wear stars on their shoulders.
Anyone who is a long time reader of the WSJ realizes agents of change can only survive and function in the corporate world if they have the support of a majority their board. If you lose control of the board, the curb is not long behind.
This is why it is important for the revolt of the generals to be short and well contained. If it is not then the next several months and the remainder of the President's term will be ugly.
Afghanistan was an outstanding success. Militarily, Iraq was also an outstanding success. But in this type of warfare, 'Phase IV' is as crucial as I through III. The unwillingness of the DoD or anyone in the Administration to prepare for Phase IV in advance is a good bit of the reason we are in the situation that we are in. There are plenty of factors in mitigation, namely that for all the references to Japan and Germany this genuinely was unprecedented. At the same token, the magnitude of the mistakes and the nature of the news media demand someone take the fall for them. Rumsfeld's successes in handling transformation and in helping to correct some of those mistakes are enough to convince some that he deserves to keep going and maybe he does. But I am not ready to dismiss as moot or merely partisan the breadth of criticisms that have been leveled at him.
I'm tired and may be oversensitive in this arena, given I am probably O.C.D. about Iraq and Afghanistan and GWB and SecDef Rumsfeld, but I get this eery feeling that a jar is teetering on the edge of a shelf in aisle 9™
Your history is awful brief, and I can't quite "get" what you're after in the comments you've made across several threads here today, but I can't help but ask (been burned here before) what your point is. The assertions you make regarding mistakes and errors and Phases lead me to believe you are, what, unhappy with Iraq...dissatisfied with the execution of the campaign to date...convinced there is no strategy or plan...
please tell me what ever you mean by this:
The unwillingness of the DoD or anyone in the Administration to prepare for Phase IV in advance is a good bit of the reason we are in the situation that we are in.
Just from a guy down here at street level, it seems that things have stagnated somewhat in both theatres. And thats not Rummy's fault. In my simple way of looking at things, we are not conducting enough covert black operations against those that are fomenting the strife and upheaval. Radical Mullah's and the like. Madrasa headmasters. Especially in Saudi and Pakistan. These people's brains should be splattered out against the walls behind their desks all over the middle east. "W"'s gone soft over the last 5 years and he's become sensitive to world opinion. (would that he'd be so sensitive to his base supporters!) I guess that phenom just happens up in DC. But it'd be an easy matter. There are so many opposing factions in the mideast and so many needing cash. Well it doesn't seem like it'd be hard to recruit those to do the dirty deed. That is if we felt squimish about doing it ourselves. Maybe I've read too many Clancy books. We need Mr. Clark. We need to start taking them down. Just like a godfather movie. Yea maybe watching too many action adventure films but we are in a war. Its totally legit. World opinion be hanged. Of course we'd deny involvement. And not just in the mideast. We have people spewing forth this vile rubish in our country. Pop a cap in their melon, too. And promote the moderate Islamic clerics. Of course I'm speaking of a very deep and very black operation. But something is needed to get the war off of top dead center and in motion again. I'd much rather see Islam at war with itself than with us. But then isn't some of that happening in Iraq now? Who knows whats going on in the back alley's of Bahgdad or Karachi?
Don't forget another aspect - Rumsfeld (like Bush and like McCain) got his military experience as a pilot, a Navy pilot, and he's always been an air-power guy. This angle gets overplayed sometimes but there's clearly an undercurrent of mistrust between infantry guys and pilots. Also, some of these generals were still young officers back when Rumsfeld wa SECDEF the first time, and may have formed lasting opinions of him then.
One of the most important things that Rumsfeld does (everyday almost) is correct the purposely distorted MSM record of what happened last week, last month, last year, etc. Who else has all the details at his fingertips to refute the mainstream media's B.S.? A new SecDef couldn't correct the historical record as well, in real time, the way Rummy can.
From:
Meet the Press: Transcript for Feb. 6, 2005
NBC News
Guests: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6923245/
MR. RUSSERT: [...] I want to bring you back to the whole debate about the use of essential safety equipment for our troops and take you back to December--we haven't seen you since then--when Thomas Wilson stood up and asked you a question. I want to show you that exchange and come back and talk about it.
------------------------------
(Videotape, December 8, 2004):SPC. THOMAS WILSON: Now, why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles and why don't we have those resources readily available to us?
SEC'Y RUMSFELD: As you know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.
And if you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up. And you can have an up-armored Humvee and it can be blown up.
(End videotape)
------------------------------MR. RUSSERT: Now, Specialist Wilson did acknowledge he worked with a journalist in crafting that question.
SEC'Y RUMSFELD: Yeah, but wait a minute. Let me get into this a little bit.
MR. RUSSERT: Sure.
SEC'Y RUMSFELD: That was unfair and it was selectively taking out two sentences from a long exchange--there it is--that took place. And when you suggested that that's how I answered that question, that is factually wrong.
MR. RUSSERT: No, we...
SEC'Y RUMSFELD: That is not how I answered that question.
MR. RUSSERT: But, Mr. Secretary, it clearly represents the exchange and...
SEC'Y RUMSFELD: It does not.
MR. RUSSERT: All right. What is missing?
SEC'Y RUMSFELD: You want to hear the exchange? There is it. It's right here. I'll read it to you.
MR. RUSSERT: I just...
SEC'Y RUMSFELD: If you're going to quote pieces of it, I'll give you the exchange. He asked that question, and I said, "I talked to the general coming out here about the pace at which the vehicles are being armored. They have been brought from all over the world, wherever they're not needed, to places where they are needed. I'm told they are being--the Army is--I think it's something like 400 a month are being done now. And it's essentially a matter of physics. It's not a matter of money. It isn't a matter on the part of the Army's desire. It's a matter of production and capability of doing it. As you know, you go to the war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.
"Since the Iraq conflict began, the Army has been pressing ahead to produce armor necessary at a rate that they believe--it's a greatly expanded rate from what existed previously but a rate that they believe is the rate that can be accomplished. I can assure you that General Schumacher and the leadership of the Army and certainly General Whitcomb are sensitive to the fact that not every vehicle has the degree of armor that would be desirable to have, but that they're working at it at a good clip.
"It's interesting. I've talked a great deal about this with a team of people who've been working hard at the Pentagon. And if you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and the tank could still be blown up. And you can have an up-armored Humvee and it can be blown up. And you can go down and the vehicle--the goal we have is to have many of those vehicles as is humanly possible with the appropriate level of armor available for the troops. And that's what the Army's been working on. And, General Whitcomb, is there anything you want to add?" And then he spoke.
Now, that answer is totally different from picking out two lines. And I think it's an unfair representation and it's exactly what some of the newspapers around the country did. Now, let's go back to Susan Collins' comment, Senator Collins...
MR. RUSSERT: Well, let me just finish on the Humvees because...
SEC'Y RUMSFELD: You bet. OK. I'll tell you right now where we are. By February 15th, nine days from now, there will not be a vehicle moving around in Iraq outside of a protected compound with American soldiers in it that does not have an appropriate level of armor.
MR. RUSSERT: Which is a pretty dramatic change, because Newsweek had said that, of the 19,000 Humvees in the Iraqi theater, according to the Army's latest numbers, only a quarter were fully armored. So the fact is that Specialist Wilson's question in front of his troops in which he was cheered was helpful in getting people to truly focus and respond to this. Fair?
SEC'Y RUMSFELD: I didn't criticize his question. I thanked him for his question.
MR. RUSSERT: No, but is that a fair statement?
SEC'Y RUMSFELD: Well, you saw my answer. We'd already been focusing on it hard. I mean, I answered it by saying we had teams of people in Washington working on it, General Whitcomb was working on it.
Okay, tied with Condi, Rummy is my favorite Cabinet Secretary. He's just awesome. I also think that he's one of the most media savvy, even though the media don't seem to care for his style. He engages them head on and grabs the bull by the horns.
What I wouldn't give just to have lunch with that man and just absorb as much of his wisdom as I possibly could.
You seriously think there were no plans or preparations made? Sure, nothing has gone entirely to plan, but that is hardly unique to this case. Any large operation (military or not) faces the same problem more often than not.
Compared to anything from Vietnam and earlier, we are much more competent now, make far fewer blunders, and those that we do are much smaller and result in much less loss of life. We had an a whole lot of massive screw-ups in WWII that cost a whole lot of lives... from before the war started until it was over. Yet WWII is considered a success.
Rumsfeld is the right guy for the job. It would be foolish to toss him out and replace him with someone less competent (bound to happen).
It's hardly a secret. A retired two-star operating with a tiny staff and no real access to funds or to senior Administration officials is hardly paying sufficient heed to the governing needs of a country the size of Texas with a population of 25 million. My position is that Rumsfeld should certainly be criticized, that retired flag officers absolutely have the standing to do so and should be argued at the merits of their charges, not with accusations of disloyalty. With a war on certainly those criticisms need to be reasonable, but nothing that the six have said seems to me beyond the pale. Maybe it is even appropriate for him to step down, but both his zealous defenders and his foaming-at-the-mouth critics err in trying to highlight only his mistakes or in trying to ignore them.
When Rumsfeld was appoined SecDef I was elated. I thought that he was one of the best cabinet picks, and exactly the kind of person needed to drive change and reform in the DoD, which sorely needed it. A successful hi-speed management CEO type and a Naval Aviator-gtg.
However, as a wartime SecDef, he hasn't made the grade. There may be extenuating circumstances outside his control, but accountability lies at the top. Time for him to go.
I'm curious to know why you think he hasn't made the grade. What would you like to see done diffrerently and who could have done a better job?
Retired generals know that public respect for military careerists protects them from public criticism that they would attract by declaring themselves to be "politicians" as Wesley Clark has done. Resembling the Viet Cong, a few of them have offered their unique capabilities to the Democrats attempting to undermine the current leadership of the U.S. military. Without fear of retaliation, they emerge from behind the uniforms in their closets to hurl mud at their active duty superiors with impunity. The fact that they refuse to declare themselves to be the tools of politicians that they are proves that they are opportunistic cowards .
Primarily. With the advantage of hindsight, I can name a number of things that could have been done differently, mostly revolving around the ability to anticipate or even recognize changing circumstances in OIF/OEF, much less to respond in a timely and appropriate manner. On the DoD reform front, he has made some progress, but Acquisition reform, control of the budget, and civil service reform are all in trouble, as are major acquistion programs (FCS, BMD, JSF, DD(X)and aerial refueler modernization) are mostly in trouble.
Again, there are likely many extenuating circumstances, and perhaps no human could have done a better job, but the results he's achieved to date do not support his continuation in that office.
I don't have a name of who might replace Rumsfeld. I'd look for a career professional, low profile, with a proven record of effectiveness, and independence from political baggage. Someone like Armitage
A seperation between the primary war against Iraq, which was brilliantly victorious, and this war against democracy. The war against democracy is being waged by an army of fanatics (and/or leftists) against the new Iraqi governemnt and has yet to be decided. There are too many enemies of the United States that would celebrate the removal of our Secretary of Defense. Rumsfeld should be praised for the success in both Afghanistan and Iraq. He should also be praised for his handling of the critics. Which is probably the true reason for this mini-uprising.
That it has now become a political football, and I dont want to see the Gotterdammercrats win.
HOWEVER, I am curious as to whom you think should shouilder the blame for the following missteps?
- Dismissing the Iraqui armed forces instead of trying to vet and use them.
- Failing to secure large caches of munitions
- Undersetimating the size and ferocity of the resistance.
- Lack of sufficent troops for everything.
Personally I am sick of trying to defend all the mistakes and sometimes outright fabrications of this administration.
I have always been haunted by the thought that by going in with too light of a force we failed to secure the very munitions that are now used against our troops. That alone is a blunder of the first magnitude that platitudes like "you go to war with the army you got," cannot assuage.
I have a question for those in the "if only we had had more troops everything would be different" camp. It's not that I disagree with the premise--indeed everything would be different. But are you so very sure it would be for the best? If you think the Iraqis are struggling to get their government together under the current circumstances, what do you think they would be doing if there were 250,000 American troops providing artificial calm? Would there be any sense of urgency? And would there be any sense that this was the Iraqi's fight to win or lose?
As for disbanding Saddam's army, it seems to me that we've done rather well with that--do you really think leaving that command structure intact--while perhaps expedient in the short term--would have been desirable in the long term? Or is there some merit for having taken the time to find out who among the army were going to join the terrorists and who would choose to join the new security forces?
Sorry, that's two questions and now I have to go and hunt eggs. Hope I have the proper munitions.
is that there were some pretty large blunders, and someone should take the blame. Rumsfeld should have resigned earlier IMHO. But now it would look like capitulation so I do not recommend it.
I have a lot of trouble with the "KNEE JERKEDNESS" of some of my fellow conservatives.
What I mean by that is the tendency to attack Every single issue brought up by the left, and to defend every single action by republicans.
this is madness. Guess what, the left is not ALWAYS wrong on identifying a problem (they are wrong on the solutions) and the right is not always right! Heaven knows we have made some blunders.
If the democrats come out with a policy statement tomorrow that we should not kill puppies, It is not necessary that the republicans come out with a statement defending the killing of puppies.
would the left come out in favor of killing puppies.
But your points are well taken!
That's fine as a main point, and hopes for a more bi-partisan approach to this conflict are welcome, but my point is that I don't necessarily agree that your individual points are blunders for which blame should be assigned. They were strategic decisions, the value of which has not yet been demonstrated outside of the media, where they are according to Conventional Wisdom, stupid errors. There is no room for the notion that there is a strategy at work--a strategy that is developing and evolving.
If the democrats propose legislation banning the killing of puppies, I will be glad to support it. Until then, and especially given the events of the last week, I have little sympathy with outraged cries that it is the right that is politicizing the war. In my opinion, this effort is under a vicious partisan attack not of the right's making.
Regarding your questions, let's place the first one in some sort of historical context. If you were a general would you prefer to be Lee or Grant? Lee, of course, was brilliant both on offense and defense. Grant on the other hand, in comparison, was a bit of a plodder, but the man did appreciate the advantages of superior firepower and more boots on the ground.
Would a larger force have solved everything? No. The added numbers would not have found the missing WMDs, salve the thousand year strife between Shiites and Sunni or convince "old Europe" to assist us? The concept going in was a quick strike and then we would be welcomed as saviors, remember?
I saw last year a documentary on the Special Forces, specifically on the trials young want-a-bees must endure to become a member of the SEALS. One of the instructors commented that you could tell early on who would make it or not. The kids coming in lean and ripped often failed because under extended duress, their bodies lacked the core substance to sustain them. The hard men who carbed and bulked up had the substance to preserve.
We went in to light.
Regarding your other question on disbanding the Iraq army; correct me if I am wrong but the army was lead and dominated by the Sunni, aka the group that backed Saddam. We did the right thing in cutting off the head of that snake early on. Notwithstanding how or why we came to our current circumstances, why would anyone believe having a fully armed Sunni lead military would make the current ethnic unrest between the minority Sunni and majority Shiite less contentious or less bloody than it is?
Good luck with the egg hunt.
I understand your position and I have no grounds to declare you wrong on troop numbers, not having a crystal ball to know how all of this is going to play out 10 years out. But here's another question asked on the premise that you are correct--100,000 more troops would have made a positive difference in the Iraq we see today--if the commanders did not ask for additional troops and Rumsfeld accepted their judgement, should he now be sacked for that decision, or should he have over-ridden the brass and forced them to take more troops?
Us 10, eggs 0. A fine hunt.
Keep in mind that Rummy is reviewing plans formulated by Tommy Franks who according to his autobiography has always been a go light, go fast kind of guy.
Funny, I even read a book that criticized Rumsfeld for troops not bringing artillery along in Afghganistan for Operation Anaconda...do you think Franks who started out in the artillery, would not have made some say in the matter?
I only have two criticisms:
- Disband/Not Disband Iraqi army. This is a really a double edged sword, no? So I won't question this. Now, did we plan right for the re-constitution of the army? Probably not.
- Postwar insurrection - we should have planned for that.
- Postwar rebuiding - again, more planning.
- Probably did plan for refugees...too bad we didn't get those to show how great our planning was.
- Having Bremer come in to pinch hit must mean something.
Regarding you query "if the commanders did not ask for additional troops and Rumsfeld accepted their judgment, should he now be sacked for that decision, or should he have over-ridden the brass and forced them to take more troops?" let me bob and weave. I don't think either of your stated circumstances represented the underlying situation at the time.
I am like you in that I do not have a crystal ball nor was I there. Many people believe the narrative in Woodward's "Plan of Attack" presented a fairly accurate picture of the military planning run-up to the war. The belief in Woodward's accuracy is based the access granted to Woodward by the administration. Reportedly Rumsfeld was interviewed by Woodward as was the President.
For myself, the description of the interaction between Rumsfeld and Franks was fascinating. I recalled seeing more than one account highlighting and complementing how Rumsfeld pushed Franks to continual refine and improve upon the attack plan. Some even recommend the book to be used in graduate business schools as an example of superior management.
The ultimate level of troops committed probable was the result of negotiation between two strong willed men. Did SecDef "force" Franks to take a smaller force than what Franks thought was safe for the defined mission? No. Franks would not have permitted it.
The key factor was what was the defined mission? Rumsfeld managed Franks by managing the scope of the mission. In the book the mission was refined, it become narrower and focused solely on the initial assault. Franks in the book at one point when questioned about the phases subsequent to the assault commented that it was made clear to him that he was responsible for the assault and others were or would be responsible for the follow on phases.
Franks got the troops he needed for his mission as defined by SecDef.
I know you are a strong supporter of Rumsfeld. I follow many of your comments posted here. But who was supposed to keep an eye on the follow on phase? The strategic decision signed off by those north of Franks in the chain of command (which as you know is very short and narrow at that point) was the risk of insurgency, chaos, etc was minimal and no additional troop levels were needed.
That was the decision that was blown by Rumsfeld. The very conditions and concerns which forced No. 41 not to occupy and overthrow Saddam; a decision 41 was roundly criticized by parts of the right by the way. Those concerns known and should have been given more weight by Rumsfeld and the failure to do is a root cause of the morass that followed.
language: woulda, coulda, shoulda!
Those words are alway spoken by losers! They are the words of doubt, indecision and frustration. I've never seen a champion say, "I shoulda..." or "if only I coulda..."
It's the loser that makes the excuses. This SECDEF and President might have self-doubts at times, but they are not going to air them to the public.
Doubt loses!
Sorry, it has been a while since I have been in Brooklyn. Only liberals expect (0r at least hope) for the President and SecDef to publicly air their differences. It would be policital suicide.
Loyality is great but in great endeavors performance counts. Enough has gone wrong in Iraq to force a change. To maintain Bush's credibility as a leader, Rumsfeld should have left, a while ago. Now Bush is trapped. If Rumsfeld leaves now, Bush will be seen as weak. If he stays, Bush's credibility will fall further. Rumsfeld's survival is simply code /cover for attacks on Bush. As I said earlier in this thread, I believe the matter is moot. Bush is not the master of his fate at this point. The critical concern for the current crisis of the day is whether additional generals go public with criticisms of the administration. If "the stars continue to fall" on this administration, the effect on the base will be devastating. Most of my friends will not vote for a democratic. But many of them are planning on not voting in November in protest. It is hard to blame them.
Thanks for the link. Looking hinzsight is looking good.
Perhaps too much time spent with foreign generals who owe some of their rank to being aristocrats, has misled our retired public servants into believing that they too have become nobility. They surely would not permit their subordinates to follow the example that they are now setting for members of every squad and platoon. Is it because of their high rank, that they alone should have the right to undermine only their superiors ? Might they be fomenting a coup to wrest control of the U.S. military from civilians ? Does the concept of RHIP entitle them to now be addressed as e.g. "Baron" Zinni ?