Ring A Ring A Rumsfeld

"A Pocket Full Of Poesies" by Peter Howson 1992, Private Collection, London

 

When you're President, you get lots of free advice. Some of it is well-intentioned; much of it is not. Here is why I think so many liberals are anxious for President Bush to replace Rumsfeld: they have staked a great deal on the proposition that the Iraq war has not gone well, and, in fact, has been a disaster. But they are troubled because they are not at all sure that is true. By any reasonable standard, casualties have been low and Iraq's progress toward democracy has been impressive. This doesn't mean the project couldn't still go off the rails; it clearly could. But it is also possible--likely, I think--that the Iraqis will succeed in forming a government, violence will continue to decline, our troops levels will be substantially reduced, and, in a year or two, the consensus will be that the war was pretty successful after all. This, I think, is what liberals fear most. They want President Bush to stipulate, in effect, that the war has been poorly conducted and has been a failure. That's the way in which firing Rumsfeld would rightly be interpreted. This would largely insulate liberals against the consequences if the war does, in fact, turn out to be successful. The same logic, I think, explains why liberals are always hectoring President Bush to "admit his mistakes." What they fear, deep down, is that the President's policies haven't been mistakes at all.

Having grappled with this subject for a couple of days now, I feel that my initial gut response to this has been one of very little surprise. I have been expecting the old guard of Generals to turn on Rumsfeld much earlier, in view of his drastic reforms he proposed and carried out, transforming the Department of Defense into a fast moving efficient war machine and cutting out a lot of the bureaucratic cancer which had set in during the Cold War. He was bound to step on some big corns of the old uniformed military guard, who have eventually come out in full flush to call for his resignation as Defense Secretary.

The President is steadfastly supporting his chief and "interrupted his Easter vacation yesterday to offer an unequivocal vote of confidence in Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in a move aimed at countering a growing wave of criticism from retired generals calling for the Pentagon chief to resign over his leadership of the Iraq war."

Donald Rumsfeld did an excellent job in transforming the DoD, but having said that, I must agree with Ed Morrissey in this respect:

But make no mistake: the political temperament here is a critical factor in winning this war, and the Bush administration has to find a way to rebuild political support for it. That's not just important for winning elections, it's important for keeping large numbers of Americans alive. That takes priority over the unfairness of the politics surrounding Rumsfeld. If Bush cannot re-energize the electorate on fighting terrorism, then we will face a strong possibility that voters in 2008 will put an isolationist in office and take us right back to the 1990s in dealing with terrorists.

I for one do not want that. I want this nation focused and as unified as we can get these days on fighting the forward strategy on the war on terror, rather than return to the law-enforcement model that got us 9/11. I'd much prefer we can do that with Rumsfeld on board, but if fresh leadership at the DoD is what's needed to restore confidence with the American public in the war effort, then the Bush administration should consider it.

It's commendable that Rumsfeld has the support of now retired Generals who worked closely with him in the War on Terror, and others who claim that "he pushes us to what we "think" is our limit, then shows us we have another ten percent to give. Secretary Rumsfelds nickname among many is the "110% Secretary." Let's just hope more of them come out in support, and drown out the 'resident Cold War brigade'.

However David Ignatus of the WaPo, although I do not agree with him, makes a strong case, that although he has personally supported the DoD reforms, he  feels that Rumsfeld is now jeopardizing not just those reforms but also the critical political support for the war on terror:

The retired generals who are speaking out against Rumsfeld in interviews and op-ed pieces express the views of hundreds of other officers on active duty. When I recently asked an Army officer with extensive Iraq combat experience how many of his colleagues wanted Rumsfeld out, he guessed 75 percent. Based on my own conversations with senior officers over the past three years, I suspect that figure may be low.

But that isn't the reason he should be replaced. Military officers often dislike the civilians they work for, but in our system strong civilian control is essential. On some of the issues over which he has tangled with the military brass, Rumsfeld has been right. The Pentagon is a hidebound place, and it has needed the "transformation" ethic Rumsfeld brought to his job. I'm dubious about the Pentagon conventional wisdom that we needed 500,000 American troops in Iraq. More troops were necessary, but they should have been Iraqi troops from an army that wasn't disbanded.

Rumsfeld should resign because the Bush administration is losing the war on the home front. As bad as things are in Baghdad, America won't be defeated there militarily. But it may be forced into a hasty and chaotic retreat by mounting domestic opposition to its policy. Much of the American public has simply stopped believing the administration's arguments about Iraq, and Rumsfeld is a symbol of that credibility gap. He is a spent force, reduced to squabbling with the secretary of state about whether "tactical errors" were made in the war's conduct.

The Bush administration has rightly been insisting that the Iraqis put unity first and that in forming a permanent government they remove ineffectual and divisive leaders and replace them with people who can pull the country together. The administration should heed its own advice.

Jeff Goldstein is having none of Ignatius' nonsense:

And were we to adopt Ignatius’ standard for symbolic stepping down, all of Congress should retire, given their approval numbers.  And given the decline in readership and revenue being generated by the major newspapers, perhaps Ignatius is willing to offer himself up as a symbol of all that is wrong with today’s ideologically driven press.

Because let’s face it:  much of the American public has simply stopped believing the MSM’s veracity, and Ignatius is a symbol of that credibility gap…

I still think that Rumsfeld has been the most successful Defense Secretary in American History, and I do not want to see him go. Great analysis there from Jim @ Gateway Pundit.

Hugh Hewitt does the maths. How many Generals did you say?

UPDATE I: Victor Davis Hanson has an interesting column in NRO 'Dead-end Debates' to which John Hinderaker has this to say:

Before September 11, Rumsfeld thought that his tenure would be defined by his determination to shake up the Pentagon, of all organizations in the world one of the most resistant to change. He knew that many generals would bitterly resist his innovations. It is hardly a surprise that there are many officers--still serving and, especially, those who are now retired, in some cases because they didn't fit with the new program--who bitterly resent the changes that Rumsfeld brought to the armed forces. One of the ironies is that September 11 and the ensuing war on terror have verified the correctness of Rumsfeld's approach. The kind of army that was appropriate for defending Europe against land attack would be close to useless in the current conflict. It is, therefore, one more in a long series of sins on the part of the mainstream media that this context is almost completely absent from the media's gleeful coverage of these disgruntled generals.

UPDATE II: Vasko Kohlmayer @ The American Thinker writes a thoughtful post about Rumsfeld, describing him as an extremely competent war commander, and reminds us of Sir Winston Churchill's words, as apt today as they were all those years ago:

Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events. Antiquated War Offices, weak, incompetent, or arrogant commanders, untrustworthy allies, hostile neutrals, malignant Fortune, ugly surprises, awful miscalculations — all take their seats at the Council Board on the morrow of a declaration of war.

UPDATEIII: Huan @ NeoModernism has an important link to an article in the WSJ, giving us the money phrase:

In the end he's the man in charge and the buck stops with him. As long as he [Rumsfeld] retains the confidence of the commander in chief he will make the important calls at the top of the department of defense. That's the way America works. So let's all breathe into a bag and get on with winning the global war against radical Islam. In time the electorate, and history, will grade their decisions.

Linked to Wizbang, Stop The ACLU, Publius Rendezvous, Blue Star Chronicles, Uncooperative Blogger, Third World County

Comments

[Assistant Village Idiot]

There is more than one interpretation of why this unprecedented criticism by high-ranking military is taking place. For Ghost to assume that the only possibility is that there is more reason for criticism is willfully obtuse.

You have to look at both pans of the balancing scales.

[Patrick]

Huan,

Excellent post in the WSJ. As I have said before, civilians MUST control the military.

Please do not think that this is because the military is full of evil power mad individuals, but because it lets the military focus on being the best hammer possible. It is up to our elected/appointed officials to determine when, where and for how long the hammer is used. The military can give the advice on how best to apply the hammer to a situation, but the hammer should never swing itself. (Just because I can break something, doesn't mean I should.)

Many are familiar with the DIME principle (Diplomatic, Information, Military, and Economic are the 4 elements of National Power used to pressure others and gain our goals throughout the world). You could make the military plan and implement all of four of these, but they would lose the focus. If you have ever had some multifunctional gadget-tool, you will know that it can do many different things, just none of them well. If you are going to handle a big project, do you want a single multi-function gadget, or do you want a full tool box? One will do the job quickly, the other will take longer and generally leaves scraped knuckles.

Transformation. The amount of connotations that has... If you look back, GEN Shenseki was already trying to do transformation (Stryker-IBCT initial 1999 announcement) prior to SEC Rumsfeld's arrival (2001). Let us not denigrate the efforts of SEC Rumsfeld who definately accelerated the process. As with any organization, there are many who see the need for change, and those who are comfortable the way things are.

The Army itself is currently going through its greatest transformation in over a hundred years. Some have characterized it as overhauling your car's engine while driving down the highway. The overhaul was necessary. Why? Because the US Military has shown its mastery of conventional warfare to the point that many countries do not even try to field anything like a conventional force anymore. Most have shifted to an asymmetric model of warfare. As a counterpoint to this, you might be interested in a Ralph Peters article in the April Armed Forces Journal titled "Bloodless theories, bloody wars".

Back to the public dissent. Personality or the manner in which decisions are conveyed should have absolutely no part of this debate. Are the decisions correct or not? Realize that no one always makes the right decision. Remember also that the military is risk averse. Sounds funny, but it is true. Given the opportunity the military will always bring five times more than they think they need mainly because "intelligence is always wrong". Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

SEC Rumsfeld is not risk averse. The decisions he made were his to make. He enjoys the full support of our elected officials. There will never be a clamor within the ranks of the active military for him to step down. This will not prevent many from disagreeing with his approach once they have taken the uniform off, but he is the Secretary of Defense. End of story.

[Huan]

Some, like Generals Zinni, Newbold, Eaton, Batiste, Swannack, Riggs and others, may not like Secretary Rumsfeld's leadership style. They certainly have the right as private citizens now to speak their minds. Some may feel that he's been unfair, arrogant and autocratic to some senior officers. But those sentiments and feelings are irrelevant. In the end he's the man in charge and the buck stops with him. As long as he retains the confidence of the commander in chief he will make the important calls at the top of the department of defense. That's the way America works. So let's all breathe into a bag and get on with winning the global war against radical Islam. In time the electorate, and history, will grade their decisions.

From a WSJ editorial by 5 other retired generals. This piece is also a good take on the nature of civilian control of the military.

[Huan]

From a

[Darrell]

Liberals before the war: "We can't invade Iraq! George Bush would never do what is necessary to put a stable government into place. That would require a multi-year commitment--and most likely, the loss of many American lives! We'll pull out as soon as we defeat the Iraqi Army, like we did last time." See Charlie Rose interviews, Sunday morning political shows, circa 2003.

Liberals in April 2006: "Why didn't Bush pull out after we defeated Saddam's army?"

Let's see any of you remain popular with a 24/7 propaganda smear campaign against you! $Billions of negative publicity over six years, conservatively, if it was purchased time!

[Skippy-san]

Sadly Shinseki was right. You can not convince me that we would have been worse off in Iraq than we are now. Overwhelming combat power applied without mercy on Iraqi cities and infratstrcutre would have made it harder for the insurgents to hide. It would have destroyed more of Iraq to be sure, but hell the country needed the urban renewal anyway.

[RL]

it should be noted that General Batiste, and approximately between 80 - 90 % of Officers in the US Armed Forces regularly vote Repbulican, and that General Batiste voted for President George W. Bush twice. None of these critical Generals are "liberals" in the sense of the post-Christian, postmodern, and totally bastardized definition of this word. If any of you are aware of any "liberal" Generals in the USMC, or any "liberal" former Centcom Commanders (centcom.mil), would you please be so kind as to inform me of this unique and unusual aberration, and exception from the norm. Where there is smoke, there is fire.
I've never heard of any military man refer to General Shinseki as a "fool"; because he clearly isn't one. He is an honorable and patriotic General, who served his country with honor and a very high level of integrity. i salute him.

Was General Shinseki's pre-war analysis/estimation wrong ?

[Ghost Dansing]

Rumsfeld and this entire Republican administration has been militarily unsound on the issue of Iraq. They've been proven wrong again and again, and will emerge from the conflict with little to show but a massive expenditure of American blood and resources.

The retired-General's criticism is unprecedented, because the incompetence is unprecedented...unless one believes this Republican administration has managed to replicate every mistake of the Vietnam era, and then some.

To think that this Republican administration that has practiced abject cronyism in every other aspect of government, has not and is not practicing cronyism in the Military is naive.

History will long review how America made the same errors in Vietnam and Iraq within a generation, trading the arrogant wire-rimmed Robert McNamara for the arrogant, obtuse, wire-rimmed Donald Rumsfeld.

Dubya's pretense — that he was just following the advice of the military when he endorsed Rummy's inadequate troop levels — rings hollow and is an obvious lie now that the former generals have spoken out about the defense secretary's policy of coercion. Heck, convinced Iraq was all but won, Rummy prodded Franks to cancel the final Army division in the war plan, the First Cavalry Division.

Tom White, the former Army secretary, told Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor for "Cobra II," their Iraq war history; "Rumsfeld just ground Franks down...the nature of Rumsfeld is that you just get tired of arguing with him."

The bully-boys from the Political Party of Bullyism was just doing its thing.

Anyone who challenged the administration was painted as traitorous, so why not respected military leaders?

With his Pentagon advisers Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, Rummy set up a State Department within the Defense Department in 2002, to run diplomacy, and established their own CIA within the Defense Department to ferret out "evidence" of a Saddam-Al Qaeda link, when the real C.I.A. couldn't.

Finally, they set up their own Defense Department within the Defense Department, snatching back power from a military establishment they felt had grown too cautious about risking troops in combat.

I think it all goes back to Veterans voting for draft dodgers and chickenhawks just because they were "Republicans".

I wouldn't have expected any better performance from Dubya, Dick and Rummy...wonder why they did?

Note: The comment about "draft dodgers" is reserved for Dubya and Dick. Rumsfeld served in the U.S. Navy from 1954 to 1957 as an aviator and flight instructor. In 1957, he transferred to the Ready Reserve and continued his Naval service in flying and administrative assignments as a drilling reservist until 1975. He transferred to the Standby Reserve when he became Secretary of Defense in 1975 and to the Retired Reserve with the rank of Navy Captain in 1989.

One just wonders how he became so incompetent on a lot of things where he should have known better.

[bdunbar]

Consider Spotlight Sims who fought the Navy establishment at the turn of the last century for gunnery drills and ships that could fight. He might have been cashiered but for personal support from T. Roosevelt. Consider Isherwood who was drummed out of the Navy for his views on engineering. Doolittle who fought the good fight for airpower.

All serving officers who stood in the door over what was right.

The differences between Sims, Isherwood, Doolittle and these guys was that the former put their careers on the line. These guys .. they waited until after retirement and a pension to speak up.

I can't respect a general officer who 'just follows orders' until it's safe to speak up. If this is the way they felt at the time it was their obligation to stand in the door and resign if they had to get the point across. This is the price you pay for the privlege of flag rank.

If you can't respect them why would you listen to them?

[weekenderman]

The very fact the liberals dislike Rumsfeld (including liberal retired generals -- are there ONLY six of those??) causes me to like the man even more. If he was not an effective person they would not give a rip if he stays.

[neo-neocon]

I've been thinking about Rumsfeld, too. To the best of my recollection, wasn't he already persona non grata with most of the entrenched military, even before 9-11? (I can't find links on that subject in a quick search, but I remember reading a piece saying as much quite some time ago). Hadn't he already ruffled a lot of feathers? It may be (if my recollection is correct), that only now do the generals feel bold enough--perhaps because of a perception that Bush and Rumsfeld's popularity are at a low ebb-- to do what they've been chafing at the bit to do for the whole time Rumsfeld has been in office.

[The Heretik]

Liberals may not fear the "success" of George Bush, but rather a costly failure which was quite bold upon entry to Iraq, but which has shown little capability of dealing with certain realities... Liberals have a fear what was sold as short and sweet instead has soured rather quickly. So we continue slouching towards Anbar.

[North by Northwest]

Congratulations, Alexandra.

Your post has caused me to change my view on Rumsfeld by 180°. That doesn't mean to say that I think Rumsfeld is without fault; far from it. But it does mean, that I have found a new perspective, which I hitherto hadn't considered; it means that no SOD could have been without fault in this fluid and unpredictable campaign, but that Rumsfeld's particular style and characteristics may well have been what was needed at the given time. To bring this to the fore surely must be one of the finest achievements a blogger can hope for.

Happy Easter to you and to all my fellow commenters and readers.

[RL]

Ciao Alexandra, i wonder how much his(Rumsfeld's) spiteful and poor decision to not attend General Shinseki's
(a well-liked and very popular General at The Pentagon) retirement ceremony, has to do with this unprecedented public criticism and rebuke of an active SecDef from six retired generals. This is a total and unprecedented departure from the DOD's long-standing unwritten traditions, and ought to be a serious cause for concern.
i also think that it is very safe to say that this has nothing to do with partisan-politics.

God Bless and protect all of the courageous and patriotic men and women in the US Armed Forces.
in Jesus' Mighty Name, Amen.

Americasupportsyou.mil
specialops.org
woundedwarriorproject.org