The crisis that isn't

With hindsight that falls far short of 20-20 today's Washington Post concludes that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld should have gone long ago owing to his responsibility for a litany of supposed failures.

Mr. Rumsfeld's contributions to growing trouble in Iraq were evident: his self-defeating insistence on minimizing the number of troops; his resistance to recognizing and responding to emerging threats, such as the postwar looting and the Sunni insurgency; his rejection of nation-building, which fatally slowed the creation of a new political order. Had Mr. Bush replaced Mr. Rumsfeld in 2004, the administration might have avoided the defense secretary's subsequent and similar mistakes, such as his slowness to acknowledge the emerging threat of Shiite militias and death squads last year.

Failure is a forgone conclusion laid at Rumsfeld's feet.  He "fatally slowed the creation of a new political order."  Unable to predict how events would unfold ahead of time, in the view of the Post, he should at least have been able to respond instantaneously to the way they did.  And because of the President's failure to hold Rumsfeld accountable, there has been a dangerous "eruption of public discontent from the retired generals."  This sets the stage for our new crisis du jour. 

If they are successful in forcing Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation, they will set an ugly precedent. Will future defense secretaries have to worry about potential rebellions by their brass, and will they start to choose commanders according to calculations of political loyalty?

What a positively absurd case of wishful thinking on the part of the Post.  I can't imagine an event they would greet with greater joy than to have President Bush admit that he was wrong about something.  But apparently Post editors have never heard of a General named Myers.  There's no mention of the name in this latest lament.  Retired Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers did not have kind things to say about the discontented generals. 

We gave him our best military advice and I think that's what we're obligated to do," Myers said on ABC's "This Week." "If we don't do that, we should be shot."

He and retired Marine Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong indicated that sentiments voiced by the discontented and amplified by the Post are far from unanimous.

"His management style is a tough management style," DeLong said on NBC's "Today" show. "He's tough to work with. He is a micromanager, but he's very effective. He's very competent but very dogmatic and tough when he deals with people."

DeLong said that "when it came to matters of tactics and strategic thought he went with us (the military) if there was any disagreement."

Myers, the former Joint Chiefs chairman, said that Rumsfeld allowed "tremendous access" for presenting arguments.

"In our system, when it's all said and done ... the civilians make the decisions," he said. "And we live by those decisions."

Washington Post dreams of an ugly precedent are just that, dreams.  Rumsfeld will not be forced to resign.  He has the President's confidence.  And, not that it matters, he has mine too.

Comments

[ny patriot]

You do this all the time. Instead of focusing on the message about Rumsfeld's ineptness, you focus on the messenger. As if this changes the message! It is widely accepted that the invasion plans for Iraq were ill-suited for a prolonged and protracted occupation. There were an insufficient number of troops put on the ground to maintainorder and an easier transition to a self-sustaing Iraqi republic. It is also widely agreed that prior to and just after the invasion, their were strong rumblings out of the Pentagon that they were being left out of the loop in the planning and subsequent occup[ying of Iraq. Of course this would some day lead to outspokeness on the part of generals and high level civilians in the DOD.

Yes the Post and the Times are taking a very pre-sumptive stance now and reveling in the quotes that back up their own views of "I told you so" and they are more than happy to quote retired nay-sayers who support their view. But the fact remains that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz badly planned this occupation and it can be intuitively assumed that they do not have a firm grip on how to either a) carry out this continued occupation for God knows how long or b) how to cut and run.

Sure does sound like McNamara/Vietnam now doesn't it? You don't think so? Then you lose every argument.

[Tom Bowler]

You make the arguments that you are easily said in hindsight, and even then you get them wrong. After all the complaints that there were not enough troops, the rap against Rumsfeld changed to be that there were too many troops. With so many American troops the Iraqi army was said to be discouraged from stepping up and taking over. Next we'll be hearing there aren't enough to handle the Shia militias, and then in a few months there will be too many again. As for the Post and the Times, they'll be quoting nay sayers whatever the nay sayers say. It doesn't matter, as long as it's in opposition to the Administration.

Regarding Rumsfeld's competence, the General DeLong disagrees with you, saying, ...he's very effective. He's very competent... If your outspoken generals are such shrinking violets that they have to wait for retirement to speak their views up the chain of command, then I'm delighted it's they who have retired rather than Rumsfeld.

And no, this does not sound like McNamara and Vietnam. Like Korean War Vets, Vietnam Vets were put into the extremely difficult and unfortunate situation where they were asked to fight a defensive battle. They were not allowed to take the fight into North Vietnam into the enemy's territory. McNamara pissed away American lives fighting for the status quo instead of fighting to defeat the enemy and win the war. But I'm surprised that you speak disparagingly of McNamara. Isn't his strategy the one you would like to see adopted?