 |
April 14, 2006Bush on RumsfeldBush: Earlier today I spoke with Don Rumsfeld about ongoing military operations in the Global War on Terror. I reiterated my strong support for his leadership during this historic and challenging time for our Nation. Another depressing low point for an increasingly discredited, out-of-touch Adminstration stumbling from blunder to blunder. These are underwhelming times. In John Kerry, we have a man who would hold a gun against the heads of the Iraqis--so that if they cannot form a government in the midst of unprecedented crises (ones stemming from a war he supported too, lest we forget)--not to mention the added pressure such an ultimatum creates, he would have us pull out by May 15th, leaving Iraq to a doubtless grim fate. And in Bush, we have a deep mediocrity incapable of seeing that the war effort has been prosecuted in bungled fashion by an arrogant and failed Secretary of Defense, who so urgently needs to be replaced. But alas, Bush is likely dependent on the man, and so too meek to replace him. In short, we have no leaders of the requisite vision, strength, moral integrity, intelligence or character to bring to the fore. It's a sad, and even rather scary, time. Perhaps John McCain might prove a salvation, of sorts, but we've got 1000 days to go yet, and that's rather a long time to have proven incompetents at the helm. But the alternative in 2004, at least with regard to Iraq policy, was at least equally grim. As I said, worrisome times. N.B. A shout-out to Generals who may not yet have spoken out re: Rumsfeld. Please don't let the President's so unfortunate statement today deter you from adding your voice to the mix. Let the record become increasingly clear: our uniformed military, both current and retired, are deeply opposed to this failed war leader and angry he remains in office. And, no, as Tom Maguire correctly states, it's not because they are all peeved, crusty old-Guard types pissed at Rumsfeld's attempt to 'transform' the military. Increasingly, and very clearly, it's because they believe he's botched and is still botching the Iraq war. That's what has got them, and people like B.D., up in arms. Which makes posts like these just disgusting in their manifest intellectual dishonesty. Disgusting, but not surprising. Glenn Greenwald has more. P.S. Don't miss Ignatius, today. Some excerpts: Rumsfeld has lost the support of the uniformed military officers who work for him. Make no mistake: 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...Rumsfeld is a stubborn man, and I suspect the parade of retired generals calling for his head has only made him more determined to hold on. But by staying in his job, Rumsfeld is hurting the cause he presumably cares most about. The president, even more stubborn than his Pentagon chief, is said to have rejected his offer to resign. If that's so, it's time for Rumsfeld to take the matter out of Bush's hands. The administration needs to look this one clearly in the eye: Without changes that shore up public support in America, it risks losing the war in Iraq. Ignatius might be identifying our last hope. Rumsfeld taking it out of Bush's hands and forcing the matter of his resignation. But I put the odds of that below 5%, given Rumsfeld's arrogance, Cheney's desire for him to stay on, and Bush's vote of confidence today. Let's say it yet again...how very sad. Posted by Gregory at April 14, 2006 08:12 PM | TrackBack (1)Comments
Shorter DJ: "Damn the voters and their ridiculous elected oversight - don't they understand that the blogging sons of cold-war diplomats have the answers they are seeking? Won't someone please appoint me?" Shorter Dave: "Can't you fools see how low we've driven the GWOT's numbers? When are you going to quit your ridiculous obsession with security?" "Shout Out?" Well. Stop hanging out with the teenage boyz, there Michael. I may never make General, but if I do, I'll probably be the only one to visit your little blog with a "holla back". 
Rumsfeld, comments by gerneral like Zinni aside, IMHO blew this before it started. Bush's single largest weakness is his refusal to dismiss error and incomeptence in favor of loyalty. This has not served hte country well. I don't trust him for a plan for a far more serious Iranian war, even if it doesn't involve a single boot on the ground Rumsfeld should resign unconditionally, and without further word, and with utter finality Posted by: epaminondas at April 15, 2006 02:02 AM | Permalink to this comment
Rumsfeld, comments by gerneral like Zinni aside, IMHO blew this before it started. Bush's single largest weakness is his refusal to dismiss error and incomeptence in favor of loyalty. This has not served hte country well. I don't trust him for a plan for a far more serious Iranian war, even if it doesn't involve a single boot on the ground Rumsfeld should resign unconditionally, and without further word, and with utter finality Posted by: epaminondas at April 15, 2006 02:03 AM | Permalink to this comment
Aside from Rummy's rather questionable handling of the occupation (although I'm a big fan of transformation itself, for reasons I'll outline below..), Rumsfeld has also been attacking Tricare and other bennies that servicemen have come to depend on. Basically, a lot of the guys would like to see McCain, or even Cheney back in there. Transformation was necessary, however. The notion that army units can operate as smaller, independent fighting outfits with similar lethality to older brigade-sized units is something that needed to happen. However, Rumsfeld has shortchanged the campaign in Iraq to pursue this project of his, which could have been pursued at a more leasurely pace. His defensiveness vis-a-vis Condi Rice in last week's unseemly and distracting little spat sort of gave the game away. BTW, Bush's defense of Rumsfeld will do nothing to help him. The Joint Chiefs know that Rummy is a pariah right now on the Hill and that McCain and other Republicans want him out of there. In addition, Rumsfeld burnt his bridges with Condi, which was an exceedingly stupid thing for him to do. Now he won't be able to get her to stick up for him. Bush is in a weakened position right now, so his endorsement won't keep the sharks at bay. If this had happened later in the year after his poll numbers had climbed back up, it would be a different story. But it's not. Night of the Generals time. Putsch City. The signal will be sent for more field grade retired to talk to the press and do the talk show circuit. Arrogance has its price. Dead Man walking.... Watch closely what Condi says the next time she's asked about Rummy's prospects for staying on. See how enthusiastic she is. Better than even odds it'll be a pro-forma endorsement. She came up in the Pentagon in the eighties and knows a lot of these generals, too. Posted by: section9 at April 15, 2006 04:57 AM | Permalink to this comment
Methinks Greg is no less arrogant than Rumsfeld, and most probably much less well informed. Posted by: Marlin at April 15, 2006 05:18 AM | Permalink to this comment
"If this had happened later in the year after his poll numbers had climbed back up, it would be a different story." !!!??? What do you foresee happening "later in the year" that will bring Bush's numbers back up? Posted by: CaseyL at April 15, 2006 06:48 AM | Permalink to this comment
What do you foresee happening "later in the year" that will bring Bush's numbers back up? The iran war? Maybe as we get closer to the elections gas prices will drop. Even if they don't drop as low as last time, people feel good about Bush when they're dropping instead of rising. So maybe we sweat through rising prices for awhile, and then they can drop some later. I can't think of anything else. Maybe we'd get an announcement that they finally found the nukes in iraq, and Bush was right all along about them?
In the matter of Gen. Shinseki: Senate Armed Services Committee Testimony, 06/25/2004 SEN. CLINTON: At some point, Mr. Secretary, will there be any kind of after-action review by the civilian leadership in the Pentagon with respect to this mission? You know, certainly those of us who heard General Shinseki, who at the time was the Army chief of staff, testify, based on his best knowledge and experience, the numbers that were needed, have to conclude there was at least a debate within the professional military. Now how that debate was determined -- obviously, we have a regime of civilian leadership -- is obviously clear. But I'd think to dismiss out of hand testimony we heard with our own ears and testimony that was very compelling and led to the public embarrassment of a distinguished soldier is a little bit difficult for us to accept. MR. WOLFOWITZ: I'm sorry. I don't think to disagree with someone should be publicly embarrassing. General Shinseki was in fact disagreeing with all of his colleagues on the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the combatant commander, General Franks. Isn't that right, General Myers? GEN. MYERS: Actually, we didn't -- as we discussed about troop strength with then -- the commander, General Franks, which we did many times during the planning, during conflict, and then for post-conflict and then later on, with General Abizaid, the issue of more troops never came before -- never was brought up in our deliberations. Nobody said, "You need more." It was General Franks that proposed what he thought was right. We'd have discussions and talk about it, and then we'd provide our military advice to the secretary and the deputy secretary. But there was never a push inside the Joint Chiefs of Staff for more forces. SEN. CLINTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. SEN. WARNER: Thank you very much, Senator, that you raise that question which -- continually raised about General Shinseki's figure. And my own independent research on that reveals that -- I'm not questioning the integrity of that fine officer -- but I cannot find any trace of the Joint Staff ever discussing a figure of the magnitude that he mentioned right from that seat you're in, Secretary Armitage, nor in the Army and its deliberations, of a figure of that nature. If I'm wrong, let somebody show me the documents that support that anywhere in that building that figure was discussed and carefully thought through...
By your logic Greg were these Generals incompetent or lying? 1. Abizaid, 04/30/2004 Briefing GEN. ABIZAID: ...So asking the question about do we need more capacity in Iraq, we need more Iraqi security capacity and we need more international security capacity. I think many of you have heard me say on a number of occasions that I do not favor large increased numbers of American troops unless they have to deal with an immediate security problem, which is what we currently have. I do favor the inclusion of more international troops, especially more Muslim troops... I believe, and I think Iraqis will second me on this, this needs to be less of an American occupation and more of an international military activity that includes Iraqis, international forces and Americans. Am I comfortable with where we are now? Militarily, yes. If the situation were to move into less secure circumstances than are currently visible in the country, I would go to the secretary and ask for more forces, and General Sanchez agrees with me on that. But I don't see a need to do that now. 2. Casey, 06/27/2005:
They weren't necessarily incompetent or lying. First, Myers and Abiziad didn't have to be lying. The assigned task was to invade and occupy iraq. They had no more troops. There was no need to discuss whether they needed more troops when there was no possibility of getting them. They had to do the best they could with what they had, or else resign and let someone with more foolish confidence do the job. Casey might have been lying, but he might not. He went to division commanders and asked them if they were getting done the job assigned to them, and they said yes. Did they need more troops to do the assigned job? No. Were the jobs they were assigned going to jproduce the results we needed? Maybe he didn't ask that question. Imagine an absurd case. A division is assigned to guard a soccer field. "Is the mission successful?" Yes. "Do you have enough men?" Yes. "How is the war going?" We ought to get somebody to defend the water works, and the power plants, and the phone exchanges, and the hospitals. And a few quick reaction force to help with those defenses. And we need forces to disarm the militias. And forces to attack the insurgents in their strongholds. Four divisions ought to be enough, sir. But it isn't a lie for him to report the answers to the first two questions only. Say it's 130,000 troops in iraq, and there are 5,000 spare who can be put where they're most needed. Which guy is going to say he's the one who needs them?
They weren't necessarily incompetent or lying. First, Myers and Abiziad didn't have to be lying. The assigned task was to invade and occupy iraq. They had no more troops. There was no need to discuss whether they needed more troops when there was no possibility of getting them. They had to do the best they could with what they had, or else resign and let someone with more foolish confidence do the job. Casey might have been lying, but he might not. He went to division commanders and asked them if they were getting done the job assigned to them, and they said yes. Did they need more troops to do the assigned job? No. Were the jobs they were assigned going to jproduce the results we needed? Maybe he didn't ask that question. Imagine an absurd case. A division is assigned to guard a soccer field. "Is the mission successful?" Yes. "Do you have enough men?" Yes. "How is the war going?" We ought to get somebody to defend the water works, and the power plants, and the phone exchanges, and the hospitals. And a few quick reaction force to help with those defenses. And we need forces to disarm the militias. And forces to attack the insurgents in their strongholds. Four divisions ought to be enough, sir. But it isn't a lie for him to report the answers to the first two questions only. Say it's 130,000 troops in iraq, and there are 5,000 spare who can be put where they're most needed. Which guy is going to say he's the one who needs them?
Rumsfeld and his lackeys did not only cause strategic damage (political, financial, and military) to the US by arrogantly ignoring the troop requirements needed for an occuption -- I think they caused even more damage by arrogantly ignoring almost all plans, from State through the Pentagon through the CIA. They may have made a point of burning Saddam's archives to get rid of material leftover from when Rumsfeld and Saddam were buddies, but because they ignored all previous planning, they did not do anything about securing weapons, ammunition, explosives -- and the entire world has seen the result, and continues to see it. The skyrocketing infant mortality, the prevalent disease, the lack of electricity, fuel, water -- the professional flight syndrome (doctors, lawyers, professors, etc) -- the weekly pictures of Iraqi civilians, including women and children, wounded or killed, being paraded on various Arabic TV stations as examples of the US war "against Moslems" -- all these negatives are not offset by Pentagon propaganda efforts. Then, they set up a ludicriously incompetent CPA, and tried to sell off the Iraqi industry to US companies -- of course, they got in trouble for that, not because it was against the Geneva Convention (of course the US was already disregarding the Geneva Convention by then) but because Sistani et al. made an uproar over it. This is yet another example of the US giving free ammunition to all its detractors, from Osama, to Syrian Hezbollah, to a whole range of distrusting and often hate-filled opponents. Cheney's perverted desire to torture people should have been curbed by someone intelligent, but it wasn't, and so the US appeared to prove true some of the most incredible claims of its enemies (namely that the US wanted to not just kill, but also torture, Moslems). They made all of these pathetically incompetent and obviously ignorant mistakes, because of the general lack of intelligence and planning which has so characterized this administration and Defense Dept. Its war against the CIA and against State -- presumably inherited from Bush Sr's war against the Near East Asia department of State -- and then its punishing whistle blowers in the Pentagon, achieved its desired effect of silencing dissenting views, but this left it in a vacuum of little intelligence.
The 'gun to the head' analogy is overdramatic. Deadlines are needed in Iraq as a tool to force the parties to make actual concessions and reach real compromises. US troops today are functioning as de facto proxies of the Shiites and Kurds in their war of revenge and territoriality against the Sunnis. The longer we stay the more they win. Posted by: matt at April 20, 2006 03:16 PM | Permalink to this comment
|
|
Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch
"Awake"
--New York Times
Recent Entries
A Brief (and Belated) Word on Chas Freeman
What Would Real--Rather Than Rhetorical--Change in U.S. Foreign Policy Look Like? Of War, and Tent Hospitals The Obama Imperative Some Addt'l Thoughts Re: Georgia McCain: Let's Compound the Blunder! Georgia On My Mind Should We De-Emphasize The Terror Threat in U.S. Foreign Policy? (Very Belated) In-House News Straits of Hormuz
Search
English Language Media
New York Times
Financial Times The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic The American Conservative Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation WSJ Opinion Matt Drudge Real Clear Politics
Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Non-English Language Press
The Blogs
Across the Aisle
Marc Ambinder America Abroad American Footprints The American Scene Armavirumque Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice &C (TNR) Phil Carter Chequer-Board Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Clive Davis Brad DeLong Democracy Arsensal Daniel Drezner Kevin Drum James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Hendrik Hertzberg Huffington Post Mickey Kaus Mark Kleiman Joshua Landis Daniel Larison Josh Marshall Eric Martin Obsidian Wings Oxblog Foreign Policy's Passport The Plank Post Global Gideon Rachman Romenesko Laura Rozen Andrew Sullivan James Taranto Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias
Law & Finance
Barron's
Bloomberg Bull and Bear Wise Calculated Risk CBS Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog Corp Law Blog DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Bruce MacEwen Gretchen Morgenson Floyd Norris Barry Ritholz Nouriel Roubini Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance
Think Tanks
Security
Books
The City
Curbed
Eater Gothamist NY Magazine NY Post NY Press New York Observer On The Inside Tribeca Trib Vanishing NY Village Voice
Archives
March 2009
January 2009 November 2008 August 2008 July 2008 May 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 Syndicate this site:
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
||||
