You are herecontent / Rummy Backing off from Iraq?

Rummy Backing off from Iraq?


Rummy Backing off from Iraq?
Noah Shashtman, Defense Tech.org
LINK TO ORIGINAL
This article from Sunday's Washington Post Magazine is the second major attempt I've seen in the last few months to separate Donald Rumsfeld from the Iraq war. (Here's the other.)

The idea, basically, is that Rummy was more fixated on modernizing the military than invading any country. Iraq just happened to be the country that the President wanted to wack.

Rumsfeld portrayed the memo as a warning blast, an attempt to do "everything humanly possible to prepare" Bush for the awful responsibility that had settled onto his presidential shoulders -- and his shoulders alone. For there comes a point when even the secretary of defense must realize that "it's not your decision or even your recommendation," Rumsfeld reflected with Woodward. By which he meant the Iraq war wasn't Don Rumsfeld's decision or recommendation.

As if to underline the point, Rumsfeld also told Woodward that he couldn't recall a moment, in all the months of planning for the war, when Bush asked whether his defense secretary favored the invasion. Nor did Rumsfeld ever volunteer his opinion. ("There's no question in anyone's mind but I agreed with the president's approach," he added.)

"After considerable time with the top-ranking civilian and military leaders of the Pentagon, a new picture of Donald Rumsfeld has emerged for me, and I now believe something that I would have thought preposterous before: There are no 'Rumsfeld wars,'" Thomas P.M. Barnett wrote in July's Esquire.

Of course, he's integral to how the Pentagon has conducted these operations, and he deserves all the credit and blame any defense secretary naturally receives as a result. But they're not his wars, and they never were. And in that, critics of the war might have something. The rationales behind the Iraq war belonged to the departing neocons Wolfowitz and Feith (who took pains in an interview to lecture me on the correct usage of the word neocon). And of course the president.

But if that's true, then what was Rummy doing in the White House on February 11, 1998? That's the day he and six other conservatives pleaded with then-National Security Advisor Sandy Berger to go after Iraq. Or a few days earlier, when he signed an open letter to President Clinton which said:

The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

For that matter, what was the Secretary of Defense thinking on September 11, 2001?

"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," [Richard] Clarke said to [60 Minutes' Leslie] Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.'"

Rumsfeld may not like how this war is turning out. But he's been for it for a long time. And no amount of after-the-fact spin is going to change that.

November 15, 2005 03:44 PM | Strategery

Tags

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

He seems to be suffering from a nervous disorder - whenever passing by the rope section of a hardware store, he suddenly breaks out in a sweat. Diagnosis, anyone?

Let's dissect the argument 'now the damage has been done in Iraq we might as well stay the course until....'

Note the word 'until' it hides a blood-stained century of western self delusion and arrogance.

Don't be taken in a second time. You were told that we had to invade Iraq because of it's WMD. They were wrong. Now they say we must keep troups in Iraq because otherwise it will collapse into chaos. This lie has infected 27% of Americans. It's axiom is, we are so competent only good can result.
The WMD lie had tactical logic - Rumsfeld's 'Hit 'em hard and get out. Just make sure Ahmad Chalabi secures one of the richest nations in the world. The 'until' lie prevailed, we used 'tanks of glue' in an experiment in nation building from 'ground zero'.
Our brave young soldiers have been humiliated, committed to self protection while infiltration has caused civil collapse. Iraqis are dying in huge numbers by the violence unleashed because we have failed to impose order on their country. Children are dying because we have failed to restore the basic infra-structure. Water, sewage and electricity services are worse than ten years ago. Hugh sums of money for military supplies are being stolen and stashed into Jordanian banks. All we get is the sickening litany of bad news reminiscent of Vietnam. We left Lebanon and Vietnam to their fate. They survived. We have made enough mess. Iraq is for the Iraqis and those of us who care to get our asses into gear and save lives.

The Final Act “The American Tragedy

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Support WarIsACrime



Donate.








Tweet your Congress critters here.


Advertise on this site!




Facebook      Twitter





Our Stores:























Movie Memorabilia.



The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.