Rumsfeld

[quote]Moriarty wrote:

Think about this: We recently launched a major offensive on insurgent-controlled Fallujah. We didn’t increase are security there based on concerns, or press them a little harder…we had to launch an offensive against INSURGENT CONTROLLED fallujah. How did a major parts of this country (parts we knew before-hand would be trouble) fall into complete control of insurgents? There are a list of mistakes that occured and have been admitted to, now who is going to be held responsible? These are major strategic failures, not minor tacticals ones “commonly made in every war.” Who is responsible?[/quote]

Moriarty:

One of the main reasons I’ve seen advanced for the reason this section of Iraq wasn’t controlled is that we couldn’t roll the army through there on the way in, because the Turks denied use of their bases. Basically, a lot of the “Sunni Triangle” area was never subject to the “shock and awe” of the initial campaign.

Here’s an interesting examination of the mistakes that were made, and the ones that weren’t:

http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.811/transcript.asp

From “Meet the Press” yesterday:

EXCERPT:

MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Lugar, Senator Frist and Senator McConnell, the leaders of the Republican Party, both issued statements in support of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. John McCain said he has “no confidence in Secretary Rumsfeld.” Trent Lott from Mississippi, Republican, says he’s not a fan of the secretary: “I don’t think he listens enough to his uniformed officials.” Should Secretary Rumsfeld be held accountable for what’s going on in Iraq? Should he stay in office?

SEN. LUGAR: He should be held accountable, and he should stay in office. He needs at this point to listen, and he is listening. My own assumptions are much as Joe Biden’s. We have heard in our committee, and I’m sure John and Carl have in theirs, about the deficiency of the equipment, about the difficulties. We’ve had 23 hearings. We’ve heard it all. We have made recommendations. When a sergeant stood up, however, in that public meeting and said something, he got some action, $4.1 billion more security suddenly moving ahead. I say more power to him.

The fact is that change of leadership in the Pentagon at this point might be as disruptive as trying to get somebody in homeland defense. We really cannot go through that ordeal. We have to hold accountable the secretary of defense and those who are responsible. Maybe we should be more vigilant and outspoken, and probably we all will be because this is crucial. In terms of the safety of our troops, not only their signing up, but their being effective out there now. And even more importantly for their safety, getting Iraqis able to patrol their own streets and patrol their own destiny.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Warner, Bob Novak quotes you as telling a colleague “I’ve had it with him,” regarding Rumsfeld? Is that accurate?

SEN. WARNER: Bob’s going to follow on after we leave here. I’d like to have an opportunity to see him, and I would simply say I don’t have any recollection of that. Matter of fact, I get up sometimes in the morning and look at my myself in the mirror and say, “I’ve had it with you, Warner. Shape up.” But let me say, I have served…

MR. RUSSERT: But do you have confidence in Secretary Rumsfeld?

SEN. WARNER: I’ll answer that. Give me a few minutes or a second. I have served with 11 secretaries of defense, three when I was secretary of the Navy at the Pentagon, and since then, now 25 years, on the Armed Services Committee. They’re all different. But I assure you that in the three-plus years that I have worked with Secretary Rumsfeld, we’ve had our differences. We still have some. But I have confidence in my ability and his ability to continue to work together as a team for the common goals of the men and women of the Armed Forces and to support the goals of the commander in chief.

We’re at war. And you’re right, Dick, we should not at this point in time entertain any idea of changing those responsibilities in the Pentagon. We’re going to go through this election. We’re going to have a tough period after that election. And we should express our confidence in the commander in chief and his principal subordinates. The president makes the choice, and we’re going to back the president and support his choice and make it work.

MR. RUSSERT: How do you feel?

SEN. LEVIN: If I thought a change at the top of the Pentagon would change the policy of this administration, I’d be all for it. I was opposed to going to war unilaterally. I voted against that because I thought it was a mistake, a policy mistake, to go without greater support in the international community. The mistakes, the policy mistakes, which have put us into this war with inadequate equipment because we went so quickly we cut off U.N. inspections were policy decisions of the president of the United States.

So I’ve had a lot of differences with Secretary Rumsfeld. I’m a critic of much of his rhetoric. I think he does try to pass the buck, but that pass-the-buck philosophy starts right at the top in the White House. That’s where the buck should stop. That’s where the policies are made. And as far as I’m concerned, unless those policies change, which is a presidential decision, it’s not going to help just simply to change the leadership in the Pentagon.

MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Biden?

SEN. BIDEN: I’m tired of talking about Rumsfeld. The only thing that bothers me about it is this arrogance of not acknowledging obvious mistakes. I mean, that’s the part that bothers me. And I think that Carl is right. I mean, look, the president makes these decisions. Granted he delegates them to Secretary Rumsfeld, but, you know, the–it’s just an arrogance of not acknowledging that there’s been any mistake on anything and people are dying.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Warner, have mistakes been made?

SEN. WARNER: Clearly. Take, for example, the Boeing airplane contract, which Senator Levin, Senator McCain and I and many others, we stopped it. Had it not been for the Senate Armed Services Committee, that thing would have gone forward.

MR. RUSSERT: But how about in Iraq? Has the president and Secretary Rumsfeld made mistakes?

SEN. WARNER: You bet they have. And guess what? They’ve learned from those mistakes. You talked about the IED, these road bombs and you somehow didn’t quite finish your answer in terms of that question from the House. I assure you that our committee in the past 60 days have looked into every facet of what America is doing to protect those soldiers from those insidious roadside bombs and the RPGs ripping into those trucks. We’re going ahead with an up-armored program. We’ve got the body armor in place now and the whole scientific community in this country have been invited to contribute their ideas as to how to stop these bombs from blowing up the trucks.

MR. RUSSERT: What do you think are the biggest mistake the president and Secretary Rumsfeld made regarding Iraq?

SEN. WARNER: Probably the rapid expanding of the military forces that Iraq had in place and not trying to maintain some of it in place to have continuity and to rapidly put together a security force.

I think it is inevitable that the insurgency in Iraq will be destroyed and democracy will flourish.

The enemy cannot stand and fight. The enemy offers no alternative. The enemy is hated by the populace and would gladly be turned over once fear of repriasals are gone. Most importantly the enemy has no benefactor and no hope of relief. As a simple matter of attrition they will be killed faster then they can replace the fallen.

War is changing. Rummy sees that and has the ability to lead the military to adapt.

I will not discount that a grunt in the field has a different perspective but certainly someone who has “eyes” on the situation is in a better position to describe it then you or I.

As a simple matter of attrition they will be killed faster then they can replace the fallen.

Hedo, where I admire your optimism, I think it is a bit naive. If you haven’t read the recent Pentagon report regarding this issue, the terrorists are recruiting in RECORD numbers from many muslim countries. Its amazing really… They said the same thing during Vietnam, and look at how many Americans died there. We are only at the beginning of this conflict. If you believe any different, I hope you are right, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

Roy

No doubt they are recruiting in record numbers. The best and brightest I am sure. Killing themselves at an early age before they can do much harm.

I understand that the Kamikaze’s had a major surge in volunteers as the US Fleet got closer to Japan.

Totalists who believe in all or nothing are always willing to die for the fantasy idealogy they believe in.

I guess it is Darwanism at work. No totalist regime in history that has been mesmerized by it’s leaders has survived, let alone prospered. Not once.

Hedo,

Not trying to disagree with your optimism, but I think many of the recruits are hidden in other countries… not busy dying in Iraq.

Anyhow, if you haven’t, look at the theory of guerrilla warfare. Being big and powerful doesn’t make it easy to stamp out.

Finally, as others have said, I’m afraid your optimism may be misplaced, but at the same time it would be nice if you were in fact correct, such that everything is indeed under control.

Vroom

One of the major tennents of fighting a Guerilla war is the support of the populace. I don’t think they have that. They are killing the Iraqi’s left and right. The murderers are also being turned in at a fast clip.

Unlike the 60’s where a peasant actually had to make contact with US forces. Today they can inform on the enemy with a toll free number or an e mail.

I will however agree that I am optomistic. I too hope it is well placed and wish the troops…God’s Speed home.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Hedo,

Not trying to disagree with your optimism, but I think many of the recruits are hidden in other countries… not busy dying in Iraq.
[/quote]

I don’t think this is even understood by many. The terrorists who flew the planes into the WTC towers didn’t just get off the boat from Iraq. These people are spread out in countries around the world with established identities and reputations. Exactly how many do people think it takes to commit a huge disaster? Iraq may have the world’s attention right now, but to think we are stamping out terrorism because of it is a little naive.

I wanted to make sure a few points are clarified.

Number one: Rumsfeld was a Navy pilot after the Korean War. He volunteered. His service record is there for all to see. As far as I know, he didn’t see any active combat. However, you can’t blame the man for not being in Korea/Vietnam solely based on his birthdate. Oh, I challenge any of you to question any Navy fighter pilots’ personal bravery.

Number two: I have to admit that I am suspicious of the motives of some of the people who are calling for Rumsfeld’s resignation. It seems suspicious to me that 99.9% of these people are disgruntled Kerry voters. The media is in a feeding frenzy using words such as “embattled” when describing Rumsfeld. First it was Ashcroft and now it’s Rumsfeld.

My feelings about the man? He is the most outspoken Secretary of Defense in my memory. From time to time I’ve questioned some of his public statements. However, I get the feeling that W. uses both Rummy, Cheney, and Powell to float various opinions and strategies. W. is a skilled politician and I think he is far underrated as a diplomat.

I hear some of the specific criticisms regarding Rumsfeld. I am tempted to point to every single Secretary of War/Defense in our history as precedents. Viewed in that context, Rumsfeld has been a master of efficiency. If anyone doubts this statement, please read the writings of John Pershing (commander of the AEF during WWI). Or, read what the critics of Simon Cameron (First Secretary of War under Lincoln) had to say.

In summary, I haven’t heard any specific criticism of Rumsfeld that couldn’t be explained by the Fog of War. I have yet to see any evidence that Rumsfeld encouraged Abu Gharib.

Thanks!!!

JeffR

Wall Street Journal Op-Ed

In Defense of Rumsfeld

By JON KYL
December 21, 2004; Page A18

During the election campaign, the Bush administration weathered a barrage of criticisms about the conduct of the war on terror. Critics seemed to discount any signs of progress and to highlight every setback. They even promoted the fabricated rumor of secret plans to bring back the draft to scare young voters. Despite it all, President Bush was decisively re-elected by the American people. They judged him the right man to lead the global war on terror, and they reaffirmed support for the policies that have been put in place to keep America safe.


One of those most responsible for carrying out those policies has been Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. During difficult times he has led one of the largest bureaucracies in the world, helped plan the successful dispatch of two terrorist regimes, and worked to speed up long-overdue reforms of our military to enable it to fight the new wars of a new era.

He is tough, no doubt about it. But it takes a tough man to accomplish all this, especially when bureaucrats and special-interest groups are wedded to the status quo or Cold War-era programs no longer relevant to a global war against terrorist cells.

Much of the current criticism of Secretary Rumsfeld is centered on troop levels and armor for the troops. Sen. John McCain, for example, has long believed that the Iraq conflict required more troops from the outset, and he may be right. Reasonable people can disagree on this point. Secretary Rumsfeld made a decision to defer to what his commanders on the ground told him. That, too, is a perfectly logical decision. It should also be noted that troop levels were recently increased by 12,000, an increase Secretary Rumsfeld and his commanders agreed upon.

Now, Secretary Rumsfeld is being criticized for his honest response to a soldier in a town-hall meeting in Iraq regarding the shortage of armor for our troops in the field. The secretary responded that you go to war with what you’ve got, not what you hope to have in the future. But he added that you also adjust to circumstances; and he said he was informed by his generals that the up-armoring was occurring as fast as possible. That may not have been totally correct, because it appears the up-armoring of vehicles now has been speeded up. The question is whether it is fair to heap all the blame on Secretary Rumsfeld for what is, after all, a procurement responsibility of the services. Ironically, another criticism of Secretary Rumsfeld is that he micromanages too much. Critics can’t have it both ways.

And consider this: How many other cabinet secretaries go out and talk to people directly and take on all questions, even the tough ones? Secretary Rumsfeld has held dozens of these town-hall meetings with troops to hear from them and to listen to their opinions unvarnished. He should be commended for that and for his follow-up on the armor issue.

But there is a larger point here. Victory in the global war on terror has two elements. The first is to go after the terrorists. We have captured or killed three-quarters of known al Qaeda leaders in the past three years, and the result has been better security.

The second element – as Secretary Rumsfeld long ago pointed out in a memo infamously leaked to the press – is to stop terrorists from getting more recruits to replace those we’ve captured or killed. This requires eliminating support for terrorists in every country that supports them; and it is one reason why Afghanistan and Iraq are so very important. Living lives of subjugation and despair, the people there have been taught lies about America, about democracy, and about the West. Everything going on to help create a new environment in Iraq, while difficult, is essential to taking the oxygen out of the extremist movement there.

And the extremists know this. They are smart – they continuously adjust their strategy to attack us and hurt our morale on the ground and at home. Secretary Rumsfeld also knows this, and he’s worked hard to adjust a mammoth bureaucracy to respond to the enemy’s shifting tactics. We can’t afford to lose this kind of leadership in the middle of this conflict.

The president has picked the man he wants to lead at the Pentagon at this crucial time. We can ask tough questions and still support the president’s team. Yesterday, the president reaffirmed his support for Secretary Rumsfeld, saying he’s doing a “really fine job.” I for one, trust the president’s judgment, and so – as we saw in our last election – do the American people.

Mr. Kyl, a Republican senator from Arizona, is chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee and the Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security.

JeffR,

Good post!

[quote]JeffR wrote:
I wanted to make sure a few points are clarified.

Number one: Rumsfeld was a Navy pilot after the Korean War. He volunteered. His service record is there for all to see. As far as I know, he didn’t see any active combat. However, you can’t blame the man for not being in Korea/Vietnam solely based on his birthdate. Oh, I challenge any of you to question any Navy fighter pilots’ personal bravery.[/quote]

In contrast to many of the posters here, I think you do not necessarily need to have been in combat or even in the military in order to head a ministry of defense - the office itself is a public one, securing the accountability of the military towards the civilian part of the population.

Might be - but not all criticism comes from that side of the political spectrum. I (OK, if I were American, I would have probably voted for Kerry) based my criticism purely on the human rights argument. This follows basically the Economist’s line of arguments. Their stance on the issues has like this: They supported Bush and the Iraq war. The latter they still do. They have (heavy-heartedly) endorsed Kerry in the last week before the election, but mostly on the grounds of economic arguments. But when it comes to Rumsfeld, they have for the last 2 years criticised the treatment of prisoners and have identified Rumsfeld as the responsible person in that respect. Long before the election, they featured with a title why Rumsfeld should step down.

[quote]My feelings about the man? He is the most outspoken Secretary of Defense in my memory. From time to time I’ve questioned some of his public statements. However, I get the feeling that W. uses both Rummy, Cheney, and Powell to float various opinions and strategies. W. is a skilled politician and I think he is far underrated as a diplomat.

I hear some of the specific criticisms regarding Rumsfeld. I am tempted to point to every single Secretary of War/Defense in our history as precedents. Viewed in that context, Rumsfeld has been a master of efficiency. If anyone doubts this statement, please read the writings of John Pershing (commander of the AEF during WWI). Or, read what the critics of Simon Cameron (First Secretary of War under Lincoln) had to say.[/quote]

Can’t say anything about that. He hasn’t exactly enamoured himself with many European people, but how he is as defense secretary in general, I cannot assess.

Here I cannot agree. As I have stated in my earlier posts, I think he has, and thus is responsible for the fallout.

Makkun

Gents

Optomistic with a different viewpoint does not make you naive.

It makes you optomistic…with a differnet viewpoint.

I think I am kind of well informed…of course I view things through a different set of experiences…as do we all.

Don?t know if Rummy (or the current US administration) is up to the second element of the war on terror, stopping new recruitments for the terrorists.

For example, Rummy did not find it necessary to personally sign condolence letters to families of US soldiers killed in Iraq. Come on, how is someone with such a complete lack of empathy supposed to help to “win the war of hearts and minds” in arab countries?

An another thing: what about Guantanamo? What is he planning with all these “unlawful combatants”? Let them rot there forever? Let them free and be sure they will have some nice things to say about the US to their muslim brothers?

I wonder what Rummy has to say about the mess hall bombing today, which one of his quotes would be most appropriate?

“Stuff happens”

or

“You go to war with the mess tents that you have, not the concrete buildings you wish you had.”

I heard some speculation on the news today…

Some think tank institute, I honestly don’t remember the name, suggested that we might look for Rumsfeld to resign, if it does happen, after the elections in Iraq.

They suggested that it is unlikely to have a replacement occur before that time due to a possible appearance of weakness if it were to occur.

It was also discussed that if the military has trouble ensuring its own safety (todays mess hall bombing) then perhaps it will be difficult to ensure the safety of the voting public.

These aren’t my thoughts, just echoing what I listened to on the TV.

My own thought is that these are troubling issues. The general Iraqi citizen may not agree with the Islamofascists, but they certainly are being threatened and influenced by them.

I don’t know if we’re seriously able to address these issues or if they were planned for at all in the lead up to a conflict. However, it’s another nail in Rummy’s coffin if he isn’t able to predict or adapt and conquer – even if he isn’t on the ground directly in charge.

With regard to the bombing today please see the website:

It is an oppotyunity to help those effected by today’s event.

Give some if you can. Some, today, gave all they could.

Odd, some of you blame Rumsfeld for every possible mishap. Ask yourselves, what is war? An unpredictable constantly changing series of events.

Who is the General on the ground in Iraq? Who are the other sector commanders? To hold one man totally responsible for every possible act seems not only inaccurate, but petty as well.

Perhaps the “herd” mentality surrounding the man is what drives this sort of thinking.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Odd, some of you blame Rumsfeld for every possible mishap. Ask yourselves, what is war? An unpredictable constantly changing series of events.

Who is the General on the ground in Iraq? Who are the other sector commanders? To hold one man totally responsible for every possible act seems not only inaccurate, but petty as well.

Perhaps the “herd” mentality surrounding the man is what drives this sort of thinking.[/quote]

Zeb,

You have a good point about war and holding one person responsible. I don’t believe that is fair. However, I think that the problem is that no one higher on the food chain is EVER held responsible for anything bad that happens in this war. It is usually the lower levels that get all of the punishment.

One of the things that I have learned in taking and accepting various leadership positions is that if you are in charge, ultimately you are responsible, regardless of who actually did the deed. It is your job to make sure that the people under you are doing the right things and have the right tools to do their jobs. If there is a screw-up, it is also your job to make sure it gets fixed. If you aren’t fulfilling these obligations, then you need to be removed.

As far as the bombing of the mess hall, that is part of war. There was nothing that Rummy could do about that at all. However, his comments, actions and policies are things he can do something about. These are the things for which he should be held accountable.

As far as his attitude, I don’t see it being any different than any one else’s attitude in this administration and its supporters. The difference is that he doesn’t hide it as well.

Saw this in another site during surfing. Yeah, yeah, I know the source, but I thought the article was interesting anyway.

Scapegoating Rumsfeld

by Patrick J. Buchanan

Last year, Midge Decter, wife of Norman Podhoretz, who has been howling for “World War IV” against the Arabs, published a mash note titled, Rumsfeld: A Personal Portrait.

The University of Houston’s James D. Fairbanks began his review thus: "Neoconservative writer Midge Decter sets out to explain just what it is about Donald Rumsfeld that has well-educated, sophisticated women swooning over him.

“Those unaware that Rumsfeld mania has been sweeping the country have obviously not attended the same fashionable dinner parties as Decter. Her book begins with a description of one such party where women sat around gushing over the secretary like smitten schoolgirls.”

Well, the neocon girls may not be over their infatuation, but the Beltway neocon boys surely are. Last week, in what qualifies as the backstab of the year, William Kristol of The Weekly Standard called for Rumsfeld’s firing.

Contrasting the “magnificent performance” of our “terrific army” with Rumsfeld’s blunders and buck-passing, Kristol wrote: “Rumsfeld is not the defense secretary Bush should want to have for the remainder of his second term. … [American] soldiers deserve a better defense secretary than the one we have.”

If Kristol sought to wound Rumsfeld, his timing was perfect. Rumsfeld had been bleeding for a week after his flat-footed answer to Tennessee National Guardsman Thomas Wilson at an assembly of troops in Kuwait. Wilson demanded to know why he and his fellow soldiers have to scrounge around junkyards for “hillbilly armor” to protect their trucks and humvees.

Rumsfeld’s condescending response ? “As you know, you have to go to war with the army you have, not with the army you might wish to have” ? might have been acceptable, had Iraq not been a war of choice for which we had a year to prepare. It might have been understandable, a year ago, as the unanticipated insurgency erupted across Iraq.

But this administration had Iraq in its gunsights three years ago. Rumsfeld and the Pentagon are thus responsible for any lack of armor that has resulted in the woundings and deaths of U.S. soldiers in unprotected vehicles from the roadside bombs that have become a major killer of American troops.

Nonetheless, when one considers all that Rumsfeld has done for the neocons, the depth of the betrayal astonishes.

Ever since he signed on with their Committee on the Present Danger in the 1980s, Rumsfeld had been a hero to neocons. In 1998, he signed Kristol’s open letter to Clinton calling for war on Iraq, four years before 9/11. Named defense secretary, Rumsfeld brought in neocons Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith as his No. 2 and No. 3, and let them fill the building with friends from Neocon Central, the American Enterprise Institute.

Richard Perle was given the chair of the Defense Policy Review Board, which was turned into a neocon nest at the Pentagon. In the hours after 9/11, Rumsfeld made the case to Bush for immediate war on Iraq. When Baghdad fell in three weeks, he was the toast of the cakewalk crowd and the centerfold of Midge and the neocon girls.

Now many are snaking on him. What is going on? Simple.

Rumsfeld is being set up to take the fall for what could become a debacle in Iraq. As the plotters, planners and propagandists of this war, the neocons know that if Iraq goes the way of Vietnam, there will be a search conducted for those who misled us and, yes, lied us into war, and why they did it. Rumsfeld has become designated scapegoat.

His clumsy response to Wilson is not the real reason Kristol’s crowd wants him out. As Kristol told the Post, Rumsfeld’s “fundamental error … is that his theory about the military is at odds with the president’s geopolitical strategy. He wants this light, transformed military, but we’ve got to win a real war, which involves using a lot of troops and building a nation, and that’s at the core of the president’s strategy for rebuilding the Middle East.”

To neocons, this war was never about WMD or any alleged Iraqi ties to 9/11. That was merely to mobilize the masses for war. Their real reason was empire and making the Middle East safe for Israel.

President Bush had best recognize what Kristol is telling him. The neocon agenda means escalation: enlarging the Army, more U.S. troops in Iraq, widening the war to Syria and Iran, and indefinite occupation of the Middle East, as we forcibly alter the mindset of the Islamic world to embrace democracy and Israel.

If that entails endless expenditures of tax dollars of U.S. citizens and the blood of U.S. soldiers, the neocons are more than willing to make the sacrifice. But if Bush himself fails to deliver, rely upon it. He, too, will get the Rumsfeld treatment from this crowd, parasitical and opportunistic as it is, as it seeks another host to ride, perhaps John McCain.

As Zeb would label: Ultra-Liberal post. Flame away, Bushites!

http://www.crisispapers.org/essays/rummy.htm

Rummy’s Gotta Go –
But Will Bush Hit the Delete Button?

By Bernard Weiner
Co-Editor, “The Crisis Papers.”
December 21, 2004

Bush says he won’t rid his administration of Donald Rumsfeld, which tells us all we need to know about what the next four years will be like – IF the election challenges in Ohio and elsewhere don’t explode in Dubya’s face and he actually is sworn in a month from now for a second term.

Bush and Rumsfeld are happy to use U.S. troops and National Guard and Reserves, but they do not take care of them on the ground, or when they are no longer useful to the war effort. To Bush&Co., it appears, soldiers are merely the cannon fodder necessary in order to fulfill their political goals. Spin, fold, mutilate the troops, but don’t provide them with the protection and services they need.

Bush has never, not once, attended a funeral service for a soldier killed in the line of duty in Iraq. Rumsfeld didn’t even have the sensitivity to sign the letters of condolence personally to the families of those killed in the war. Prior to being outed on this issue, Rumsfeld used an automatic signature machine to sign his letters. (But he, and apparently Bush as well) did sign the orders authorizing “harsh” methods of interrogation – read: torture.)

When a soldier recently complained to Rumsfeld in public about the lack of proper armoring of vehicles in the Iraq theater, Rumsfeld hemmed and hawed and went all defensive, seeking to make the issue the “physics” of supply rather than how outrageous the situation was and vowing to get the required armor on the humvees and trucks on an emergency basis. The manufacturer of such armor admitted that they could produce 22% more of the hard stuff if requested to do so, but Rumsfeld’s Pentagon had never made such a request – even though it had been alerted to the armoring problem a year earlier.

EAT YOUR HOSPITAL FOOD AND LEAVE A BIG TIP

So don’t tell me about how well Bush&Co. look out for our soldiers. Hundreds of billions of dollars spent, and another $100 billion about to be requested, to fight the war in Iraq – much of that money winding up in the coffers of giant corporations like Bechtel and Halliburton – and the Pentagon was, for a time, charging wounded soldiers for their food in military hospitals.

If this is compassionate conservatism, what does mean-spirited care look like?

Bush and Rumsfeld and Cheney refuse to admit that they’re capable of mistakes; in this case, that they went into the Iraq Occupation several hundred thousand troops short of what was required, and couldn’t even police the huge arms dumps all over Iraq, which were and are providing the insurgents with explosives and weapons that kill and maim U.S. troops.

The result of such incompetence and mismanagement, and fantasy-based war strategy – including the belief that the Iraqi defense forces will fight valiantly on the U.S. side – is that the small U.S. military force in Iraq is stretched way too thin; they can’t even adequately defend the oil they were sent there to grab. Thus, as in Afghanistan, the U.S. military is incapable of effective nation-building.

Further, the U.S. military is constantly fighting reactive battles using the same few recycled troops. Join the National Guard and Reserves and wind up in Iraq, and be forced back to that country, again and again and again; try to leave Iraq after fulfilling your tour of duty and you’re “stop-lossed” back into the front lines. And that’s not even mentioning the likelihood of being sent to war elsewhere – maybe Syria or Iran – as the neo-cons ratchet up the war rhetoric for more “shock&awe” campaigns.

DESERTION/ENLISTMENT RATES NO SURPRISE

No wonder the U.S. desertion rate is so high, why the re-enlistment numbers are way down, why it’s so difficult to get new recruits to sign up, and why a soldier would get a friend to shoot him in the leg rather than to have to return to Iraq. These young men and women are not dumb; they know they’re being sent down a rat-hole where they are vulnerable to being killed and maimed because of the bungling war policies of a civilian leadership that made sure they never had to fight in a war.

Those troops also realize that all the justifications for being in Iraq in the first place are phony or non-existent: there were no stockpiles of WMDs, no connection between Saddam and 9/11, no meaningful relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraq. So, U.S. soldiers ask themselves: Why are we still here, and what are we fighting for, really?

If they’ve tried to figure it out, they might well have come to the conclusion that Iraq was of no danger to the U.S. or its neighbors, was contained by U.N. sanctions, had no major weaponry and no means (or desire) to attack the U.S. – but it did possess the second-largest oil reserve in the world, and the neoconservatives in charge of U.S. foreign/military policy did/do want to use Iraq as a demonstration model for altering the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East.

The Bush Administration, not content with its policy of “pre-emptive” war – that is, attacking countries to prevent them from someday confronting the U.S. – has come up with plans for “pre-emptive” pre-emption: moving to intervene in countries long before there is any real future threat.

In other words, U.S. troops are being used for neo-imperialistic purposes that have little to do with the reasons for war provided them or the American public.

And, as in another such war forty years ago, in Vietnam, the U.S. is in a country it does not understand, fighting a shadowy nationalist enemy that wants to kick out its Occupiers, and whose citizens are enraged by how the U.S. forces treat the local inhabitants: destroying villages in order to “save” them, torturing and sexually assaulting prisoners in their care (with only the grunts being placed on trial), shooting first and asking questions later, giant corporations robbing the country blind, bombing from the air, 100,000 civilians dead, etc.

HERE’S YOUR HAT, WHAT’S YOUR HURRY?

As a result of such a botched Occupation, if fair and honest elections are actually held in Iraq, the result is likely to be a theocratic Islamic government that demands the U.S. leave ASAP. But the U.S. has other plans; it has built the largest embassy in the Middle East, established 14 military bases in Iraq, and wants to use its presence there to force other Arab rulers in the area to bend to its will. What then?

And so, despite the fact that everyone realizes Rumsfeld has made, and is continuing to make, a thorough disaster of the war in Iraq, he likely will remain as Secretary of Defense. Even GOP heavies are calling for him to resign, but in the name of party unity, they most likely will do nothing more overt to make that happen. He will stay because of what he represents to Bush&Co.

Bush certainly has no intention of bowing to such removal-pressure from within his own party or from partisan Democrats. To get rid of Rumsfeld would be to tacitly admit that the Bush policies with regard to Iraq – from how he lied and misled the country into the war to how it’s being waged – were a big mistake, and that someone might have to be held accountable for the FUBAR that is the Iraq war. And the Bush administration does not do accountability. (Which helps explain why Bush recently gave out Medals of Freedom to George Tenet, Paul Bremer and Tommy Franks, three key architects of the Iraq debacle. It’s called spin and CYA – and keep your lips zipped, boys.)

So, if Rumsfeld is permitted to stay on, the American citizenry is going to have to gird itself for hundreds and thousands more American dead and maimed, for tens of thousands more Iraqi civilian casualties, for hundreds of billions more tax dollars being flushed down that rat-hole (while important social services go underfunded at home), for more isolation and hatred abroad and more terrorist attacks coming our way, for an economy that likely will start to decompose even more in the next several years, for more central governmental intrusion into our private lives, for a worsening quality of air and water, for more deterioration of our infrastructure of bridges and roads and schools, and on and on.

But, presumably, the Red states that may have given George Bush a second term won’t mind, because men and women who love each other will have been publicly chastised by the voters. Apparently, that’s the only issue that really counts in our society. Bash gays, and don’t sweat the other stuff. Glad the voters got their priorities straight.