Donald Rumsfeld \ Robert McNamara
In a move that will send shockwaves through the White House a leaked memo from former Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in which he admitted American failings in Iraq and called for a major change in policy, emerged yesterday.
The classified memo, obtained by the New York Times, revealed that the ultra-hawkish Rumsfeld believes that US forces in Iraq are not achieving their aims. He submitted the memo to the White House just two days before he resigned his post at the Pentagon.
In the memo Rumsfeld calls for a major change in US actions in Iraq. ‘In my view it is time for a major adjustment,’ he writes. ‘Clearly, what US forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough.’
Rumsfeld urged the White House to embark on a public relations course to lower expectations of what could be achieved in Iraq, saying US goals in the war-torn country should be talked about in ‘minimalist’ terms. Rumsfeld also wanted a reduction in US troops in the country and seemed to think the idea of sending more American soldiers into Baghdad to secure the capital was not a feasible option. He also attacked the Iraqis’ failings, saying they ‘must pull up their socks’, and wanted to use the threat of cutting off reconstruction aid in certain areas to discourage violence.
Rumsfeld’s call for change will disturb White House officials on two levels. First, in public Rumsfeld has always been a strong advocate of the US commitment to Iraq and of staying the course. Second, it flies in the face of recent statements by President Bush that indicate he is unlikely to change strategy. That could mean Rumsfeld and Bush, formerly seen as close allies, are in fact starting to oppose each other.
Everyone ready for sixteen more choruses of “Stay the course”?
It took McNamara decades of staying the course to admit he was wrong — and culpable for his participation in deceiving the American electorate about continuing the VietNam War. I guess Rumsfeld is beginning his transformation into a “good German” with a bit more alacrity.
One hallmark of the neocons is that they don’t do what they say they’re going to do. They lie, out of habit and even when they don’t have to. Also their whole rhetoric is stuffed with oxymorons like “compassionate conservative.” So don’t take this at face value. The memo could signal what Bush intends to do anyway, making it a classic “floating a balloon” deal, leaked to get people used to the idea.
Or the sudden access of common sense could be why Rummy was fired. In which case it’ll be 16 more choruses of “stay the course.”
One thing is nearly certain. Even if this crew does the right thing, it’ll be for the wrong reasons. If the result is that we’re allowed to abandon this atrocious, illegal war, I don’t much care about their reasons. It took Macnamara decades to realize how wrong he had been, but Nixon still eventually caved to public pressure. Maybe it’ll happen again.
I’m not sure how many of his recommendations are that different from what’s been happening. They are definitely different from what’s being proposed by the cut-and-run Baker/Hamilton Iraq Study Group.
#1,
Have you ever backed an idea you had, no matter what?? Even after you decided it was wrong or to late.
These guys went to war, and Had to justify it to Everyone. No matter what was said, they had to defend there stance, and WHY they went.
Even after their errors, and planing were shown and didnt work…
I am not sure this memo really reflect a Rumsfeld change of heart. It’s seem more likely (more in fitting with what we know of him) this is nothing more then a calculated, tactical move on Rumsfeld part to
1.) betraying GW for betraying him; get back at GW for firing him
2.) painting himself as one who is only following GW policies
3.) shifting blame for the IRAQ war failure onto GW exclusively
4.) by implication, imply “See if only GW listened to me”
This seems especially apparent since no doubt it is intentionally leaked, with Rumsfeld blessing. This memo, in no way indicates (in my mind) Rumsfeld truly didn’t believed in what he was doing; and, that he is not the master of his own destiny, or for that matter as a public serpent master of the country destiny.
Especially #4 above, given his lack of clear recommendation after years over seeing IRAQ war; his recommendation are ramblings and not a clear thought out statement of how to proceed with a needed urgent significant shift in IRAQ policy.
Mind you I am not a GW fan by any stretch. But they are both rubes and I don’t buy his contrition, it’s all too staged.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rube
John,
If you read this. Just to let you know, there are now 5 comments here but your counter on the http://www.dvorak.org/blog/ page say 1. Me thinks 1 doesn’t equal 5.
Kiddy up my trusty high stead!
Thanks Rummy for confirming what most people already know.
#5 – Ever though of refreshing your browser?
When you have a idiotic boss who undermines you inadvertently, it is hard to stay with the program. Rumsfeld might be so wrong on so many levels, but at least he isn’t the total idiot.
“This business about graceful exit just simply has no realism to it at all.”—Bush responding to speculation that American forces could be called back from Iraq, Amman, Jordan, Nov. 30, 2006
“You know, when I campaigned here in 2000, I said, I want to be a war President. No President wants to be a war President, but I am one.”—Bush speech, Des Moines, Iowa, Oct. 26, 2006
“You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror.”—Bush Interview with CBS News, Washington D.C., Sept. 6, 2006
“You never know what your history is going to be like until long after you’re gone.”—Bush at press conference, Washington, D.C., May 5, 2006
“I’m the decider, and I decide what is best. And what’s best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense.”—Washington, D.C., April 18, 2006
All Cabinet Secretaries serve at the discretion of the President. Only history will tell if Rumsfeld failed at implementing Administrative policy or if he was charged with an impossible task. All that aside, we all know where the buck really stops.
0. A non-story.
How is this different than what Bush has been advocating?
“In context he is saying he’ll adjust his strategy to what’s happening on the ground there. Like this is some kind of complete shock to anyone… in a war?”
Oh, that’s what I wrote about Bush in the link below. And now, for bonus points, try to figure out whether Bush or Rummy said the following. One hint: “Stephanopoulos.”
“I’m patient. I’m not patient forever. And I’m not patient with dawdling. But I recognize the degree of difficulty of the task, and therefore, say to the American people, we won’t cut and run. On the other hand, we’ll constantly adjust our strategy…”
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=7685#comments
So I don’t think the “good German” thing applies, unless you mean Schwarzkopf.
And speaking of “good” Germans, how long did it take Neville Chamberlain to admit he was wrong about appeasing Hitler? Or for Winston Churchill unwaveringly to commit to his “stay the course.”
History has so much to offer about wars in Iraq and Vietnam. /s
RBG
One consolation…
This will end up being Bush’s war, and only Bush’s war. No other president will be tarnished or have to take the blame for the choice to invade Iraq, and the ultimate loss in Iraq.
There are not two years of stability left in Iraq… it will fall completely apart before Bush is out of office.
At this point, it’s just about keeping American soldiers on the ground to continue pretending there has not been a complete and total policy defeat… as Bush said, he will leave it to future Presidents to finish the story… Bush just does not want to have the last American soldier leave Iraq while he is still in command.
Regarding the Rumsfeld memo. some distinct possibilites:
a) Rumsfeld did a Colin Powell and started disagreeing with Bush, so he got fired because Bush can not tolerate any dissent from his divinely inspired plans.
b) Rumsfeld knew he was getting fired, so he wrote the memo to make Bush look good or bad, depending on your perspective.
This just shows the Bush administration is unraveling.
Now that the Democrats will soon put an end to the GOP monopoly of power that has led to this disaster, his cabinet is finally comming clean – the president has no clothes.
Colin Powell, about 7 generals, now what’s his face and soon even Queen Rice will admit the policies ahve failed. Cheney is freek’n proud to count him out and Bush will soon reture to Texas to be with daddy.
#9, 0. A non-story.
much like a non-comment.
And speaking of “good” Germans, how long did it take Neville Chamberlain to admit he was wrong about appeasing Hitler? Or for Winston Churchill unwaveringly to commit to his “stay the course.”
History has so much to offer about wars in Iraq and Vietnam. /s
RBG
Comment by RBG — 12/3/2006 @ 9:37 am
History has already spoken that Hitler didn’t play by the rules, which is hardly Chamberlain’s fault. Diplomacy has usually won out over military bluster. I would dearly live to once read where Churchill said to “stay the course”.
True, history may tell us much about Viet Nam and Iraq, but I doubt you understand any of it.
12. Seems in every war, there’s always someone who “doesn’t play by the rules” and thus makes it all the more unexpectedly difficult. You’d now also excuse Bush under the same principle?
Stewart Alsop recalled in his memoir, Stay of Execution (1973), that Winston Churchill had stated in his presence: “America, it is a great and strong country, like a workhorse pulling the rest of the world out of despond and despair. But will it stay the course?”
Winston Churchill on determination and staying the course:
“…never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never-in nothing, great or small, large or petty – never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”
http://www.angelfire.com/games5/chessodyssey/churchill.htm
RBG
13. Huh. Funny how WSC did give in on a lot of things. It was his great idea during WW1 to attack the Ottoman Empire. that led to the ANZACs being butchered in Gallipoli. When it was shown to be a failure, the Allies withdrew. or, should we say, “cut and ran.”
WSC was also a fanatical anti-communist, but when Hitler attacked the USSR, he made common cause with Stalin. but we can’t even talk to Iran or Syria, evidently.
getting out if Iraq is giving in to convictions of good sense.
And Chamberlain gets a bum rap – selling out the Czechs bought valuable rearmament time for the UK and France. And guess who it was who guaranteed Poland against Nazi attack, and who declared war on Germany in 1939?
It wasn’t WSC ….
RBG, I was about to post the same Churchill quote that you had, I’m glad to see you saved me the effort.
But, he was forced to give in to Eisenhower on how and where to invade Europe — since he wanted the invasion to continue the direction he’d been giving the Brits up until SHAEF took over. Invading through Eastern Europe, Romania — and especially rescuing the Ploesti oil fields his family was so heavily invested in.
And, of course, the British nation — a little bit closer to your idol’s clay feet — voted him out of office as soon as possible after the war.
14. More like cut & run to other battle fronts. Can’t win ’em all. But sounds like WSC learned something from his WW1 experience.
Wonder if the Iraq Sunnis might be as gracious as the President of Turkey re Galipoli:
“Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives… You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side now here in this country of ours… You, the mothers, who sent their sons from faraway countries wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land, they have become our sons as well.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gallipoli
During a temporary truce: “There was a ‘constant traffic’ of gifts being thrown across no-mans land, dates and sweets from the Turkish side, and cans of beef and cigarettes from the ANZAC side.”
War sure ain’t what it used to be.
RBG
First, I believe he was fired, or asked to resign. I don’t believe that he planned to resign right after the elections. Isn’t asking for someone’s resignation just about the same as them getting fired?
Second, I believe he pre-dated the memo, to make it look like he was asking for change before the elections.
I don’t put any crooked thing past Bushco, Inc.
RBG,
Churchill was a good speech writer, of that there is little argument. He was even a very good leader, especially for the times. But I asked you where he said “Stay the Course” and you couldn’t provide one. Although a rousing speech you provided, doesn’t it kind of remind you a bit when Hitler swore no German soldier would ever surrender an inch of German soil?
Then you comment about some don’t play by the rules during war as a good thing. Gee, that is the whole argument Bush uses to deny Gitmo detainees Prisoner of War status; they aren’t real soldiers because they don’t play by the rules.
My argument is playing by the rules in diplomacy is a requirement to AVOID war. Hitler didn’t follow his agreed upon peace treaty. Of course, if he had then we might never have had WWII and would never be having this discussion.
19. You’re right. I didn’t provide one reference for “stay the course.” I provided two in #13. The first where he is literally quoted saying the exact phrase “stay the course” and referring to staying the course in war time. This fulfills your request: “I would dearly love to once read where Churchill said to “stay the course”.”
The second is to a link that is headlined “Winston Churchill on determination and staying the course” Take your pick.
If the British had surrendered their own soil, then it would have reminded me of Hitler’s speech.
How does my “Seems in every war, there’s always someone who “doesn’t play by the rules” and thus makes it all the more unexpectedly difficult.” translate to you as “a good thing?” Or am I missing something?
I think we are arguing to cross-purposes. The original point was in rebuttal to Eideard’s remarkable idea that because he can point to one fellow (McNamara) who repudiated what he originally stood for; that this should automatically mean the same for Rumsfeld. Is this principle true for any historical figure we can point to? That’s all.
So what has Hitler taught you about the value of apparent rule-playing in diplomacy as a preventative to war?
RBG