VDH said:

"But it is not just Leftists who are getting what they wished for, but a lot of the neoconservatives as well. It may be that true, as one pundit wrote, that Mark Steyn and myself are about the only two left that both support the war—despite the mistakes—and Rumsfeld in general. But after reading for three years from almost every neoconservative pundit that Rumsfeld should go, they now will get their wish. The only problem is that Gates is more a Baker-realist than a neo-Wilsonian. I suggest they go back and read The Generals’ War or Crusade and review the discussions about not going to Baghdad. That decision, whether right or wrong, was based entirely on realpolitik, not thousands of Iraqis who rose up on our call to overthrow Saddam. Now it might have been defensible not to go to Baghdad in 1991(I would disagree: it was a terrible mistake), but was abjectly amoral to call for insurrection, and then when Kurds and Shiites took us at our word, to have abandoned them."

Yep, and the leftists are going to make the same mistake by abandoning Iraq to the burgeoning Iranian designs on the caliphate. Leaving Iraq now will completely shred American credibility in the region. As VDH suggests is won't be like Vietnam when communism is in decline but the obverse as Iranian caliphate expansionism will just want to expand its sphere of influence.

Are the Saudis, Jordanians, Egypt just going to sit back and watch it all go down?

Thanks for posting this Kate. Only the exceptionally intelligent and fair minded appreciate Rummy.

CBC's "The Hour" had a piece on Rumsfeld that reminded my more of the Daily Show than a news piece.

Ode to Rummy

I guess it's proof that the CBC likes to turn truth into fiction.

I always found that listening to the MSM, the Democrats, and lefties in general criticize Rumsfeld's job performance was like having my teeth drilled. How on earth can anyone criticize someone's job performance when they are not there to see what goes on day to day - when they are not privy to what insiders like he and those he works with know and are thinking?

Yes, the struggle in Iraq has carried on longer than most would like. Who wouldn't want it to be over as quick as possible? But, that wasn't the reality of the situation. People and public perception are such fickle things.

And the MSM (I'm sure much to the delight of the lefties) routinely focused on almost only body counts, internal Iraqi tensions between religious groups, and the amount of time it was taking to turn things fully over to the Iraqis. No mention of any of the good things being done and no mention of how there actually might be an intelligent strategy behind the way things were being carried out. Somehow, it was all about Halliburton - with no evidence to support the idea that the US was making a net gain for their efforts.

BTW: Did anyone catch the CBC's story last night where they tried to paint Rumsfeld as being bad for answering a reporter by saying that YES, in the end, he is responsible for setbacks and failures. They were actually using the fact that he thinks that way as something against him. Since Truman, have the Democrats ever had someone on their team who would stand up and accept responsibility like that? Someone who lived up to the idea that "the buck stops here?" Oh wait...Yes, Janet Reno after Waco...but she was the exception and not the rule.

Patience and a vision of the big picture is not something that appeals to those on the left. It's all about instant gratification, photo ops, and symbolism over substance.

Rumsfeld was probably indeed the best that they could have had as Defense Secretary. Getting rid of him was certainly entirely political. But I guess the alternative was to risk being steam-rolled in the next presidential election. Looks like the US is now under the committee-style leadership of the MSM. All hail CNN and company.

One by one, the grown ups are leaving the building. Will Condi be next?

Blaming Rumsfeld is a big cop out. He wasn't perfect but he's not the reason why Iraq is a mess. His biggest mistake was thinking that the war might have been a good idea in the first place. But the prosecution of that war ultimately wasn't his decision anyways.

21 days after the American led invasion of Iraq began the most prominent of the Saddam statues was torn down.

Day 22 was the turning point, that was the day the looting began. This sent out a signal to the entire world that Iraq was in a state of anarchy...wide open to anyone or group who cared to muscle in. Day 22 is Rummy's legacy and most certainly not all the sainthood heroics outlined by Hanson!

Terry,

"Only the exceptionally intelligent and fair minded appreciate Rummy."

You have summed up in one sentence everything that is wrong with conservatism. That is, unless you agree with me you're stupid and unfair.

Rather than learning from open and free dialogue you close the discussion off in a disgraceful manner. Classic leftist communist thinking at its best.

Blaming Rumsfeld is a big cop out. He wasn't perfect but he's not the reason why Iraq is a mess. His biggest mistake was thinking that the war might have been a good idea in the first place. But the prosecution of that war ultimately wasn't his decision anyways.

The Iraqis had a choice. They could've worked with the coalition to build a better Iraq. Had they done so the troops could have left long ago. Instead they chose to slaughter each other like primitive animals. The only mistake Rumsfeld made was to forget that he's dealing with a region full of savage retards.

It would have turned out differently if they had shot the looters?

This would have caused Ted Kennedy to announce. "We removed a dictator who killed his people so we could take over the job."

And of course leftists would have screamed, "What do you expect from people who place a higher value on property than life" .

What Rummy's critics don't undestand is that all America could ever do for Iraq is provide them with an opportunity to choose a civil society -and support them in that choice. After that it's up to the Iraqis. Are they up to the job? Maybe, but clearly not fast enough to please the impatient.

The situaton in Iraq is tough but it's far too early to give up. We will reap the whirlwind if we do. I'll believe it's hopeless when I hear it from the troops in the field.

That's a great article by one of the most intelligent and knowledgeable analysts - Victor Davis Hanson.

Rumfield is, and remains, right - a modern war against terrorism, rather than a nation, must be run differently - and that was his agenda.
In my view, it was absolutely necessary to move into Iraq and remove the tribal dictatorship and enable the Iraqi people to develop, as they have, their constitution and their civic democracy. The left refuses to acknowledge what the Iraqi people have done - and how the US has enabled this change.

The problem is, that so many of the left view Iraq within the same perspective as they view a traditional war: Begins on Day one when you declare war and ends when the Other Nation surrenders. And that's the end.

This is completely invalid when what you are dealing with is the complete transformation of a socioeconomic and political structure from a tribal to a civic mode.

The left ignores that it took a FULL generation, to transform Europe, which was already a highly literate, democratic and civic structure, from the morass of WWII's fascism, into a modern democracy.
It took decades to do the same with Japan, which, although not democratic, was literate and made up of only one 'tribe' so to speak.

Iraq is made up of several conflicting tribes, it has no history of democracy, has no self-organized industrial market economy, extremely low literacy etc - and yet - these leftist pundits expect this monumental transformation to emerge with the ease and speed of turning on the car headlights. Incredible.

And they ignore that tribalism in the ME is the 'root cause' of Islamic fascism. Bush was right to focus that the corrective to Islamic fascism is to enable the development of a democraatic and humane (not Sharia law) set of states in the ME.

Hans - I don't think that Iran will move in; Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia - and Iraq - have no desire to be under the yoke of a Persian (non Arabic) imperialism. The result, I think, will be their own movement into democracy - away from Iranian imperialism.

The United States had a paticularly brutal civil war during their infancy as a nation. Does that make them a nation full of savage retards too?

"His biggest mistake was thinking that the war might have been a good idea in the first place"

The alternative was the end of sanctions and Saddam pursuing nuclear weapons.

Who in the US government decided to disband the Iraqi armed forces after the success of the invasion?

Who decided not to put more troops in despite the calls for more troops?

Those two questions underscore the two most critical mistakes made.

Ted
Cerberus

I remember a press conference where an irate reporter demanded to know "since when do American troops fire on retreating soldiers?!!" This guy was outraged, and poor Rummy had to explain the difference between retreating and surrendering. And that was pretty much his task during his tenure; explaining war's reality.
I'm not sure only the intelligent appreciated him, but I know the obtuse found themelves a handy scapegoat.

I hear that Momma Moonbat Cindy S. thinks Rummie is a sacraficial Lamb!

Ted

The argument that it was a mistake to disband the army is both factually wrong and clueless. The army melted away rather than fight and die.

Second, this was Saddam's army- dominated by Sunnis. Where on earth do you get the idea that it could be trusted to fight for a democracy where the Shiites are the majority?

The Iraqi army had to be built from the ground up and intilled with a sense of patriotism and professionalism. Unfortunately they haven't been able to complete that mission in the time alloted by liberals and libertarians of 3.5 years.

This is richly ironic because even after 3.5 years the critics of the war don't understand that if Saddam had not been deposed he would now be well on his way to having a nuclear weapon-not that he would ever use it.

My favourite Rummy answer was early on in the campaign against the Taliban, when some meber of the press corps stood, summoned all of his moral superiority and outrage and demanded to know if it was true, as had been reported, that cluster munitions were being used, and if so why. Rummy replied, "We're using cluster bombs on front line Taliban fighters because we're trying to kill them".

I think that in Iraq the most important strategic locations are not in Baghdad or the Sunni triangle. They are in Mosul. Some Sunnis and Shia are busy attacking each other (and as many Americans as they can too), but that will not deter Americas' more strategic objectives which IMHO lie in the north and in Mosul.

Also IMHO, people who assume the USA will be leaving Iraq sometime soon because the Dems have control of Congress are making a very big leap. Many left wingers who love to compare Iraq and VietNam should recall that it took several years for the Dems to pull the plug in VietNam.

I think a lot of the Dems and the MSM will now put their best efforts into tarring the Repubs by spending a lot of time looking under the rugs for dirt. And they will find some. That is okay too. The Federal Government is huge. It will keep the Dems and the MSM busy. And they also will all be very preoccupied with jockeying for position for an '08 run at the White House.

In the meantime the USA will still be in Iraq.

Thank you for your service Sec. Rumsfeld. It was a really tough six years during which you demonstrated both leadership and loyalty.

Over the years, I have often remembered that morning on 9/11, that Rumsfeld assisted in the mess at the Pentagon, and had begun to wonder whether I remembered right -- he's been so demonized. Thanks for confirming you heard it too. That incident increased my respect for him, although it had started developing when he confronted the established order with his plan for a quicker, sleeker military. I guess speaking truth to power is only appreciated when it's not actual truth or even actual power.

Rumsfeld will still be around for awhile, and he'll be less subject to Democrat subpoena abuse. He'll also be much more free to offer his wonderful bon mots. I can't wait.

Also, something to be considered about this last election is the probability that a significant portion of the voter's intent was a desire to draw away from the world, with its brickbats and responsibilities. I believe this is a multi-faceted phenomenon, as follows: #1 being those voters who view all foreign involvement to be imperialism and no national interest is legitimate, #2 being those who want tax money spent at home and mostly on them, and #3 being those that want the rest of the world to leave us alone and go on happily killing each other. Each of these groups has unwittingly allied itself with the others to direct this nation inwardly once again. America may be alone, but so is everyone else.

The Dems pulled the plug on VietNam?

Will Condi be next?

boy,do i hope so.

Will Condi be next?

boy,do i hope so.

The United States had a paticularly brutal civil war during their infancy as a nation. Does that make them a nation full of savage retards too?

Just to pick a nit, the U.S. was out of its infancy after four score and seven years, just as Canada was out of its infancy in 1954 after the same amount of time had elapsed.

I’m of the opinion that fighting a war over the question of slavery, and sacrificing 600k of your own citizens doing so, is on a higher moral plane than killing one another because one tribe thinks Mohammed’s son-in-law should have succeeded him (Shi’a) while the other thinks it should have been Abu Bakr (Sunni).

No amount of finger pointing, logical contortions or sugar coating change the facts: Rumsfeld is out because his Plan A for Iraq failed and he was too arrogant to come up with a Plan B.

Another thing that the Democrats have to be very worried about, is that essentially, this Nov 9th was Day One of the 2008 presidential election.
And - they've put themselves, not the Republicans, on 'the hot seat'.

It is they who are going to be judged for what happens over the next two years. The Republicans actually have garnered a breathing space.

If the US leaves Iraq - and it won't be that fast, but, if and when it does - and if then, Iran moves in, or Iraq implodes or... the blame will be squarely and only, on the Democrats.

They've given themselves two years to achieve the miraculous. If they achieve it - they deserve power. If they don't, they might, just might, finally realize that multiculturalism, moral relativism and utopianism, are disastrous.

History will record Mr Rumsfeld as a very effective Public Servant. That is, if history
is written by western civilization. Nothing says that the west will survive and prosper.
Given the lack of intellegence by the Kennedy's, Pelosi's and Laytons the future for western civilization looks marginal at best.
oh well!

Those that think letting the Iraq military and the top several levels of the bureaucracy go was a mistake are just plain wrong. You need to clear out several levels or you just end up with a mess.

Garner only wanted to clean out the top level. He was the guy Rummy picked to head up state rebuilding before Bremmer came along. Ever see an organization where the #2 & 3 guys weren't just as ambitious as the #1 guy.

Rumsfeld was trying to build a country from the bottom up. Building a whole state in a matter of three years is, I submit, impossible. It takes time.

They should have however shot the looters and of course got the lights on and the sewers working.

Maybe even paid the disbanded Iraqi army something since I figure thats where the insurgents come from.

Having said all that in todays media climate Rumsfeld was doomed.

Prediction time. If they pull out of Iraq we will be fighting this war in North America. If I was a talking head like Gearge Stombolopolollypop. I would be worried that my telivision career ends with out my head.

There's plenty enough blame to go around, and I think that Rumsfeld has gotten more than he deserves. I recall that Rumsfeld had wanted to put an Iraqi face on the invasion by employing a contingent of Iraqis to lead the assault on Baghdad and also to put Iraqis in charge of the new government immediately. Unfortunately, Colin Powell at the State Department won that battle, but Colin Powell resigned long enough ago that no one thinks to point any blame at him.

I like Hanson's point (and Rumsfeld's) that huge numbers of troops occupying every square inch of Iraq would have just engendered that much more resentment. Something to ponder while all too many people search for a deceptively simple answer and a convenient scapegoat for a very complex problem.

Mike S, yes they did.

Here is what Tony Blankley says about it.

-The November 1974 election brought forth the "Watergate babies"; Congress filled with young anti-war Democrats. One of the first actions of the Watergate Congress was to vote to deny an appropriation of $800 million to pay for South Vietnamese military aid, including ammunition and spare parts. Historical records now reveal that five weeks after that vote, the North Vietnamese started planning their final offensive.

The morale of the South Vietnamese was broken by that symbolic congressional act of betrayal. The actual dollar cuts forced South Vietnamese President Nguyen Van Thieu to abandon the Central Highland in March 1975, leading to the collapse of our ally and to the onset of genocide and police-state brutalities that killed more Asians than all the thousand days of the war did.-

The young Dems like John Kerry and Tom Hayden maintained that the South Vietnamese would be very happy and well treated by the Communists.

The true "Watergate babies" are today's generation of media intent not, on bringing information to the public, but in achieving their own Woodward style of celebrity.

That's why today's style of "investigative" reporting puts so much emphasis on the sensational and so little on context and accuracy.

Will Condi be next?
boy,do i hope so.

ME TOO. I have great admiration for the lady but she it completely and utterly out of her depth. The last straw for me was her recent statement that 70% of Palestinians wanted to live peacefully in a side-by-side state.

She needs to be fired. Maybe go back to the academy where she belongs and work on her piano too.

A bitter, bitter disappointment. Comparing the "Palestinian" "struggle" with the US civil rights movement??!! Man, she wasn't just smoking -- she was inhaling too!

I have not agreed with all of Rumsfeld's procurement and force structuring decisions but I'm also not privy to the future projections that he of course had. Looking back at what he did and did not accomplish I honestly see little that anyone could have improved on other than by blind luck. I would have been far more ruthless than he was concerning the Iranian border (I would have tried hard to make that a lethal zone) but he had to deal with the social imperatives that an armchair general doesn't bother with.

I do give him credit for apparently weeding out some of the remaining Clinton era military lap dogs from the Pentagon. To many of the senior staff were political, rather than military specialists (ask yourself why Franks very adamently turned down appointment to chairmanship, and I don't believe it was because of Rumsfeld. Also consider why Shelzneski, or however the hell you spell it, was pushed to obscurity). This is a long process. It took around 6 years to get rid of the Mr. Peanut lap dogs.

I am not to hopefull of his replacement. I agree with much of what the President does yet he also pulls some boners at times. I will simply state that I never thought highly of Gates. I've also seen a couple of reference, from supposed subordinates, refering to a name given to Gates during his previouse tenures. I'm not inspired by someone whos subordinates name as "The Little Prick." Not just "the" or the "big" but as the "little." Seems to be a bit of bad forshadowing here.

http://buckdogpolitics.blogspot.com/2006/11/rumsfeld-and-saddam.html

leftdog:

Thanks for the link, the captions were priceless.

Rumsfeld is a quitter, plain and simple. To all those who have been lauding his work, remember that....he's a QUITTER! He quit on you, on half of the people of the United States and on the counry of Iraq.

Donald is most definitely underrated. He has accomplished so much! Examples:
1. Afghanistan is a peaceful, terrorist-free democracy, because he ensured the job there was complete before diverting troops to another war. ...And I'm sure Osama will be caught any day now.
2. The mission was accomplished in Iraq: they have a gov't that has complete control of the country and a constitution that is respected by all!
3. Firing those privates and corporals after the Abu Ghraib fiasco sent a powerful message to the Muslim world that the U.S. occupies the moral high-ground and will not tolerate torture and abuse of others. This has made it very difficult for Al Quaida to recruit new terrorists!

I think it is clear he has been a big success all around!

I didn't know Rumsfeld was in the Pentagon when the airliner hit.

Nevertheless, his view of a lightweight fighting force able to move quickly with high tech weapons at their disposal was faulty because he hadn't considered this: After we have won the battle, how are we going to win the war.

For sure, we took down the Iraqi army in short order. That mission was accomplished.

But, after we had shattered the iron-fisted system that kept the lid on internal pressures, all hell broke loose. And, we were not prepared to deal with it.

So, it was not a mistake for us to go into Iraq. But, it was a mistake to go in with Rumsfeld's army.

"poppies on the sidewalk row on row"

well none of mine.

I replace the straight pin provided with a suitably sized SAFETY PIN so that the only thing visible is a wee tiny bit of it on the black spot. the rest neatly tucked under the red plastic part.

I dont know why all the convoluted high tech 'solutions'.

"His biggest mistake was thinking that the war might have been a good idea in the first place"

The alternative was the end of sanctions and Saddam pursuing nuclear weapons."

uh, well Terry, n korea HAS a nuke now. what is being done about that ????

ah, no oil, no need to intervene in the interests of democracy or whatever.

As a historian, Hanson takes the long view and I think he's right. History will judge Rumsfeld well. The insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq are essentially gratuitous blood-letting that don't pose too great a strategic threat. The democratic cat is out of the bag and the jihadis have very little popular support. The wheel of change is moving in the Islamic world and Rumsfeld will be recognized for his part in it.

duh qwerty

One that works?

North Korea was in breach of upteen ceasefire resolutions? Do tell.

Do you have a clue how hard it would be to invade North Korea?

The neighbours, the equivalent of China, Japan, South Korea and Russia, were assisting in Iraq?

The Americans stole Iraq's oil? And the Iraqis did nothing? And the world didn't notice? Wow.

My qwerty. Such insight. Revelation upon revelation

By the way qwerty.

You have 3 jobs on your desk today. There's no way you can get all of them done, so you might as well take the day off.

I am much to old to worry much about it, but if the USA with a new batch of leftists pull another Viet Nam and pull out from the top of airport towers, we are all going to look back at Pearl Harbor and wondering what was the use?

ronrob

You are not too old.
Worry is useless.
The 'left' will not ruin the U.S.; even the 'left' aren't that stupid.

Pearl Harbor happened...9/11 mattered.

Freedom will always prevail.

Generalissimo Cerberus.
Field Marshall iberia.
Supreme Commander cherenkov.
Secretary of State jeff.
Ambassador leftdog.
Jimmy "eagel" Carter.
National Security Advisor David Brown.
qwerty... qwerty... Secretary of Education?
Seems about right, I guess. No considered
opinion on Rumsfeld, at least not one with
meat on it's bones.

Jeff in Pullman, WA, hope you Yanks continue to look out for us Canadians. Without your U.S. defense budget, our Canadian health care system would be TOAST, what with Canada actually having to defend ITSELF... which of course would take, what, tens of billions of dollars annually?

concrete, ET, JD, Terry Gain, and all the rest; no sense in trying to convince the gadflies. Let 'em all spin.

Rumsfeld was very competent, bold and decisive. I think history will eventually treat him in a kinder light than in the present. You can't forget that there was broad disagreement amongst his top generals. Maybe some of those should be taking early retirement.

I don't agree with David Brown very often (never up till now) but I must say that he has a point when it comes to Terry's comment about "the exceptionally intelligent and fair minded". If ever a self-serving comments has been made it was that one by Terry. Terry betrayed both his intelligence and fair mindedness by making it.

This from LGF poster: Exclusive: Charges Sought Against Rumsfeld Over Prison Abuse - time dot com

Rumsfeld, - National Defence, - Hezbollah.

Very exciting to debate directly with Hezbollah.

The *Man* is very intelligent.

Very interesting give and take.

How do you think I did?

I*m such a .. gratification seeker.

michaeltotten.com

= TG

Rummy is going to be testified against by Karpinski on the Abu Graib prison scandal.

I gather the comparison by Anth above to Rommel won't hold, as Rommel always treated his prisoners well.

adB

Were you trying to prove my point or just that your sense of humour is MIA at this difficult time?

More on Rummy. In the days ahead this fine man deserves the support of those who have supported this mission.

http://elephantsinacademia.blogspot.com/2006/11/i-come-to-praise-rumsfeld-not-to-bury_10.html

I have had to re-think my position on Rumsfeld or rather listen to what my analysis has been telling me.

Mistakes are made in any war the problem I keep ignoring and was to some degree confirmed by some troops I listened to on Charlie Rose.

With the kind of Military power the US has it was a given that Baghdad would fall in weeks. But this operation would need more than a hot knife through butter. They had to hold and stabilize the country.

Rumsfeld's plan failed to do that. For me the best indicator was the looting. Second for how long can you ignore Generals like Powell and Shinseki both of whom and others unequivocally stated there weren't enough troops in country.

Even President Bush acknowledges that Iraq has serious problems.

Rumsfeld was and is a control type guy, everything goes through him. In a institution the size of the US DOD that's a mistake. You have to delegate and lord knows there is no shortage of brilliant people hanging around the Pentagon. They need to be able to do their jobs.

Look, it is not easy to see what Rumsfeld could do. He was on the top of that particular heap, even then he is not the sole decision maker, he probably strongly suggests course of action though others must agree. That, being stated, he is responsible for the action to be taken. Of course he can resign as he did and be done with it. Others can take care of it.
Remember, it is not one man operation, there are myriad of variables that are taken in to account for an action. Some time it works, other time it does not.
So far as war, the current situation is not a war, it is action here and there. If Americans really wanted to win a war, there would be a continuous attack. They are able and would utterly destroy those they are against. As it is, they are under their own yoke of restraint. They want to be nice guys in a war situation, are you kidding me.
You have to decide irregardless of “feelings”, opinions, chatter and so on, if you are going to fight a war and win or leave it alone. Of course Americans are in this situation where they are damned if they do and they are damned……. So they should really look at the lesser of two evils of this dilemma make a serious decision and go for it.
Americans are good people and would like to help people of other nations, thinking that the others want help in the way the Americans are thinking. Other civilizations have different concept of things.
There are parallel civilizations in today’s world and each has ways to deal with situations that would not necessarily and immediately make sense to us, though in the long run their solutions may turn out to be right for their intentions.
Rumsfeld should have stayed on if he was wanted, if not, then it is as it is, to go on with speculations this way and that makes as much sense as worrying about last years snow.

And despite all these accomplishments, he's presided over one of the greatest botch jobs in foreign policy history. Just goes to show, a killer resume can still turn out a crap employee. History will record Rumsfeld as a supreme failure, and rightly so.