Here is the record of Donald Rumsfeld. (1) Tried to take a top-heavy Pentagon and prepare it for the wars of the postmodern world, in which on a minute’s notice thousands of American soldiers, with air and sea support, would have to be sent to some god-awful place to fight some savagery—and then be trashed live on CNN for doing it; (2) less than a month after 9/11 he organized the retaliation against al Qaeda in the heart of primordial Afghanistan that removed the Taliban in 7 weeks, when we were all warned that the U.S., like the British and Russians of old, would fail; (3) oversaw the removal of Saddam in 3 weeks—after the 1991 Gulf War and the 12-years of 350,000 sorties in the no-fly-zones, and various bombing strikes, had failed. (4) Ah, you say, then there is the disastrous 3-year insurgency—too few troops, Iraqi army let go, underestimated “dead-enders” etc.?
But Rumsfeld knew that in a counterinsurgency (cf. Vietnam 1965-71) massive deployments only ensure complacency, breed dependency, and create resentment, and that, in contrast, training indigenous forces, ensuring political autonomy, and providing air and commando support (e.g., Vietnam circa 1972-4) is the only answer—although that is a long process that can work only if political support at home allows the military to finish the job (cf. the turn-of-the-century Philippines, and the British in Malaysia). He was a good man, and we were lucky to have him in our hour of need.
There’s more.
One of the long forgotten facts about 9/11 is that Donald Rumsfeld was in his office when Flight 77 sliced into the Pentagon – and assisted in rescue efforts before going to the command center.
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.