- I am a Democrat.
- I did vote for John Kerry in 2004 although I was really pulling for John Edwards.
- I did support going to war in Iraq.
- In general I do respect the intelligence and bluntness of the Secretary of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld.
That being said the whirlwind surrounding Secretary Rumsfeld and his job performance due to the recent comments from over 5 retired generals is not without merit. I believe that Retired Army Major General Paul Eaton hit it right on the head when he commented on Secretary Rumsfeld as follows--
- "He has shown himself incompetent strategically , operationally and tactically, and is far more than anyone responsible for what happened to our important mission in Iraq."
General Eaton has some additional insights (Here) on this and has been a vocal critic for quite some time so these are not just recent statements. The three main problems with the Secretary in my opinion are as follows--
- He is unwilling to listen to those outside of his inner circle. This he showed prior to the invasion by ignoring Retired Army General Colin Powell's "Doctrine of Overwhelming Force" motto and instead chose to attack with a smaller tech-savvy battle group which created the large pockets across Iraq which allowed the resistance (Iraq and non-Iraq) to take root. He ignored Retired Marine General Anthony Zinni's thoughts that the Iraqi army would not be the problem but the fallout from their quick demise would be which proved to be true as well. It is not too hard to come up with about 20 instances along these lines and although it is always easier to be a Monday morning quarterback please keep in mind that these are "Quarterbacks" with decades of experience and these are not flippant suggestions that they passed on prior to sending Men and Women to the front lines.
- He is unwilling to be critical of his own work. The Secretary is a committed and highly patriotic man and he should be commended for that but when you are not able to look at your own performance and find faults their is a problem. He interprets the slightest form of criticism as unpatriotic and politically motivated and although that can be the case it is not so 99% of the time. Most great military leaders have been able to balance their own vision and ego (Which is important to have and which Rumsfeld has) with consenting and dissenting opinions.
- He is also unwilling to look at the historical military lessons which are relevant (and abundant) to the current war. I do not believe you need to have military experience (Which Rumsfeld has a tiny bit off--DOD Website) to be a successful leader but you do need to be an open historian as very few circumstances in warfare are truly new as most situations repeat themselves time and time again. From WWI to Vietnam to Gulf War I this country has had poor and great military leaders (military and civilian) and valuable lessons are found in what they did and why.
On that note I am sure that most people have seen it but if not take a look at The Fog of War - Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara as this is a pretty compelling case. If you are unsure as to how big of an impact a few poor decisions and decision makers can make along the way towards winning a war then I believe the this lesson and its magnitude will not be lost on you. Further to this I am little haunted by what Mr. McNamara wrote in his book, In Retrospect : The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam --
- "We of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations who participated in the decisions on Vietnam acted according to what we thought were the principles and traditions of this nation. We made our decisions in light of those values. Yet we were wrong, terribly wrong. We owe it to future generations to explain why. I truly believe that we made an error not of values and intentions, but of judgment and capabilities."
I do not think truer words exist today which apply so appropriately to Secretary Rumsfeld. The acceptance of his resignation is a must if we are to move forward.
4 comments:
Sharon had a stroke.
Thanks I guess.
When/if Rummy resigns, who takes his place? Will "W" (i.e., Cheney/Rove) allow a change in direction regarding Iraq? Obviously, changing the names & faces without changing the true direction is meaningless.
I do like the parallels you draw between Rummy and McNamara. Can you imagine two more intelligent men presiding over two more flawed military misadventures? I mean, these guys are/were razor-fucking-sharp. Yet, they totally botched it in their most important roles.
I think Rummy is too close to Bush and Cheney to be an effective SoD. I am not saying that the next one will be any better or will even change the direction but hopefully they will just have the ability to step back and critically look at the situation and I do not think that Rummy can do that anymore.
I am also not so sure that Rummy is as sharp as McNamara. Again, I think he is close but McNamara is almost in his own league and he also has had time to reflect on these issues where Don has not yet shown the ability (He has not had the time either) to do this. I also think that Rummy has had a tougher road from a media perspectve (24 hour "Fair & Balanced" style coverage being the only good propaganda channel for him) but I think McNamara had a tougher road on the military side based on what he was forced to do.
Post a Comment