The script is getting a little bland. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s critics call for his head; President George W. Bush reaffirms his full faith in the whole man.
Rumsfeld looks secure; his enemies wait for another day… which arrives sooner than they expect.
Except this time, it’s Rummy’s generals who are after him – retired generals, I mean. The dainty half a dozen – Maj Gen Charles H Swannack Jr, Maj Gen John Riggs, Maj Gen John Batiste, Gen Anthony Zinni, Lt Gen Gregory Newbold and Maj Gen Paul Eaton -- present a lively portrait. For instance, not all say it was wrong for the United States to invade Iraq.
Their possible motives, too, are newsworthy. Gen. Zinni is in the middle of a tour promoting a new book critical of the Bush administration. Gen. Riggs left the Pentagon in 2004 after clashing with civilian leaders and then being investigated for potential misuse of contractor personnel.
Where the six are most united is in asserting that Rumsfeld and his aides too often inserted themselves unnecessarily into military decision-making, often disregarding advice from military commanders.
Like the rest of us, our men (and women) just out of uniform are entitled to the perspective of hindsight. Moreover, their loyalty to the institution they served with such distinction as to have risen to the top ranks – if that is what has even faintly impelled them to speak -- should be admired.
All the same, politics could hardly have been at the back of their minds. Amid the rising concern about the death toll in Iraq, there has been a precipitous fall in Bush’s popularity ratings.
Bush would be the last person to ditch Rumsfeld. It would be an admission of error. The president took the rather unusual step of defending Rumsfeld while he was away at Camp David.
"I have seen first-hand how Don relies upon our military commanders in the field and at the Pentagon to make decisions about how best to complete these missions," Bush said in a statement.
"Secretary Rumsfeld's energetic and steady leadership is exactly what is needed at this critical period. He has my full support and deepest appreciation."
In an interview with Al Arabiya television, Rumsfeld himself rejected the generals' criticism. "Out of thousands and thousands of admirals and generals, if every time two or three people disagreed we changed the secretary of defense of the United States it would be like a merry-go-round."
Rumsfeld, to be sure, has been a lightning rod for Bush critics. He was blamed for committing too few U.S. troops and for underestimating the strength of the insurgency. He took heat in 2004 over the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at the U.S. Army-run Abu Ghraib prison. And who can forget that brusque response he gave to an Army National Guard soldier in Kuwait who questioned him on inadequate armor.
Iraq might just have provided the excuse. Some of the tensions between Rumsfeld and the uniformed military services date back to his arrival at the Pentagon in early 2001. Rumsfeld's assertion of greater civilian control over the military and his calls for a slimmer, faster force were viewed with mistrust by many senior officers.
The Rumsfeld doctrine was dark enough on its merits. Its author’s aggressive and often abrasive style could only have earned him the eternal enmity of many.
We’re told there are several other former military leaders ready to attest to the worst in Rumsfeld. Would he hand in another resignation letter and persuaded the president to accept it? Who would be in the running to succeed him, considering how hot the Pentagon seat has become under him?
Rush Limbaugh had this brilliant idea. Dick Cheney should be sent back to his old office in the Pentagon to ponder the multilateralism of Bush 41. Condy Rice should be brought in as veep. Forget about who becomes Secretary of State and watch how Condy Rice’s gaze goes straight to New Hampshire and Iowa.
Maybe the Democrats might mount the best case for Rumsfeld to stay.
No comments:
Post a Comment