When Donald Rumsfeld was nominated as Defense Secretary way back when the world was young, the daffodils were blooming, there were still two tall Trade Center towers standing in New York, and we could delude ourselves into thinking that America was invulnerable, the conventional wisdom about the President’s national security choices was that they were a “dream team,” the brightest, the most competent administrators available. Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, and Cheney – they would be able to guide and teach the inexperienced former Governor of Texas about the ways of the world and reshape American military and foreign policy for the new century.
It’s hard for many of us to recall those days before our silly pretensions about the world were blasted away in the fire, and smoke, and rubble of 9/11. It’s equally difficult for most to recall the immediate aftermath of that horrible day, when American arms performed extraordinary feats of martial skill in vanquishing first the Taliban and then Saddam Hussein. The world looked on in awe – and some in fear – as America accomplished in a few short months what the old Soviet Red Army failed to do in a decade – win a war in Afghanistan.
Equally breathtaking was our triumph in Iraq as American forces raced to Baghdad, brushing aside Saddam’s once powerful army as if it weren’t even there. The architect of those two victories – Donald Rumsfeld – was feted and lionized by most as being the right man in the right place at that time in history. The Defense Secretary enjoyed the confidence of the overwhelming majority of the American people, with a 70% approval rating for his performance in June of 2002 following the Afghanistan campaign and a 71% positive rating in April of 2003 following the fall of Baghdad.
But then came Abu Ghraib. And the insurgency. And mounting American casualties. And finally a sense that Rumsfeld had lost touch with what was really happening on the ground in Iraq. His cheery pronouncements about “progress” were belied by the intractability of the insurgency and questions about who exactly we were fighting. By the time it became clear to the Defense Department that we were in fact fighting almost exclusively a domestic insurgency with deep tribal and sectarian roots in communities that offered them aid and shelter, more than 1000 Americans had been killed and nearly 10,000 wounded.
Then, with no fanfare and no public announcement, the Pentagon switched gears and began to do the things necessary to tamp down what by September of 2004 had become a full blown domestic insurrection against the occupation, not simply foreign terrorists seeking to thwart American designs for Iraqi democracy and Sunni bitter enders. The army began to improve its ground tactics to seek out and destroy the insurgents while continuing to look for ways to safeguard vehicles against the dreaded IED’s.
But for Rumsfeld, whose outlook on the war always seemed to see an overflowing glass rather one that was less than half empty, the disconnect continued. Abu Ghraib and reports of other prisoner abuse showed an executive whose approval of questionable interrogation techniques led to abuses far beyond what any American army had ever done. For this alone, he should have been sacked long ago.
But Bush has hung on to his Defense Secretary almost willfully, a stubbornness that reveals a character flaw that has gotten him into trouble time and time again both in domestic politics and in the prosecution of the war. While not in total agreement with this analysis by a commenter at Belgravia Dispatch, it points out a glaring weakness in the President’s national security planning that must be addressed:
First of all Bush has delegated virtually all war planning and management of the military to Rumsfeld; his own relationships with uniformed military officers or other Pentagon officials appear to be neither numerous nor deep compared to those of other wartime Presidents. Secondly he relies to an unusual—really, an unprecedented—degree on his Vice President to advise him on the political and diplomatic strategy behind the war. Vice President Cheney, a former Rumsfeld subordinate, has been the Defense Secretary’s strongest backer.The unusual position this has allowed Rumsfeld to assume helps to explain key American policy moves throughout the Iraq war, and in other fields as well. The point I want to make here is that his departure now would not be like any other Cabinet Secretary’s departure—it would leave a huge hole in the middle of Bush’s administration, a vacuum that could only be filled by someone Bush trusted enough to delegate approximately as much authority as that he has given to Rumsfeld. Apart from Cheney himself, there is no such person.
Bush came into office promising a repeat of Ronald Reagan’s so called “CEO Management” style where wide latitude was given cabinet secretaries to carry out policies set by the executive. This worked reasonably well for Reagan in his first term, less so in the second. But the key was that Reagan seemed to have an intuitive sense when to reign in his people, moderating some of their policies to reflect a basic conservative worldview. For instance, while giving defense secretary Cap Weinberger a virtual blank check to re-build the American military, Reagan nevertheless continually asked Weinberger to take a red pen to the defense budget and come up with savings. Reagan was engaged in matters of the budget but left the Big Picture of how to improve our military to the defense secretary.
But Reagan did not have to deal with an ongoing conflict in his time as President, only the long shadow struggle with Soviet Communism. President Bush is not vouchsafed such a luxury. For a President to be so disengaged when it comes to war planning, (a criticism offered by both current and former Administration officials), is to invite disaster. With no one looking over his shoulder, Rumsfeld has erred stupendously in planning for the occupation, in underestimating the insurgency, in stewardship of the billions in reconstruction funds initially given to the Coalition Provisional Authority, and in not realizing that by authorizing interrogation techniques that sidled up to the line of outright torture, it was inevitable that line would be crossed in a horrific series of disclosures that has stained the honor of America and her military.
It may leave a huge hole in his Administration if the President asks Rumsfeld to resign. And it won’t win the Iraq War. But if Rumsfeld stays, there’s a very good chance we will fail. And the President’s obstinacy in keeping the Secretary long past the time it became obvious that he was damaged goods speaks to a flaw in the President’s character that may yet bring him down.
UPDATE
There are, of course, many who don’t quite see it my way. Here’s Richard Fernandez on the recent spate of calls for Rumsfeld’s resignation from retired generals.
UPDATE
One condenscending lefty emailer congratulates me on “following the lead of the generals” in calling for Rummy’s resignation. Readers will note in my main post, I never mentioned those generals who have come out recently calling for Rumsfeld to resign. I didn’t need to. I have written several posts in the last year calling for Rummy’s ouster.
I don’t put much stock in what retired generals say anyway. From my point of view, they are complicit in Rumsfeld’s failures for not doing the honorable thing and resigning if they disagreed so strongly with policy.
6:31 pm
Everyone with a blog is a master at military tactics and a forign policy expert. Bull, most know absutely nothing about the military and especially battle field plans.
There is peobably no one in the U.S. that can do a better job than Rumfeld, just a bunch of whacko’s that think they can when all they would do is get thousands killed instead of a few hundred. Casulaties are still about 1/10 of 1 percent of what the left wing liberals predicted would occur before the troops got to Bagdad. In fact in 2004 (last year all statics are available) there were more members of the military killed out of the two war zones than in both war zones combined. And of this was accomplished in spite of the entire democratic party providing full support to the terrorists. Disregard every thing the retired Generals have to say, they have an axe to grind or their ego is wounded like the rest of the left wingers. One of them was actually demoted and forced to retire. If the others are so smart, why are they retired instead of still serving the country? Mr Rumfeld can accomplish that, recall each and every one of them to active duty, assign them to the worst area’s of Iraq. If they fail in any area of responsibility, demote them and retire them at the E-4 rank. Maybe E-5 is required, don’t remember for sure, but their retirement pay will be cut by about 500%.
9:10 pm
[...] Update: Of course, there are differences of opinions. Right Wing Nuthouse says: It may leave a huge hole in his Administration if the President asks Rumsfeld to resign. And it won’t win the Iraq War. But if Rumsfeld stays, there’s a very good chance we will fail. And the President’s obstinacy in keeping the Secretary long past the time it became obvious that he was damaged goods speaks to a flaw in the President’s character that may yet bring him down. [...]
9:43 pm
You sir, are one of the fools who would have fired Grant and hired McClellan. You, like unfortunately most, are uninformed captives of a belligerent, anti-American, transnational progressive, and Chamberlainesque press.
Zinni is anti-Semitic and he and the rest of these 6 clowns are Clintonista pacifists. Not a one of them made Flag rank before or after the anti-military Clinton Administration.
Please note that not a one of them publicly argued against gutting the Army of 4 Divisions in 1998 and in fact supported the reductions. If they had they wouldn’t have had a partisan flag to wave in this battle. They would have never had a flag.
These are the clowns that support the “blue helmet” military and not the US military. You sir, are a dupe.
RiverRat, RVN USN Riverine Forces, ‘68 and ‘69.
9:56 pm
Someone said “Generals always fight the last war.”
Stimson and Groves fought a new war. Korea and Vietnam were fought as old wars. Afghanistan and Iraq are attempts at a newer war.
11:06 pm
Interesting post Rick. As always you make me think about the issues. I am of two minds on Rumsfeld. I think he did brilliant jobs in defeating Afghanistan and Iraq. But I think he made an error in not putting, and keeping, enough divisions in Iraq.
We need to finish a win in Iraq and leave a stable ally there. I don’t see the White House or Rumsfeld with any new ideas on how to do that before the backstabbing MSM and Democrats wear down support for the War on Terror to the point where a forced withdrawal in inevitable.
I cannot see how the situation is going to improve. The White House in distracted and focused on amnesty and citizenship for illegal aliens and the Pentagon is quiet. Neither are effectively defending the War on Terror. Is Rumsfeld leaving the answer? I don’t know, but I suspect leadership and political strength should come from the White House first.
11:34 pm
I am always dubious when retired Generals come out of the woodwork to criticize Rumsfeld. He was picked, first and foremost, to transform the military into a 21st century force. In his ongoing attempt at doing that, he has stepped on a lot of toes and made a lot of Generals angry. For all of Rumsfeld’s faults, I do support most of his military reforms, despite the nay saying Generals and especially the entrenched DoD civilians (who are about impossible to fire or forcibly retire). I give him credit for speaking his mind as well.
Rumsfeld and the military performed, and continue to perform, brilliantly in Afghanistan, but his leadership for the Iraqi war was fatally flawed. It’s still amazing to me the huge contrasts between OEF and OIF in the post occupation phase of conflict.
Overall, I think it’s best for him to leave, but at this point I don’t see what new leadership could do since I feel that Iraq’s destiny is largely out of our hands.
4:46 am
Absolutely. The best summary I’ve seen as to why Rummy should be history. I also think your assessment of Bush’s disengagement from the war, and pathetic overdelegation of its conduct to Cheney and Rumsfeld, underscores the central flaw of this President. He’s a chief executive who doesn’t have the stuff to do it himself, and most frighteningly of all, he doesn’t see the big picture himself.
What is the salient characteristic of the Bush Administration after initiation of the Iraq invasion? It reacts to events rather that seeking to shape them.
8:26 am
Go to American Thinker for some contra views to Rick Moran’s. Another old military saying is amatuers at war think of tactics and maneuevers while professional think in logistics. After a couple of years+, the DoD has finally found what seems to be a solution: take an area and have trained Iraqi military units hold it. It’s not a new method and has been highly effective in the past. I’ve not heard or read anything that will be better or have success in combating a guerilla war. Unless you do have the key to Iraqi in your pocket, changing now (imho) is just not only a huge mistake but an out right declaration of surrender in Iraq and, by extension, the war itself. Another old saying is the barbarians always win. Now we understand why.
5:28 pm
Rick said:
The insurgency started with the war. The Feyadeen units operated in organized guerilla fashion. As the we dig further into the Iraqi document dump, we will see the parallel insugency campaign had the benefit of foreign expertise and leadership with wondrous amounts of munitions and cash. Add to this mix the release of Iraqi’s entire prison population and the reinvigoration of the Iraqi tribal and criminal gangs and Shiite militias in affiliation with Iranian agents and provocateurs. On top of that, we inherited all the sectarian problems that Saddam kept his heavy boot on.
Against all this and the President daring Al Qaeda to come to Iraq and fight it out with our Marines and Soldiers. They did, too. Any progress against any or all of these severe problems? Yes or no.
and
I find it odd that you use Abu Ghraib, twice, to muddy Rumsfeld. The Courts Martials were not enough for you? The demotion and cashiering of Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski and the career dead end for Lt. Gen. Sanchez brought a higher star count than My Lai. Everyone responsible and/or tainted got it in the neck, Rumsfeld was never, ever even tainted. That’s Sully’s territory. BTW, you can stop rooting for Jack, now.
I’m not sorry to say after 9-11, I want Rumsfeld watching my back. He fights and more importantly, he cares for his troops. With Generals Abizaid, Casey and Petraeus (in probably his fourth deployment) running things in theater and Generals Pace, Schoonmaker and Boykin in the 5 ring, I think we could be considered fortunate to have them with many, many others unmentioned and the man who put them there, Rumsfeld.