The question uppermost in my mind is…
WHY IN GOD’S NAME DIDN’T YOU DO IT BEFORE THE ELECTION!
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stepped down as defense secretary on Wednesday, one day after midterm elections in which opposition to the war in Iraq contributed to heavy Republican losses.President Bush said he would nominate Robert Gates, a former CIA director, to replace Rumsfeld at the Pentagon. The three were expected to appear in the Oval Office at 3:30 p.m. ET, according to NBC News.
Asked whether his announcement signaled a new direction in the war that has claimed the lives of more than 2,800 U.S. troops, Bush said, “Well, there’s certainly going to be new leadership at the Pentagon.â€
Bush lavished praise on Rumsfeld, who has spent six stormy years at his post. The president disclosed he met with Gates last Sunday, two days before the elections in which Democrats swept control of the House and possibly the Senate.
Was it out and out hubris that kept the President from firing Rumsfeld before the election? Wouldn’t firing him have signaled a “change in course” and knocked the chocks from underneath the Democratic critique of “stay the course?” Did the President’s stubbornness and overweening pride prevent him from appearing to give in to his political opponents before an election?
I may be very tired and not reading this correctly but what this says to me is that Bush cared more about his personal standing than he did the party. The fact that he said a week ago that Rumsfeld would be his Secretary of Defense till the end of his term probably played a role in waiting until after the election. But firing Rumsfeld now rather than last week (or last month for that matter) just doesn’t make any sense to me.
No doubt Rumsfeld was popular among many conservatives for his disdain of the media and his leadership during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But when it came to winning the peace, especially in Iraq, there is little doubt that his policies were a disaster. One need only look at Iraq today to confirm that analysis. If he was doing such a bang up job (as many of my readers will let me know in the comments), why isn’t Iraq farther along the road to taking care of itself? Why is much of the country in absolute chaos? Why is the Iraqi army a joke with only 10 battle ready battalions according to his own Pentagon?
One could go on and on asking questions about the disastrous decisions Rumsfeld has made in the three plus years of this war. But it was his relentless, upbeat, assessments of “progress” in Iraq that called into question the man’s ultimate fitness for the office. Admitting no mistakes. Allowing for no bad news. The constant “glass is half full” press briefings got so wearing that I simply stopped watching and listening when he came on.
I am not calling into question his integrity. I am criticizing his competence. And given the situation in Iraq and the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, his failures are there for the whole world to see.
Gates, a CIA vet and card carrying member of the military industrial complex (a joke my friends. He’s a Washington defense/foreign policy insider) is a fair choice but I would have preferred a Sam Nunn or some other old, wise man who could have ridden herd on both the Generals and the bureaucracy by virtue of their reputation. And naming a Democrat would not have been a bad move by the President following the election results yesterday.
We’ll see. In the meantime, Iraq continues to bleed. Our soldiers continue to die. And whatever would constitute a “victory” in Iraq seems to be slipping away.
3:49 pm
I think the mess in Iraq has less to do with Rummy than it does our pushing a parliamentary democracy on them rather than a federalist republic, given the divisions that exist there. A Euro-style coalition democracy is doomed to failure in Iraq.
And I don’t know that Rummy is solely or primarily responsible for the “winning hearts and minds” PC nonsense that’s kept us from defeating the terrorists. Arabs don’t respect sensitivity. The “kinder, gentler” military policies are as much to blame as anything else.
3:50 pm
Rick
Your analysis is spot on. I had much the same thoghts as you did. Actually Rumsfeld should have been sacked about two years ago. The terrorists we fight in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere pose an existential threat to the United States.
I have thought for quite some time that Bush was more worried about his personal standing than he is in winning the GWOT. If he is not the worst president in the history of the Repbublic, I can’t think of anyone whose performance has been worse than Bush’s. This man is completely out of touch and lacks a fundamental understanding of the stakes in the GWOT.
In any event, if I understand correctly appointees, such as Robert Gates, will have to be confirmed by the elected Representatives. I hope they hold the president accountable so that we can finally have competent leadership.
3:59 pm
Rummy was the right man in the beginning.
He should have resigned in 2000 because new vision was and is needed to win the war in Iraq. I suspect Bush kept Rummy until after the election to see how many Republicans diminished in office. There is no way Rummy could operate as Secretary of Defense with a Democratic Party Congress.
4:01 pm
More important question: what the heck was up with Bush saying that he’d keep Rummy on, and now saying that at the time he said that, he was arranging to have him replaced (and then becoming unhinged when a reporter suggested that this might sort of a contradiction, Bush grumbling that because he somehow hadn’t had a “final” conversation with Rummy or Gates, that this somehow made his claim to be keeping Rumsfeld on not be an outright lie)
4:15 pm
Rightwingprof
You may be on to something. Since Hussein was removed, so many mistakes have been made that it is hard to keep track of them all. Mistakes are understandable and forgiveable. What is not understandable is the failure to acknowledge mistakes and to change strategies.
Plunge
Bush told an outright lie.
4:22 pm
Rightwingprof
You mention trying to win hearts and minds with a kinder gentler approach. You are quite right that this PC nonsense will not work with fighting a war. Until the PC nonsense is jettisoned it really won’t matter how many troops we commit to Iraq or how large the military is. Political correctness and war fighting don’t mix. I don’t think we will be able to win the GWOT until we jettison the PC nonsense.
4:24 pm
[...] “WHY IN GOD’S NAME DIDN’T YOU DO IT BEFORE THE ELECTION!” [...]
4:27 pm
[...] UPDATE IV: Rick Moran gives the Rummy Obituary, and asks the question: “The question uppermost in my mind is… [...]
4:50 pm
Bush just set the trap on the most effective weapon against success in Iraq, lack of Democrat leadership and public support! Bush tapped Gates to thwart Democrats ability to hide behind the Iraq Commission’s upcoming report. Since Gates was an author, Democrats will be forced to support our Mission rather than sour the publics patience. Brilliant move. Now that Democrats won Institutional positions, it will place an even greater burden on them to support US foreign policy. The only reason Maliki hasn’t disbanded the militias is his worry we will leave, bipartisan support of Gates, the new direction, what ever we wish to call it, will send a strong signal that we will finish the job. The fact Bush didn’t signal an “October Surprise” revelation about Rumsfeld is his true character. Had such a move improved Republican fortunes, Democrats would be even more intransigent, we need their support to win this, period.
4:56 pm
You’re all nuts. Rumsfeld did the job Bush asked him to do, and did it well. The fact that you don’t understand what the job was doesn’t reflect on Rumsfeld.
He is your human superior; show a little respect. Some things are more important than elections to Bush, as they should be.
4:59 pm
Rumsfeld was responsible not only for managing the war in Iraq, but also for transformation of the military from a Cold War oriented outfit to something more nimble. The argument for the latter role is with long term interests in mind. That needs to be assessed as well in thinking about his term as SecDef—whether that transformation was necessary, how important Rumsfeld was to it, and how successful he was.
As for Iraq, it’s nice to think that if we just had the right people in place, that everything would be better. Given the smaller military we had to work with after the Clinton years (why we haven’t ramped that up outside of the recruiting difficulties in the 2004-5 seems a good question) and shell of a civil society in Iraq and its ethnic tensions, it was going to be hard whoever was SecDef. The Kurdish North has internal reasons for its stability and not simply the brilliant U.S. policy that enabled it.
Announcing the imminent retirement of Rumsfeld would have helped the GOP perceptually. However, I am skeptical about how much his replacement would have changed things on the ground in Iraq. I also think neither the flaws of the GOP Congress nor the inability of Bush to persuade anybody but his supporters to support the war would be offset politically just by getting rid of Rummie.
5:09 pm
Excerpted and linked. I understand the President has also just announced that he’s renaming the Department of Defense, which will heretofore be known as the Department of Appeasement, and is replacing the Joint Chiefs with borrowed French officers.
5:25 pm
I’m with you Jerry. I’m sick of the whining about why a third-world kleptocracy with significant tribal tensions, a defunct infrastructure, almost no experience with self-rule, and precious little identification with the national polity isn’t like Arkansas by now.
I guess America can’t do anything that’s difficult, or bloody, or imperfect, or that might take more than a few weeks. Turn out the lights, the party’s over.
That’s hyperbole, of course. Donald Rumsfeld was hired to one job, which turned into another, with the first one still undone. He offered to resign more than once, but the President had confidence in him. He still had confidence in him with a marginally Republican Congress, but with a Democratic Congress, he becomes a lightning rod. The President showed loyalty to Rumsfeld until it became apparent that he would be unable to his job effectively. Now he can spend all the time he wants testifying before this committee or that hearing, while someone else runs DOD.
5:41 pm
Trying to establish democracy in third world countries, especially Muslim countries, was the mistake. I had no problem with disarming Afghanistan and Iraq. But I always had a problem with the concept of introducing democracy there as some sort of cure-all for these dysfunctional societies. We cannot do this. Wilsonian idealism should be dead and buried by now, but I fear more mischief by our silly political elite before long. So don’t blame just Rumsfeld for trying to “dream the impossible dream”. Blame everyone in the administration including Bush who thought this insance plan would work in the first place. We should have blasted Iraq to smithereens, shot Saddam, put a friendly dictator in his place, then kept a few divisions of Marines offshore as a reminder that we would be back PDQ if any threats to our interests revived. But that was the road not taken.
5:53 pm
RUMSFELD RESIGNS
[Latest Items on Top] Who is Rummy’s replacement? “Regarding Mr. Gates, he is a good man but the wrong one for the job. He spent most of his professional life at the CIA before retiring and becoming the President of…
5:58 pm
Bob Gates is the subject of this month’s cover story in Texas Monthly, a story that focuses on his goals for Texas A&M University. The story reveals how Gates was on the verge of accepting the position of Director of National Intelligence when it was created, but decided not to because of how much he had grown to love Texas A&M and how much he felt he could accomplish there. If true, that anecdote begs the question, “Why would Gates relinquish a position he loves and accept an appointment as SecDef that most assuredly will not last more than two years?” Couple that with the fact that, absent significant progress, Iraq will be an albatross around the GOP’s neck in 2008, and I think it’s possible we might see a significant increase in the tempo of our efforts against the insurgency. Gates told the A&M regents when he interviewed for the job that he is an agent of change. Maybe that’s why Bush tapped him.
6:44 pm
Bush Turned Rummy Upside Down and Put …
As an aside to the political fruhaha going on, two events down the stretch continue to amaze me, not that either turned an election. I had the same jaw drop of a What are they thinking reaction to two very
7:42 pm
prediction:
Cheney out. All hail VP Lieberman!
8:21 pm
Rumsfeld Resigns, Robert Gates Nominated
Donald Rumsfeld is stepping down as Secretary of Defense, and Robert Gates will be nominated to succeed him:Robert Michael Gates (born September 25, 1943) is an American intelligence official, currently nominated by President George W. Bush for the pos…
10:23 pm
I can’t think of anyone whose performance has been worse than Bush’s. This man is completely out of touch and lacks a fundamental understanding of the stakes in the GWOT.
Carter. Not supporting the Shah kicked this whole aslamonut thing into high gear and gave them mouthpiece as the head of a nation.
10:27 pm
Donald Rumsfeld Resigning as Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld Resigning as Defense Secretary
...
11:09 pm
Rick,
I’m enjoying your post-election analysis and comments; as usual, you always provide plenty of food for thought;
I’ve also been reading the posts – and the comments – at Hot Air and LGF, and it’s beginning to become clear to me why the GOP got it’s ass kicked in this election. (It’s also becoming clear to me why you said:
“Commenters on any site – right or left – are meaningless. That’s why I quoted from bloggers only.†That may sound a little pompous, but alas, I’m afraid that it’s true.
I keep looking for some confirmation of your comments that there must be “some hard and brutal introspection by GOP leaders and an acknowledgement of their total and complete failureâ€, but I’m finding little or none. All I’m seeing is a lot of whining and an incredible amount of comments mourning Rumsfeld’s resignation, praising his service and the great job that he did. Unfortunately, there are a lot of Republicans in denial out there. Maybe someone can explain to me how Rumsfeld, nasty, pompous and condescending to everyone including his own military, party and supporters – not to mention totally inept – as evidenced by the ZERO PROGRESS that has been made in Iraq – can be looked upon as someone who has served his country well. Many respected conservative bloggers – such as yourself – as well as many respected conservatives and neocons have been calling for Rumfield to step down for months; and what about all of the now retired Generals who have been calling for his resignation??? are they all now on the payroll of the Democratic party????????
As for Bush – “the decider†–he deserves most of the blame for the election results. After looking for a couple of weeks as if he were actually moderating his tone, he completely changes course and sticks the final fork in any Republican election hopes by declaring that Rumsfeld will be in for the duration of his term; then today – he sticks a fork in Rumsfeld and we find out that he had already planned to replace him regardless of the election results??????? As a result, a lot of good and well respected Republicans were thrown out with the bathwater last night…Sorry to say it, but Bush is starting to get that same smell which will put him in the company of Bill “I never had sex with that woman†Clinton and Pete †“I never bet on baseball†Rose. I think that you may be cutting Bush too much slack when you say…….â€We can’t just abandon Bush – not when the Democrats are sharpening their knives to come after him, the Presidency, the war, tax cuts, and the entire conservative agenda.†You’re right – the Democrats will come after him, but I don’t think it will be primarily for the reasons you site above. They will probably focus on ineptitude, corruption, and a general failure to listen to anyone – particularly the American people – who – as this election and the voter breakdown has shown – are not fools. And if his idea of bipartisan cooperation with the Democrats means accepting an Immigration bill which will open the borders and put our country at risk, we might not be protesting those impeachment
12:25 am
[...] Rightwing Nuthouse [...]
3:02 am
We can’t know for sure whether Rumsfeld’s resignation was driven by panic, political deafness or any other speculated reason including escape from Congressional Inquisition or some other form of p[ro][er]secution. Is it going to a James Baker inspired cut and run? I truly hope not for the least reason but the most impalpable one in my mind of that George is running back to Daddy. We’ll know soon enough. But I take umbrage in the attacks on Rumsfeld in both Rick’s post and in the comments. This is so for the simple reason that despite every warning that the dialog the Left wants, Vietnam, is the very one they’re getting. I know there are very happy cockles right now from the semi-intelligent Islamofacist straight up to the leaders and strategic thinkers of Dar al Islam. Rumsfeld’s resignation is their cherry on top. They have constantly predicted America would fold and had every guaranty from the MSM and the entire western Left that they would do their part, and then some.
I think the most startling realities are those we are avoiding. Let’s face it, we are not the military superpower we think we are. Our all-volunteer military was wrongly configured and it is puny. Forty years ago we had 350K troops in Vietnam going full bore for the half million mark with heavy military commitments to NATO and the rest of ASEAN. At 150K deployed in two theaters, we have bare cupboards. The President has done squat to get what Rumsfeld needs to end this war in bloody resoluteness, as both Rick and Ralph Peters have sought. The President will not even attempt to interdict, punish and destroy the two sh*thole countries keeping the insurgency alive, forty years ago it was the entire commie world—oh, how the mighty have fallen.
Who could leverage the British to actually do something like fight the Iranian-led Shi’ite militias in southern Iraq? President Bush couldn’t because he needed the political cover of Blair and British participation. It was only quiet for the limeys because they didn’t fight. The British “softly, softly†approach has cost America dearly and that too lies at the President’s feet. All these are political decisions, made by the President and abetted by two really bad choices for Secys of State, Powell and Rice (who were/are 41’s before they’re 43’s). Oh, and Bremer was their’s too.
The question everyone should be asking but isn’t, because everyone is focused on their own opinions, is what do the fighting men and women think about Rumsfeld’s resignation and what adverse reactions could occur? Question two would be is what will happen to an all-volunteer military that is betrayed in the field if cut and run is implemented? Volunteers? Anyone?
One last thing. There is no such thing as the “resurgent†Taliban. Pakistan has just opened another front in their Islamic war and it is against America and our NATO allies. We are killing all Pakis now, newly minted and fresh from Peshawar. If we let Iraq fall, how far behind is Afghanistan? Without Rumsfeld, who is the firewall? My faith in this President has reached its nadir with Rumsfeld’s resignation, for no other reason that if not constrained, he was the most ruthless and feared man for those who seek to destroy us.
6:09 am
Donald Rumsfeld – Best Defense Secretary Since Rob
Both McNamara and Rumsfeld subscribed to the doctrine of “underwhelming force,” that is, using as few resources as possible in prosecuting a war in order to lose less.
9:35 am
Here’s why he kept him:
The Bush/Rove strategy all along has been to (all together now) motivate the Republican base even if it means alienating independents. Firing Rumsfeld before the election would have de-energized the Republican base.
10:16 am
The PUBS forgot what Brungem to the Dance! They turned into LiBruls, Spend, Spend, Spend, Bush was the Leader in this Journey to DESTRUCTION!
Also Bush and Co.’s(McCain being at the forefront) postition on Illegals and Border Security was Disastous! Over 70% (myself included) were against Amnesty for Illegals! I stated at the time when Bush’s position became “Crystal” clear that I would be the first to advance his impeachment based on this stance! He asks our men and women in the military to make the Ultimate Sacrifice and then opens the backdoor to more Terrorists! His policy on illegals is not only Dangerous to our Physical Security but also to the Economy! I think Cheney would have done just fine in his place!
Now, with that said, I voted for GB twice, He has done much good(Tax Cuts-The proof is obvious to all but the Wingnuts on the Left), The War on Iraq is a vital part of the GWOT and I am 100% behind this effort, Though I also feel we are being Too PC(not an expert), This results in only getting our brave military killed(Cannon Fodder)! I think we should be very direct with the Prime Minister of Iraq, we are going to become much more Aggressive and are going to KILL the Terrorists, We don’t care what party or tribe they are from, NO more Politics with our Troops! It’s his country and if he doesn’t agree, then LEAVE! This putting our troops out there as target practice for the Terrorists is BULLSHIT! Our military was Built to ATTACK! Period, NUFF Said!
10:19 am
Badge 2211,
I’m a Vietnam vet, and I think that you’re missing the point here….
Rumsfeld had to go!
It has nothing to do with appeasing the left, appeasing the Islamofascists, appeasing the “world community’ or appeasing anyone else. And as for our brave men and women in the field, they HAVE ALREADY BEEN BETRAYED.
Rumsfeld had to go for two simple reasons:
1. HE WAS INCOMPETENT!
2. HE COULDN’T ACCEPT CRITICISM
Service to our country means that you respect the people that you are serving. And I dont mean George Bush, but the American people that elected him.
I never saw that respect in Rumsfeld
10:39 am
Geek,
Motivate the Rebuplican Base?? What? Here all along I thot the PUB base was Conservative??
U R making NO Sense!
11:05 am
“I think the most startling realities are those we are avoiding. Let’s face it, we are not the military superpower we think we are. Our all-volunteer military was wrongly configured and it is puny. Forty years ago we had 350K troops in Vietnam going full bore for the half million mark with heavy military commitments to NATO and the rest of ASEAN. At 150K deployed in two theaters, we have bare cupboards. The President ”
PUNY? How long did it take to win the War In Afgan. & Iraq?? Yes, WIN, which we did! I question that assesment!
Now, Occupation?? That’s a dif. story and obviously Not planned for! Lets face it, Rummy and Bush were caught with their Pants down! I’m not saying that they should have Known, Did anyone think this is what we would have to deal with??
I have a real problem with that “Occupation” thing! I knew that it would take time to get Iraq up to speed, but as many, my patience is about stretched thin!
Do we really want to have a 250,000 occupying force in Iraq?? I sure as hell don’t and understand the strategy of preparing Iraq to defend itself and the worry about too big of a “Foot Print” by our troops!
Soo, enough or not enough troops, it sure doesn’t appear that we have enough, but like I said, I’m not an expert and observing from afar!
Beats me?