See-Dubya on Rumsfeld
(A guest post by See-Dubya, not Patterico.)
Patterico implored me to post something on Rumsfeld’s resignation. I think the real place to look will be Garfield Ridge this evening, but I’ll take a crack at it:
Rumsfeld arrived with a mission of transforming America’s military into a technologically superior, fast, mobile force and undoing the malign “swords into plowshares” neglect of the Clinton years. How much of that mission he was able to accomplish, I can’t really say, but I do know he was “overtaken by events” on 9/11 and needed to focus on fighting a war in the Middle East with the transitional army we have.
Anytime you have a big reform project like he had, you’re going to make enemies. Compounding this effect was his blunt personality–probably a prerequisite for the sort of sweeping changes he had planned–which people either loved or hated. I loved the guy, but a lot of people didn’t. In fact a Navy officer told me back in 2003 or so that the opinion among his seniors was that this guy hates the military.
There is a lot to dislike about military bureaucracy and inefficiency, and Rumsfeld’s dislike for it was returned in spades, but I think that was just another one of the many political attacks levelled against him. Every setback on every front was greeted with the same strident calls for his resignation, from the same people. The cries of Wolf turned me off at a point in early 2004, when I realized how trumped up the Abu Ghraib stories really were and how little they had to do with U.S. warfighting policy. Whatever Rumsfeld’s quirks, I decided then, his critics were simply not acting in good faith and had squandered any credibility they might have had. And when Ashcroft left, Rumsfeld was left out as the sole lightning rod to soak up their bolts.
But more and more critics piled on, some of them who I respected and who articulated more substantive complaints. The combined weight of these criticisms hamstrung Rumsfeld’s effectiveness more and more. Do we need to send more troops? For Rumsfeld to give such an order would set off a politically crippling shockwave that would have opened him up to attacks that we were ignoring other trouble spots and overextending ourselves by putting so many troops in Iraq–and, well, would have caused us to lose the House and Senate.
So, I wish he had given that order, and a few more, like neutralizing Al-Sadr back when it could have prevented a lot of trouble we’ve faced since then. And, as the American Spectator’s Andrew Cline memorably memo’d to Rumsfeld about the timing of his resignation: You’re supposed to leap in front of the bullet, not behind it. But he has presided over two amazing military victories, in Afghanistan and Iraq, and overseen the rebuilding of our military as the most capable and fearsome fighting force in the entire world–capable of overrunning any nation in the world, provided we have the will to win.
Which we don’t, but that’s not Rumsfeld’s fault. As for the more strident complaints against him, I challenge you to present to me this modern-day Sun Tzu who would have done his job better and pacified and unified Iraq without any American casualties. That man is a construct of hindsight, wishful thinking, and political bluster. Rumsfeld served his country well and, while he made mistakes, suffered a great degree of scorn he did not deserve. I am sorry to see such a dedicated public servant leave under these circumstances, and I do not envy his replacement.
See-Dub, over and out. Cross-posted at Junkyard Blog.
UPDATE by Seedub: Dave@GR’s take, which I mentioned above, is now up and worth your time.
UPDATE BY PATTERICO: I don’t share See-Dub’s love for Rummy. He has been a charming answerer of question at press conferences, but there’s a growing body of evidence that he didn’t have a decent post-war plan for Iraq, that he knew he didn’t, and that he didn’t care. In my view, his arrogance towards the military and cavalier attitude towards planning for a post-war Iraq makes this step long overdue.
“…he has presided over two amazing military victories, in Afghanistan and IRAQ…”
-See Dubya
Oh, we won in Iraq? Just like that? We’d better get out, then. They don’t need us anymore…We got the Bad Guys.
Mission Accomplished
Comment by Leviticus — 11/8/2006 @ 2:11 pm
Of course we won the war. What we have not been able to do is establish a peace loving people in a Muslim country.
Overly, naively ambitious? Perhaps. Pretty hard to do when 80% of then media and 45% of the politicians and 90% of the opinion makers are against the project from day one.
Comment by Terry Gain — 11/8/2006 @ 2:21 pm
Rumsfeld’s wishes are pathetic, that’s all. The idea of invading Iraq and transition that to Democracy is simply unpractical.
Comment by MrRight — 11/8/2006 @ 2:54 pm
[...] Update! Seedubya says so long: The combined weight of these criticisms hamstrung Rumsfeld’s effectiveness more and more. Do we need to send more troops? For Rumsfeld to give such an order would set off a politically crippling shockwave that would have opened him up to attacks that we were ignoring other trouble spots and overextending ourselves by putting so many troops in Iraq–and, well, would have caused us to lose the House and Senate. [...]
Pingback by Cold Fury » The Reign of Terror begins auspiciously — 11/8/2006 @ 2:59 pm
Rumsfeld resigns…
See-Dubya has a good perspective. Technorati tags: Rumsfeld, politics…
Trackback by Public Secrets: from the files of the Irishspy — 11/8/2006 @ 3:33 pm
Rumsfeld would have left his position as Secretary of Defense anytime President Bush wanted him to leave. I think Bush kept Rumsfeld around to be the sacrificial lamb when things turned sour politically, e.g., now.
Bush has shown himself to be his father’s son - a decent but principles-light man who is more concerned with being good than being right. In the next 2 years, we will “enjoy” new taxes, amnesty for illegals, an ever-escalating minimum wage, and recession as Bush bows to the mandate he believes the American people gave the Democrats in this election. He will do this because he’s a blue-blooded, fair-play guy who is not wedded to conservative principles. The fact that Bush 43 is bringing in his father’s old team is additional proof that he embraces and welcomes the views of Bush 41.
In a way, I think Bush is glad for the respite this election provides. For the remainder of his term, he can react to Congress rather than frame the debate. My guess is that Bush will lead the US the same way he led Texas as Governor: Let others take the lead and the bully pulpit; He’ll follow along. George W. Bush has always been a guy who knows, as we say in West Texas, how to “go along to get along.” The next 2 years should be perfect for him.
Comment by DRJ — 11/8/2006 @ 4:26 pm
i respect rummy very much. he has done a fantastic job under difficuly times. i cant say it any better than you did. my son is a marine and his fellow marines that he knows love him. i will miss him very much. i just hope that he knows there are alot of us out there that think he did a great job. jane from ok.
Comment by jane nester — 11/8/2006 @ 4:31 pm
See-Dubya,
Spot on, sir. I believe you captured the greater truth regarding the circumstances under which a hard man was given a harder job. Nobody who wasn’t in service at the time will ever understand how badly the military was mangled under Clinton, and how much needed to be rebuilt.
I’m very disappointed in the timing, because it will be just one more brickbat for the socialists to wield. Bush was right not to do it during the election season, turmoil wouldn’t have helped the party. But better to have waited a month or so rather than make it appear that Rumsfeld has been ordered to fall on his sword in appeasement.
Comment by Freelancer — 11/8/2006 @ 5:55 pm
… I challenge you to present to me this modern-day Sun Tzu who would have done his job better and pacified and unified Iraq without any American casualties.
Rumsfeld apparently ordered generals NOT to plan for the occupation, pacification and unification of Iraq. Did we need a modern-day Sun Tzu that see that such planning would be a good idea?
Rumsfeld gambled that Iraq would quickly sort itself out after we toppled Saddam, and he turned out to be spectacularly wrong. The president should have treated this as a career-ending mistake years ago.
Comment by Serenity Now — 11/8/2006 @ 6:52 pm
Please explain to me when George Marshall drew up the post-war recovery plan for Europe, or was that done by the Sec. of War (who was?). It is not the job of the SecDef to plan for the after-conflict, it is his job to win the conflict. If a father needs to be found for the disarray after the regime was changed, more attention needs to be directed at the ongoing conflict between State, the CIA, and other non-military agencies/departments of the Executive Branch, who were literally at war with the White House over Iraq.
Rumsfeld did the job that his boss wanted done, as long he was needed to do it. It is absolutely understood that when you accept a Presidential appointment, you hand in your letter of resignation (at least figuratively, sometimes actually) for the President to keep in his pocket for possible future use. The President decided to excercise that option for his own reasons. We must hope that they were the correct ones. I personally think that the best manager in the Executive Branch was just given his walking papers. Whether or not he was really cut out to deal with the unreality known as DC will have to be decided at a later date; but, as an experienced DC hand, he knew what he was facing going in.
Can’t wait for the book.
Comment by Another Drew — 11/8/2006 @ 8:04 pm
Another Drew: Please explain to me when George Marshall drew up the post-war recovery plan for Europe …
The Army started planning for the military occupation and government of Germany years before they surrendered.
It is not the job of the SecDef to plan for the after-conflict, it is his job to win the conflict.
The “conflict”/”after-conflict” distinction seems absurd. Since the U.S. military was going to be the de facto authority in Iraq (for however hopefully short a time), how could it not have been the defense secretary’s job to plan for the occupation, including the possibility of “after-conflict”? If it wasn’t his job, whose job was it?
If a father needs to be found for the disarray after the regime was changed, more attention needs to be directed at the ongoing conflict between State, the CIA, and other non-military agencies/departments of the Executive Branch, who were literally at war with the White House over Iraq.
Other agencies probably did behave atrociously, but that doesn’t excuse Rumsfeld’s negligence.
Comment by Serenity Now — 11/9/2006 @ 4:55 am
Although I support the Iraq War, I agree with the view that we should have been better prepared for the aftermath. War should have a positive objective — even if that objective is as “barbaric” as eliminating an enemy, looting a treasury or annexing a strip of land — otherwise it is only wanton slaughter.
Comment by nk — 11/9/2006 @ 5:59 am
Criticism is part of the job, and success is the best retort. We can’t call Afghanistan and Iraq successes yet though, can we?
Maybe protecting us from another 9/11 will be the most we can hope to accomplish, which indeed Bush has done thus far.
Comment by The Sanity Inspector — 11/9/2006 @ 8:29 am
I see that McCain is also now calling for al Sadr and his Mahdi army to be defanged (hotair.com). Leaving him alone was probably and Iraqi/Shiite political demand but it’s remarkable that a Senator finally voices the need to defeat him. Or maybe not so remarkable, in that all along the Republican base faulted Rumsfeld et al. for playing political games with this fight. McCain, the moderate, playing to the base!
What we want is to win. If you tell terrorists to go to hell, be prepared to send them there.
Comment by Patricia — 11/9/2006 @ 9:00 am
[...] See Dub has the same “filmography”. He’s blogged for Hot Air, Ace (unconfirmed), Patterico and Malkin (may have missed a dozen or so). Plus he has his own [...]
Pingback by Six Meat Buffet » The Ned Reyerson of The Blogosphere — 3/15/2008 @ 6:35 am