In Denial About Rumsfeld?

The silverback speaks -- Picture courtesy Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
Having just read an excerpt from Bob Woodward's State of Denial, I have to ask this question. "Why the Hell is Rumsfeld still Secretary of Defense?!" It is a question which ex-Chief of Staff Andrew Card and First Lady Laura Bush apparently bandied about during the 2004 election.

When Rumsfeld took the Office in 2001, he already felt that the Pentagon was way too big and bureaucratic. He immediately looked at ways to "streamline" it, and this initial view may shed light on why he thought he could win in Iraq using War Lite. He was the picture of hubris and bravado at the start -- he said that he, not the generals or the Joint Chiefs of Staff, would preside over all military decisions. A silverback gorilla in full chest-thump could make no more a macho assertion of self. His later decisions would make you wonder if anyone was presiding.

Rummy picked Jay Garner to head the Iraq post-war office. When Garner questioned the small number of troops and lack of past-war planning, Rumsfeld replaced him with presidential envoy Paul Bremer. When Bremer himself ran into problems and repeated some of Garner's earlier concerns, Rumsfeld distanced himself from Bremer with weasel words: "He reports to me only technically". When Pentagon advisor Ken Adelman asked Rumsfeld if he had 3 or 4 criteria for success in Iraq, Rumsfeld weaseled some more: "Goodness it's far too complicated, there are hundreds of factors". Adelman pointed out that Rumsfeld himself had earlier advised that any mission should have a small set of well-defined major success metrics. This self-contradiction didn't seem to bother Mr. Rumsfeld.

When a May 2006 Intelligence Report said that violence in Iraq had escalated to 700-800 attacks each week, Rumsfeld told Woodward that it was all an exaggeration -- "They're counting random rounds and stuff like that". When Woodward asked about various experts' assessments of too few troops, Rumsfeld gave a pinpoint answer "Maybe too many, maybe too few it's hard to tell". Woodward asked Rumsfeld simply, "Do you feel optimistic about the outcome of the war?" Rumsfeld ignored his question and rambled about a how this war is a hard slog. When asked if he viewed himself as a military commander, Rumsfeld wormed away from that: "I'm just a Cabinet Secretary; I'm not a military commander". This from Kong the silverback who earlier claimed to preside over all.

Rumsfeld presides over weasel, mealy-mouth cowardly words and deeds. In denying the obvious and washing his hands of responsibility in all his bad decisions and fumbles, Mr. Rumsfeld represents the very worst qualities you could have in a Defense Secretary. His negative, rambling and oft-bizarre takes on what should be his paramount Iraq mission are disturbing. The man is an embarrassment to the office and yet I must say -- he is a fairly accurate reflection of this administration.

© 2006 blogSpotter.