History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
Not only were considerable constraints put on military operations after March 2003, but the constraints even during the initial invasion were the usual ludicrous set. I read Generation Kill some few weeks back, and they describe a situation outside Nasariyah (if I remember correctly). The Marine position was taken under fire by mortars, with a guy periodically stepping out of a building 500 yards off, with a cell phone to his ear and binoculars in hand, spotting the mortar strikes. The Marines had to go up the chain of command to general in order to change their orders -- they were under orders not to fire at anyone not firing at them. Just in case you don't find that sufficiently ludicrous, technicals, filled with armed gunmen would drive up on their position, survey the area, and then turn and drive off, knowing they couldn't be fired on since they hadn't fired.
A very fair question Oscar. Here's my reasoned guesstimate.
The inner circle of the Bush administration is Bush,Rice, Cheney,Rumsfeld, Powell, Wolfowitz, Armitage, Card and Rove. They have been unusually tight-lipped on internal process ( compared to the Reagan or Carter administrations - recall the vicious leaking back then?)-it's not clear to what extent Card and Rove have any say on foreign policy matters. My guess is Card only puts in his two cents when asked and Rove is confined to the political presentation of foreign policy decisions.
Rumsfeld is a very determined personality and experienced bureaucratic player, he even outmanuvered Henry Kissinger once back in his first incarnation as SecDef. However Rummy is not personally close to Bush as is Rice and Cheney nor does he have the history with the Bush family that Powell does. George W. Bush is not as easy-going or trusting as his father and I imagine he frequently splits the difference or goes back and forth between advisers as a form of retaining control over policy.
The CPA suffered a great deal from paralysis of will and confused lines of authority that could come from internal jockeying for control over Iraqi policy back in DC. Even Bremer was a compromise - a State Department official who reported to Rumsfeld. I thought this was a very bad set-up and that a clear-cut military pro-consul was a better occupational model than whatever hybrid the CPA could be described as being.
I think on pure combat operations like Afghanistan and Iraqi Freedom Rumsfeld had a relatively free hand. Once Saddam was toppled I believe Rumsfeld was but one voice among several so I'd give him about 30 % responsibility for the problems of the Occupation. He certainly was responsible for tactical counterinsurgency but I think quite a few political constraints/ vetos were put in place on military operations after March 2003.
Overall responsibility goes to Bush - he gets the credit for a well-executed invasion and the blame for a badly screwed up occupation.
The next Secretary of Defense should be someone with courage, wisdom, and real experience at military transformation. Fortunately, Eric Shinseki is available.
Ralph,
The proper way to make a case is not to begin by assuming that your position is already proven. You're entitled to your opinion Ralph but that's not the same thing as making an argument.
* Why does the need to get rid of Rumsfeld outweigh the costs of getting rid of Rumsfeld ? If invading Iraq is the reason, the Left has been trying to make that case for over a year and if they were at all persuasive then the perfect time to get rid of Rumsfeld was last November.
* Who else can do at least as well as Rumsfeld is doing presently as SecDef ? Let's hear some names and the reasons why.
Mark
A question for you (not rhetorical).
To what extent do you think that Rumsfeld has been responsible for the problems with the occupation of Iraq as opposed to his boss?
The effect of your argument, of course, is to perpetuate in office the very inepts who got us into this mess in the first place. The equation for perpetuity in high office seems to be evade military service yourself, get elected or appointed to high office, and launch a war in which people like Mark Safranski argue that you are one of the _very_ few people to hold that position.
Ralph,
There's quite a few ppl in both parties who would do fine as SecDef were this peacetime.
There are others, again in both parties, who would turn out ok for this war after a learning curve time of a couple of years. It takes a while to master the intricacies of the pentagon bureaucracy - do we have that luxury right now just to express pique at Rumsfeld ?
I'd rather have somebody as SecDef with very high level war management experience and there just aren't a ton of those guys available. Or like Powell, they're uniformed military.
Wait a second: Reno was not criticized iby the media n the aftermath of Waco? What?!? And in any case, a bizarre and obscure attempt to link Reno with Rumsfeld is your standard for media bias? How are the two connected so that we have a case here? I think I am actually losing brain cells as a result of the monumental stupidity of this syllogism. If you are now saying that the media does not go after Democratic screwups you divorced from reality. Period. tyhe liberal media trope does not wash because it is not true, and it does not become any more true the more that you spin this big lie.
dc
If you're looking for the concession that the great bulk of non-MSM is no better, then you can consider that concession granted.
No confirmation. Just a note that you had excluded the MSM.
I'll take your post as an admission that you can't cite, from mainstream media sources, reporting on the broad range of indicators I mentioned. Thanks for the confirmation.
Yes, Richard would have us rely exclusively on such reliable sources as the Washington Times, Matt Drudge, FreeRepublic, NROnline -- you know, where cutting edge journalism is done.
The point intended (subtle enough to elude setection obviously) is not that Rumsfeld should be retained because Reno made mistakes. Waco has nothing to do with Iraq. The attacks on Rumsfeld from the press have everything to do with the lack of attacks on Reno -- they have a common source, in media ignorance and bias.
Moreover, I don't think the media have done the kind of reporting that would allow us to determine if the war in Iraq is being handled properly. Certainly it is not going as well as some of us might hope, a fact that does not necessarily implicate strategy. For those of us with even a modicum of military experience, the attacks are not evidence of "a growing insurgency" (that favorite cliche of the media), but a demonstration of the inability to mount an insurgency -- the inability to field units in battle. That is military science 101, a conclusion so elementary that it could not escape the lowest noncom, but continues to elude the chatterati who, though they wouldn't know an M4 from an M1, feel not the least constrained in pronouncing on military matters. These bombings will continue through the election, and afterwards, and their ultimate prospect will only be determined by the actions of the Iraqi government, military, and people, and probably only then after we have left (though it is possible that with the election, more will come over to the government side).
I don't have a problem with journalists sitting on their asses in the Green Zone. My problem is their reporting as though they they weren't -- offering broad generalizations about the state of Iraq not based on a nationwide collection of a whole host of indicators, but on whether the noise of a bombing interrupted their search for the perfect fallafel.
The question is indeed how much is Rumsfeld responsible for the fact that all is not well. Now will somebody please make that argument? It would be nice if you could cite a whole host of facts ranging over conditions throughout the country. But if you're relying on mainstream media for such data, I think you'll be reduced to citing reporters' impressions and a subset of facts deriving from the most troubled areas.
Mark, I'd say it's a real failure of vision to suggest that the only reasonable candidates for Secretary of Defense are Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Colin Powell. That _might_ be what President Bush thinks, and in some ways, that's the only opinion that counts, but it is terribly constricted, binding us into repeating the same mistakes we've made over the last three years. _If_ ready forces were insufficient to do the job -- whether that was because of budgetary decisions made in the 1990s or not -- you would think that _that_ might have influenced the decision about whether one ought to invade Iraq in the first place. You'd think these fellows at the top were _paid_ to make bad decisions and guaranteed that there'd be no negative consequences to them because of their bad decisions.
I have to say, I always find those, "someone on your side made a mistake once" arguments suspect.
They're usually red herrings thrown across the trail to derail discussion from the actual topic at hand, and usually used when the commentor doesn't have any real defense for what (s)he is defending.
The rights or wrongs of Waco have nothing to do with Iraq. Y'all should have just said so and stayed on topic. (In my opinion, of course.)
If some of us could drop our guard just a little, we might see that it's possible to discuss whether or not the war on Iraq is being handled properly, regardless of our positions on why we're there.
For instance, it's very easy to scoff at journalists who don't leave the Green Zone, but I read a fair amount of news from outlets around the world and all of them agree that not even the Green Zone is safe in Iraq right now, and that the areas outside of it can be deadly.
I think a journalist prepared to go into a war zone to report is prepared to take reasonable risks.
I think sneering at them because they're not committing suicide is ridiculous.
Our war on Iraq is not going well. We do not, at this point in time, appear to be "winning" it. We may not be able to "win" it in any conclusive fashion. The question is, how much responsibility for the failures belongs to Rumsfeld?
First, if Rumsfeld should go that's a case that should be made based on Rumsfeld's performance as Secretary of Defense not some off-hand remark he made. The military we currently have is based on budgetary decisions in part made in the early 1990's which, whatever Rumsfeld's other fault's, he did not make. Lay at least *some* some of these inadequacies of the military on the " Peace Dividend" gang. Same characters who once thought abolishing the CIA was a swell idea.
Secondly, the only other well qualified people-in the sense of having handled a real war - to replace him who aren't even older than Rummy are Dick Cheney and Colin Powell.
Cheney as sitting VP isn't constitutionally eligible. As a ranking officer Powell could only serve by a special act of Congress as was done for George Marshall.
I don't think Richard was being altogether serious with us, Derek. It happens when his side has no cards left to play except to drag up beaten horses.
I don't get it -- should the federal government not go after known lawbreakers? I guess libs and dems are soft on crime until they are not, in which case they are draconian. Can't win. And in any case, I don't get the sleight of hand. What does Reno have to do with Rumsfeld. Did I miss something, or is an invocation of Bellesiles and the OAH just around the corner as well? I am very confused, I am afraid.
dc
No, I think it reflects the fact that they, given the nmedia take on events, think it would serve Bush and themselves if they chucked Rumsfeld overboard (sort of like Blunkett).
Richard, Your long response to Oscar deflects from the fact that some rather powerful voices on the Right are now calling for Rumsfeld's ouster. I assume that you think that John McCain, Trent Lott, William Kristol, Joe Scarborough, and Norman Schwartzkopf have abandoned you and Rummy, joined the Left, and want American forces in Iraq defeated. Right?
Your points are very good, Oscar. They suffer, however, from one outstanding problem -- they are serious.
As for Rumsfeld's competence, if I had a dollar for each rent-a-general who swore up and down that Rummy and Franks were leading a disastrous assault (rather than a spectacular use of fire and maneuver, C3I, etc.), then I'd be on my yacht in the Caribbean being tended to by a bevy of bikini-clad babes. Throw in a dollar for each arm-chair general who never served a day in the armed forces, but who were prepared to pronounce ab initio the takedown of the Taliban an inevitable failure -- you know, the incredible Afghan fighters and the monstrous Afghan winter -- then I could hire Bill Gates as my cabin boy.
Turns out I've actually served in the military. And I've actually lived in the Middle East. I even know that Juan Cole overstated the US chemical weapons stockpile by 23%, and that the expression "the ancient city of Medina" is an oxymoron (you know, Juan Cole of "Informed Comment"). Yet somehow Michigan hasn't sought me out for a professorship, nor have any manner of media sought out my opinion. It's probably just as well, inasmuch as I know almost as little as the average idiot journalist writing a newspaper column on the subject, or the average idiot professor.
One thing I do know is that something like 22,000 of the 30,000-some American vehicles in Iraq have been armored already, and that those that aren't have been relegated to less hazardous areas and missions, unless something critical pops up. I don't know that more men would help, or just provide more targets. But I do know that a substantial portion of the left in this country have a huge stake in making sure the US fails in Iraq. And I know that the NY Times can't be trusted for any purpose more lofty than wrapping fish -- since Rummy is in their crosshairs and Reno never was.
Apart from that, I'm as lost as the rest, since there are fewer American journalists in Iraq than were at the Scott Peterson trial, and those that are in Iraq seem to do most of their reporting from the comfort of the Green Zone, and restrict it to American casualties. Those that venture beyond those markers, almost invariably have no experience in the field -- one certainly wouldn't want to hire somebody who actually served in the military to report on the military, like hiring a doctor as a medical reporter, would we? In short, I don't think the reporting on Iraq that we've seen is a very good basis for policy decisions by the American public or the NY Times.
Richard,
So Reno should have been fired. That's cool; I thought so at the time of Waco, too.
But does her not being fired make Rumsfeld competent? Does her getting too free of a ride buy Rumsfeld's passage too?
I just figured that if an armored assault on a building not firing on the feds, and populated with kids, won't get the NY Times in a tizzy, what will? And justified by the false claim that kids were being abused, despite the fact that there is no federal child abuse statute.
She certainly undertands the concept of overwhelming force -- Waco and Miami speak to that. And she knows how to invent evidence -- she managed to gin up an "informant" who erroneously told the feds that the house that Elian was in was well-armed. Knocking down reporters, and sticking a machine gun in the face of a kid -- can you possibly have a better recommendation for the job in Iraq? And none of that got her fired. It didn't even get the Times to call for her resignation. She's a natural for the job.
Spoken from your cynical heart, Richard.
Rumsfeld should go. He should be replaced by a Dem with the required experience in the use of force, who isn't too squeamish about the law, and who the NY Times adores. I suggest Janet Reno.