Slashdot Mirror
Rumsfeld Stepping Down
macinrack writes to tell us that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, architect of the unpopular war in Iraq, intends to resign after six stormy years at the Pentagon. Officials said Robert Gates, former head of the CIA, would replace Rumsfeld.
Rumsfeld's resignation was timed such that Bush can force the nomination of his replacement through a Republican Senate. If he'd waited much longer, the Senate would be controlled by the Democrats and Bush might actually have to pick someone good.
In order to assign more meaningful names to the agencies of the federal government, I make a motion that the Dept. of Defense be called the Dept. of Offense and the Dept. of Homeland Security be called the Dept. of Defense.
In all seriousness, I'm not sure that this new guy is going to be any better. Why does a former CIA man make a better Secretary than..hmm...I dunno....a former GENERAL?
I read recently that simulations done under the Clinton administration found that an invasion of Iraq and the subsequent "nation-building" would requite sustained troop levels of 400,000. Rumsfeld, completely lacking any understanding of the middle east, the culture, and peoples, figured we can do it on the cheap. Alas it tis not so. Kind of reminds me of when Brutus assasinated Caesar, he figured the people would be happy and cheer him. I honestly think Rumsfeld thought the Iraqi people would support him as Brutus thought.
Now we're paying the price. And much more than just troop loss (which is actually quite minimal, compared to other world conflicts, like, say WWII).
It took a bit longer than anyone would have guessed, but at long last everyone in this photo has retired. I bet there will be some Kurdish street parties tonight.
My guess is Bush threw Rumsfeld to the wolves to appease Nancy Pelosi, but I could be wrong.
I spent more than nine years in the military, most of it infantry - I was a professional bullet stopper. During the first Gulf War we walked across the border with 410,000 troops and are now operating with a bit more than a third of that. The only way to win a war is to win it - otherwise let's get the hell out and quit sacrificing our young men and women in an unwinnable conflict.
I supported the war based on the information that was provided - and that information turned out to be a bit less than accurate. Right now we either need to win the war or get the hell out and quit sacrificing troops when there aren't enough to effect any real change in Iraq.
Right or wrong, we're neck-deep in it now. Let's either win this damn thing or get the hell out of it. We can impeach Bush later if it seems appropriate.
And it seems appropriate.
we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin
Couldn't a presidential pardon clear that away?
:)
This mid-term election sent a more-than-clear message about the occupation in Iraq (It's not a war you know) and the corruption in the republican side of the house.
I'm really rather shocked and awed that they didn't see this coming.
Furthermore, I'm looking forward to investigations of election fraud. I was gratified to have heard that there was a large band of people dispatched out to observe the implementation of elections. It probably went a long way to prevent fraud from occuring or being attempted. But where it may have managed to occur anyway, I'd love to see them exposed... I'm sure most of us would.
Still, I'm pleased to see Rumsfeld doing his own Cut'N Run.
The obvious answer now is no different than it was 6.5 years ago.
Repeat after me: There we no Weapons of Mass Destruction! It was a lie then. It remains a blatant lie today.
Second:
"Underserved flak"? This coward who used the blood of other people's children to assert his manhood long after his opportunity had passed, managed to destroy a military force that had already demonstrated its inferiority to the US military machine in 1992. No, sir, he deserves all the flak coming his way and more.
Third:
"Unjustified investigations"? Are you insane? Why did all those people, on both sides die in Iraq? Why is Iraq falling into the guagmire of civil war, just as the critics of his bullshit plan predicted? Where is Osama? Where is the connection between Osama and Saddam?
Oh, sure, you can claim he made the world safe by taking down a dictator. Just try telling that to the Iraq people as they bury more people in a single day than Saddam killed.
Oh, one more thing. Rummy did a GREAT JOB telling the world that if you don't have nuclear weapons, you better get some quick like North Korea, or you'll end up like Iraq. See Iran for more on this subject.
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
AIPAC, which Rumsfeld has strong links to, was. AIPAC is the second most powerful lobby in Washington behind the AARP, and is composed of pro-Israel hawks and zionist Christians. Wolfowitz, Perle, and many other members of the Bush administration are deeply linked to them as well. AIPAC represents hard-line Israeli interests. (Incidentally they're also the reason why you never hear criticism of Israel in the United States of America, because they actively and tirelessly lobby government, academia, and the media to suppress our freedom to speak honestly about and discuss openly the situation there. Their favorite tactic against people who make outrageous statements like "Palestinians are people too, and they deserve to live in peace," is to call them "anti-Semites" and target them for character assassination.)
r wp/RWP06-011/$File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf>
Foreign Minister Shimon Peres told reporters in September 2002 that "the campaign against Saddam Hussein is a must. Inspections and inspectors are good for decent people, but dishonest people can overcome easily inspections and inspectors."
It's overstating it a little to say that we invaded Iraq on AIPAC's orders. There were other parties who went along, but AIPAC was centrally involved. And what AIPAC wants from Washington, it gets. This despite a huge portion of the American public who opposed the invasion and even despite American Jewish opinion, 52-62% of whom opposed the invasion.
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, the giants of international relations (they're like the Freud and Jung of the discipline), published a remarkable paper on the subject last March: http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/
Essentially what we've been doing in Iraq is fighting a proxy war on Israel's behalf (on behalf of Likud and other Israeli hawks, that is). It's also why Bush started making noises at Syria recently before things really started to fall apart in Iraq, because they're next on AIPAC's list. Iran comes after that.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
And wasn't it Rumsfeld who said that he had no intention of quitting and that Bush had given him his full support and would decide if and when Rumsfeld should leave? Oh yeah, here it is.
So let's see, first we lie about the invasion of Iraq being tied to the September 11th attacks. Then we lie that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction. Then we lied that Iraq was tied to Al Qaeda. Throw in that we lied about not being the world's policeman, that we wouldn't be involved in nation building, that we would hold it to the Saudis in regards to our supply of oil, that the government isn't reading people's emails or searching their homes without warrants, and now this, and you have an entire administration built on lies.
Unfortunately, even with the Democrats taking control of the House, they've already said they don't have the balls to impeach the liar so we're stuck with another two years worth of lies.
yay
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
I'm a student at Texas A&M (where Dr. Gates is currently university president,) and I'd have to say I disagree with this assesment of the man. He has done a great job here of seeing problems, finding a solution, and forcing it through even with strong opposition on some things. He has improved our faculty, decreased class sizes, and worked to change our image, all without ruining what many of us like about the university.
Yes, the CIA has gotten a bad rep of late, however, judge the man for himself, not for what you think of an agency that by its nature doesnt really defend itself from a bad reputation. (Note, I'm a republican, but not a Bush supporter, and am very glad to see Rumsfield gone.)
There are quite a few losing Senators and Congressentities that want to kick his ass right now, considering that if he'd resigned, say, the day before yesterday, he'd have taken the wind out of some of the Democrat's sails.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I think it's understandable. You're talking about averages, but not every election is average. A year or two ago, this election had all the markers to indicate it would be below average or even an outlier. Speaking of statistics, another well known pattern is that a first term president's party loses seats in his first midterm election. Didn't happen with Bush. And even though it happened with Clinton, the Republicans had a right to grandstand due to the above-average size of their victory. Also, polls typically show voters in midterm election site local and state issues as being the drivers of their vote. In this election, it was national.
So I think the stage was set for this election to be below average and possibly even an outlier. Who knows what would have happen without the taint of Abramoff and with DeLay still in the driver's seat. The last-minute Foley scandal did't help, either. But just because it was the 6 year midterm doesn't mean it was inevitable that a not-widely-known-to-be-gay Republican would end up in a scandal for behavior bordering on pedophilia.
Even with all this, a lot of the races Democrats won were squeakers. In some, they were aided by a Libertarian third party that might have thrown the vote.
So I think it's quite remarkable.
As far as winning with dignity, I've never seen that happen on either side. Sure didn't happen in 2004 or 2002.
The funny thing about political statistics is that there are a near-infinite number to pick from. You chose "6th year midterm means ruling party loses seats in house and senate." But there are numerous variations on that. What is the statistic for "6th year midterm with president, house and senate controlled by the same party"? Or "6th year midterm during wartime"? Or how about both? Or other factors? And that's just the start conditions. There are plenty of variations for outcomes: a) presidents party loses seats in house OR senate, b) presidents party loses seats in house AND senate, c) presidents party loses CONTROL of house OR senate, d) presidents party loses CONTROL of house AND senate, e) presidents party loses a majority of the governorships, f) presidents party loses a majority of control in state legislatures, g) any combination of the above or a dozen other measures. It just goes on and on.
Without actually taking more into account than a very simple statistic, it's about as pertinent as using the winner of the Superbowl to guess the political outcome, or figuring out if a Star Trek movie will suck by which number it is. Human beings are programmed to search for patterns. It's too bad when those patterns make us stop paying attention to the actual details which make each situation unique.
From what I have heard from various sources (including NPR), the decision was made before the election during an infighting between the actual Republicans and NeoCons, since neocons basically lost this election, the actual Republicans demanded his replacement, Bush made a concession by agreeing to replace Donny but not before the election.
It's political theater. I'm sure the administration could be very persuasive, but if Rumsfeld truly wanted to resign, he could. Offering his resignation the first time around was a way of accepting responsibility for the Abu Ghraib scandal, not necessarily an indication that he truly wanted to resign. I don't know about the second time, but I think it's traditional for all of the President's secretaries to hand in their resignations at the beginning of the second term, which he then will/will not accept. This is the president's way of asserting that they are his bitches. Finally, in politics, "resigning" is frequently a polite word for "got your ass fired". It's a way of giving the person a graceful exit and saving face. That isn't done out of charity or anything; it's just that people with nothing left in terms of their reputation have nothing left to lose, and that makes them dangerous. If Bush publicly fired Rumsfeld and humiliated him in doing so, Rumsfeld might try to redeem his reputation a bit by bringing Bush down a notch or two.
This is completely true, but as I understand it's customary for people at that level to offer their resignation when things aren't going well, even (especially) if they don't expect to be taken up on it. This was in, among other things, Bob Woodward's latest book, in which he investigated Rumsfeld's persona indepth. The book was well worth the read and I actually have more respect for Rumsfeld after reading it-- at least in the sense that I realize he acts according to some plan, and not just out of pure evil.
The second statement doesn't support the first. You may be right that there was a disparity in the composition of forces, but what about the conduct of the "hot war" made it "mediocre?"
The initial invasion was Rumsfeld's attempt to start a new war doctrine for U.S. forces, and thus leave his stamp on the military. He envisioned a lighter, faster U.S. force that could be deployed cheaper, a modern equivalent of Blitzkrieg. Apparently he forgot that much of the strength of the U.S. military came from logistics and having solid supply lines. As our forces raced up the highway towards Baghdad, they became too stretched out, our supply lines weakened, and the flanks started to come under attack by Iraqi forces. This forced us to stop and regroup and replace the strategy with a more conventional buildup and advance. Basically, the doctrine failed.
The disparity in forces was such that the victory in the conventional war was a guarantee, even with a foolhardy start to things we were easily able to pull it together. Of course, the fact that Rumsfeld was unable to see the flaw in his brilliant new doctrine and the fact that he was unable to see that the end of the "hot" war would only be the beginning are related. The man is incompetent at his job. Always had been, always will be. I would be a better defense secretary. A terrible secretary to be sure, but I'd at least be able to accept the advice of those better versed in war than myself. Rumsfeld thought ideology would trump reality, and he was wrong.
The enemies of Democracy are
> On behalf of soldiers, sailors, and veterans everywhere: go fuck yourself. I did a much more
> technical job with cooler toys and better results than anything you've probably seen in your
> cushy civilian job...
Yeah, I'd hire you for a tech job. Sure, that's just the attitude that we like.
Instead of intelligent argument, just lash out, yell and scream, tear off some heads. You sure are a good representative of the military mindset. I think you prove the previous poster's point.
jfs
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
Are you sure about that? I think it might have deflated the R's more than the D's - and given real credence to the "time for a change" meme.
Of course, I believe this mainly because the R's didn't set the resignation on Monday - if they had thought it would benefit them, be sure that Rumsfeld would have been gone at least two days ago.
Last post!