Posted on 12/02/2006 11:12:52 PM PST by paulat
December 3, 2006 Rumsfeld Memo on Iraq Proposed ‘Major’ Change By MICHAEL R. GORDON and DAVID S. CLOUD WASHINGTON, Dec. 2 — Two days before he resigned as defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld submitted a classified memo to the White House that acknowledged that the Bush administration’s strategy in Iraq was not working and called for a major course correction.
“In my view it is time for a major adjustment,” wrote Mr. Rumsfeld, who has been a symbol of a dogged stay-the-course policy. “Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough.”
Nor did Mr. Rumsfeld seem confident that the administration would readily develop an effective alternative. To limit the political fallout from shifting course, he suggested the administration consider a campaign to lower public expectations.
“Announce that whatever new approach the U.S. decides on, the U.S. is doing so on a trial basis,” he wrote. “This will give us the ability to readjust and move to another course, if necessary, and therefore not ‘lose.’ ”
“Recast the U.S. military mission and the U.S. goals (how we talk about them) — go minimalist,” he added. The memo suggests frustration with the pace of turning over responsibility to the Iraqi authorities; in fact, the memo calls for examination of ideas that roughly parallel troop withdrawal proposals presented by some of the White House’s sharpest Democratic critics. (Text of the Memo)
[snip]
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
A classified memo.....given to the Slimes. How nice.
I don't know what to say...this is devastating.
It allowed Democrats to win.
My point, exactly!
Sounds to me he was advocating everything that Bush is saying now. Is this a case of "firing the messenger"?
Now you are making even less sense. What "allowed" democrats to win? This parsed and edited memo?
Seems like.
I'm sorry, our side just bungled this "big time."
I'm a Rummy fan....
It was a classified memo, not for public consumption.
Um, yes. I'm not an idiot.
"I'm sorry, our side just bungled this "big time."
I'm a Rummy fan...."
I am a Rummy fan, too. And a Bush I fan and a Bush II fan.
And I think there is a family similarity between 1992 and 2004. In both cases I think the Bushes fell far short of putting forth strong arguments for their cases.
Politically they gave weak performances. Like they were plain tired of the whole thing, and had little fight left in them.
The dems in 2004 did a very good job politically, and Republicans did NOT. Politics is a game of skill. It requires verbal ability to persuade, by keen argument.
At this time, I read a forms of denial about the elections.
If Bush had put forth a case for better "management" of Iraq, as this article purports, I think they could have held the majority. But that requires admitting mistakes; something Bush II doesn't often do.
But they had months (even years) of plunging Presidential ratings and a shift away from support for Iraq. Yet they muddled on, making little effort to change those perceptions.
They let Iraq drift for way, way too long.
We have too many good men and women serving for them to have handled it this way.
Much good is being done on the ground in Iraq...but the blunders up top are wrong.
Please read all of this memo.
From the memo:
¶Aggressively beef up the Iraqi MOD and MOI, and other Iraqi ministries critical to the success of the ISF — the Iraqi Ministries of Finance, Planning, Health, Criminal Justice, Prisons, etc. — by reaching out to U.S. military retirees and Reserve/National Guard volunteers (i.e., give up on trying to get other USG Departments to do it.)
!!!!!!!!!!!!!
¶Initiate a massive program for unemployed youth. It would have to be run by U.S. forces, since no other organization could do it.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It appears tha the US military is the only agency working in the US. (On the other hand when it's good it's really good!!)
I liked this. Pure Rummy:
¶Stop rewarding bad behavior, as was done in Fallujah when they pushed in reconstruction funds, and start rewarding good behavior. Put our reconstruction efforts in those parts of Iraq that are behaving, and invest and create havens of opportunity to reward them for their good behavior. As the old saying goes, “If you want more of something, reward it; if you want less of something, penalize it.” No more reconstruction assistance in areas where there is violence.
and this:
¶Initiate an approach where U.S. forces provide security only for those provinces or cities that openly request U.S. help and that actively cooperate, with the stipulation being that unless they cooperate fully, U.S. forces would leave their province.
Anyway, what it shows is that Rumsfeld was a policy maker that did some thinking. No news to many here on FR, but it would be a total revelation to the sheeple who only get their news from the MSM.
It is devastating because it is the abnormal admission for this policy maker who has been famously optomistic, who was on his way out because his policy has failed, and who is committing a last minute about face and admitting it.
“Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough.”
That was preceded by another devastating admission:
In my view it is time for a major adjustment.
The most devastating admission is the one he did not make. After telling us that what we are doing is not working and it is not working to a degree that we must make a major change now, he cannot provide a winning choice, merely a list of unpalatable options. So unlikely of success are these options that they must be downplayed so as to minimize the political effects of the failures. We have no good options.
It is devastating when it is unspun.
Our policies toward the Muslim world in general and Iraq in particular were always risky and experimental. How could they have been otherwise? So even a truly great leader would have had trouble keeping his followers in line...and Bush is not now, and never has been, such a leader.
snugs...what is your reaction to this?
A classified memo.....given to the Slimes. How nice.Unless the Times burglarized the Pentagon or the White House this memo had to be leaked by someone high up on the inside. Who was it and why did they leak it?
The democrats,one would have majorly politicized it.
Two, Republicans lost because they were lazy, corrupt, often hateful...and there was more often than not more gridlock with a Republican majority than without.
Completely in charge of 3 branches of government and can't even get a damn bill passed.
They weren't coming together on even the most basic of principles such as taxes.
The ones on the waaaay right end of things... to them if things weren't 100% all the way over on their end of the spectrum they would say 'no way'.
They could have moved the whole country to the right a whole lot more by giving in just a little here or just a little there in a manner of compromise. Head butting Republicans cost us a whole lot of opportunity.
But hell no. They wanted it all and wanted it all to be theirs right now.
On top of that they began to believe their butts were glued to a congressional seat and that they were just owed the position.
All in all they had it coming.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.