Rumsfeld Memo on Iraq Proposed ‘Major’ Change (What if this had been known before the elections)

The New York Times ^ | 12/3/06 | MICHAEL R. GORDON and DAVID S. CLOUD

[maui_hawaii]

I have learned not to trust everything I read in the news.

There could be news behind the news here.

They could have intentionally 'leaked' this information for all we know. Personally I think that is very plausible at this point in the game.

[21stCenturyFreeThinker]

It is devastating when it is unspun.

You're right. That's why it's best for some new people to bring new ideas to the table. Running the Pentagon and several wars has to be exhausting.

[maui_hawaii]

In other words, the leak is a political move.

[21stCenturyFreeThinker]

They could have intentionally 'leaked' this information

Right, I think who leaked it and why is the most interesting question.

[maui_hawaii]

Who, I don't know.

Why is much easier to answer.

[Qwinn]

"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."

Err, I'm not sure I agree with this. If there were any "good options", we wouldn't have needed to go to war in the first place. The entire Iraq War was a gamble... one I did and still do approve of. I never thought it was a sure thing, only that it was the best plan available, because letting Saddam continue to pollute what was already a complete cesspool in the M/E didn't even have as much a chance of success as going to war has.

Yes, very often in life and especially in war, there are no good options. I thought it was obvious to everyone that the entire M/E situation was firmly in that category for a long time. Why would it be news that Rummy would agree with that assessment, much less "devastating"?

Qwinn

[Mel Gibson]

this is "evidence" for Bush Jr. to axe Rummy. Rummy is not a team player, needs a bath, has bad breathe etc. Bush can "wash his hands" of Iraq and not be held responsible for confronting and bombing "our allies" Saudi Arabia for their role in the terrorist attacks on the US on Sept. 11, 2001. This is all denial and damage control coming from the traitor-in-chief.

[nathanbedford]

It pains me to have posted (as I did not long ago in my vanity "WHY WE LOST" published shortly after the election analyzing the loss as primarily a repudiation by the people of the war in Iraq, and of George Bush) that Rumsfeld had to go. It pains me because Rumsfeld is a personal hero of mine whom I admire greatly and who, I believe, was reshaping the Pentagon in a way that will protect my grandchildren. But both Rumsfeld and Bush have lost their moral authority in Iraq and, somehow, the presidency must be protected so that the nation can somehow extricate itself from Iraq without a devastating setback in the war against Islamo fascism. So, Rumsfeld must fall on his sword.

When one surveys the list of options presented by Rumsfeld here, it is dismaying.

[nathanbedford]

I thought it was obvious to everyone that the entire M/E situation was firmly in that category for a long time.

I guess you have not had the time to read these threads, where the contrary opinion often prevails and is loudly trumpeted.

[truth_seeker]

"Our policies toward the Muslim world in general and Iraq in particular were always risky and experimental."

I have stated before that Bush hoped that history could be overcome, and that arab muslims would be capable of civil peaceful democratic self-rule.

I happen to admire him for trying to do what he felt was the "right thing" by giving them a chance. It looks like he guessed wrong.

In the end, it appears tribal loyalties are too strong, religious differences are too violent and strong, democracy is incapable of being learned in such a short time by those with zero history of it, and that 140,000 troops is way short of the number needed to occupy and pacify this place.

Those who have called Powell names should remember some of his advice. Have overwhelming force, have a plan to get out. I think he also said "you break it and it is yours."

Now I will probably be called names for speaking favorably of Powell, for I know he is among the countless leaders that FR kneejerks to speak poorly of. But it turns out his faction were closer to correct, than those who said we would be greeted with flowers.

Bush/Rummy stuck with their original plan long after they knew it wasn't working. Far too long. Better leaders would have adjusted sooner.

[screaming eagle2]

What gets me,as a veteran is how some think Rumsfeld was talking strategy.No,NO,NO,NO,NO!!!!!He was talking TACTICAL changes. The strategy is still the same,win the war.The tactics(how to carry out the strategic goal) needs tweaking.And when you have an enemy that acts the Al-queada,Hamas,Hezbollah,et al act,no wonder we're having a rough time.Now if I were President,I'd get rid of the Geneva Convention for about a month and tell the troops tolet the enemy have it,full force!Maybe,that's why I'm not President.

[Clock King]

You're right. Powell was more accurate than anyone else, and the reason I believe is because he is a history buff. He actually studies history. Thus, he sensed, even if he didn't know for sure, that there was no way to introduce democracy to a culture that simply couldn't support it; a culture where tribal affiliation holds sway over all life; where people marry their cousins to "keep it in the family".

[JedForbes]

I tell you what gets me about all of this - it's how incredibly blind we were ourselves. I remember a while ago criticising the Veep (who I otherwise admire greatly) for continuing to say that everything was improving in iraq when clearly that was not the case. It was clear the strategy was broken and still many on our side continued to support it - essentially imo because it became "politically" or socially impossible on *our* side to disagree with the adminsitration. If you didn't like something they were doing, and you said it, you were pounced on for being a "moderate" or a troll or whatever.

Now reality, and an election, has caught up and the finger pointing is all over the place. All of a sudden Bush is 'tired' and he's betraying us over immigration and it's the "death of conservatism" and so on.

We need a dose of common sense. The Iraq strategy was a failure. It wasn't just the adminstration but the supporters of the administration (i.e. *us*) that didn't ask the right questions in time and didn't have the guts to do anything about it.

It doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, Bush II is still a great president but he made a major error over how to deal with Iraq - let's admit that and get on with it.

P.S. I agree re Powell, though his obstructionism, once it was clear we were going in, didn't help either.

[trumandogz]

It is a bitter pill to swallow to know that Rummy has gotten off the boat.

[paulat]

I agree.

[Tees Mom]

This is very disturbing to me as well, why in the hell are the leakers not being procecuted....unless it is being leaked by "our" side...that too I find despicable.

[evad]

When one surveys the list of options presented by Rumsfeld here, it is dismaying.

It is the best of times, it is the worst of times. There are parts of Iraq that are the best of times and parts that are the worst.

What is dismaying to me is that we allow anything published by the Times to guide our thinking into the worst of times. We seem to never learn.

I'm sure Rummy would still be DefSec, if the election had gone differently, but WE (the American people) deserted him, and W, sooo, out he went. So be it.

W will still prosecute the WOT, with his new DefSec, as he thinks best. He will do it to the best of his ability although I think he has been wounded by this latest slap in the face by the "American people".

[Laverne]

I am not as distrubed as many on this thread are regarding the "leak" of this memo. TO me it shows that Rummy was working on identifying a change in tactics, but not a change in the overall goal. It shows that the Pentagon was looking at making changes and shows the high level thinking that we know and admire about Rummy. His options are far more expansive than the options of the gang of 10 led by Baker.

I do not see Iraq as a failure and I think history will show it a success, but the success will be hard fought. Something that Bush and Rummy said from day one.

Some are still missing one of the main points about the Iraq war. If we go there, they will follow. Although it has never been stated, at least I haven't heard it addressed, is that WE chose Iraq as the central battle field. We knew if we went in there, the terrorists would follow us. It gave us the opportunty to fight the terrorists out in the open (if you can call guerilla warfare in the open). It is a hard mission, but I believe it will be won. If the dems/media had not turned on america, I believe this would have been much more successful by now. But the dems/media give the terrorists hope by constantly denigrating our President, Rummy, our troops and our mission. When Dick Durbin stands on the Senate floor and calls our troops Nazi's, isn't censured, and then americans vote him into a leadership position -- I shake my head in complete dismay.

If you build it they will come. They did and we are capturing and killing them, we are just not doing it fast enough, or open enough to let the american people see this as part of the overall strategy. There is a reason Iraq was/is billed as part of the WOT.

[Jim Noble]

What if it had been known before the election?

The GOP would have lost 80 seats.