What is sad about Rummy's critics (CATO included) is that they fail to recognize his many overwhelming accomplishments - particularly in reshaping the military so that we can "lean forward" on terrorists...
Sharper Minds Daily...
Posted on 12/23/2004 10:52:19 PM PST by nickcarraway
Some Americans are surprised to see that Donald Rumsfeld has kept his job in the face of mounting U.S. casualties in Iraq. Some have gone so far as to demand his resignation. The latest critic to publicly call for the defense secretary's departure is William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard.
Given his repeated faulty prognostications about Iraq, one wonders why anyone should take these urgings seriously. The Iraq debacle that Kristol championed made what should have been an easy victory this November into a bruising electoral battle.
Despite the fact that advocates of military action against Iraq have been proved wrong repeatedly -- from the assertion that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction to the belief that the Iraqi people would welcome us as liberators and tolerate a lengthy occupation of their country -- they exhibit not a hint of doubt. Rather than admit that their theories are broken, neoconservatives have turned instead to criticizing the way that Rumsfeld has gone about implementing their grand plans.
These criticisms are not new. Soon after the collapse of Iraqi forces in April 2003, and within days of the president's declaration of victory on the deck of the Abraham Lincoln, Rumsfeld intimated that the number of U.S. troops in Iraq would be cut in half by the end of the year.
The very suggestion appalled neoconservatives who agitate for a long-term military presence in the region. When Rumsfeld said the Pentagon was not planning to keep permanent bases in Iraq, Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations shot back, "If they're not, they should be." In the pages of USA Today Boot advised readers, "get used to U.S. troops being deployed [in Iraq] for years, possibly decades, to come."
Tom Donnelly of the American Enterprise Institute agreed, predicting that "the protection of the embryonic Iraqi democracy" would be a "duty that will likely extend for decades." Writing in the pages of the Weekly Standard, Donnelly called for a "quasi-permanent American garrison in Iraq" to protect American interests there. Donnelly elaborated in an interview with the Washington Post, saying "we have a political commitment and a huge amount of chips bet on whether political reconstruction in Iraq is going to work."
That analogy is appropriate. Like a compulsive gambler desperate to recover his losses, neoconservative talking heads stare at the setbacks in Iraq and conclude not that theirs was a bad bet, but rather that more should be wagered.
Such advice reveals the extent to which the talking heads are out of step with average Americans, a majority of whom now express doubts about having waged war in the first place. With the cost of operations in Iraq totaling well over $200 billion since the invasion in March 2003, Kristol's chief complaint is that we should have spent much more.
Such recommendations are very un-conservative. Not surprisingly, those in favor of a long-term Iraqi occupation are finding themselves at odds with an increasingly vocal conservative chorus anxious for a change of course in Iraq, one that does not include more U.S. troops. Syndicated columnist Robert Novak predicted in September that President Bush would seek a substantial reduction in the number of troops in Iraq early in his second term. Novak and other conservative war skeptics have been joined by such writers as William F. Buckley, Jr., George Will, and Tucker Carlson. These journalists either refrained from openly criticizing the decision to go to war or supported the toppling of Saddam but subsequently expressed grave concerns about a long-term U.S. commitment to reshape Iraqi society. They are skeptical of plans to remake the Greater Middle East.
Rumsfeld's greatest strategic misjudgment was his belief that a long-term occupation of Iraq would not be necessary following the removal of Saddam Hussein. Had he accounted for the fact that such an investment of resources would be required, Rumsfeld might not have been so enthusiastic a supporter of a preventive war against a country that posed no imminent threat to the United States.
But while his political antenna seem to have malfunctioned during a brief interval in late 2002 and early 2003, Rumsfeld's instincts seem eminently sound, based as they are on a more realistic assessment of the limits of American power. He has never embraced a long-term occupation of Iraq, and he has consistently, even stubbornly, insisted that the road to peace and prosperity will be paved by the Iraqi people. For this, he has faced repeated calls for his resignation.
President Bush has resisted pressure to send many more troops into the Iraqi theater. Rumsfeld's opposition to plans to expand the size and scope of the U.S. occupation has helped to stiffen the president's resolve.
It may be too soon to expect an end to the occupation. But if Rumsfeld is replaced by someone with more expansive plans for Iraq, we can expect an escalation of the conflict there that will surely result in more lives lost, and billions more dollars squandered.
Christopher Preble, director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, chaired the task force that prepared "Exiting Iraq: Why the U.S. Must End the Military Occupation and Renew the War against Al Qaeda."
More Rummyphobia.
This sums it all up perfectly. As far as I'm concerned, Rumsfeld's strongest endorsement came when an @sshole like Bill Kristol had the freakin' b@lls to call for his resignation.
I like Rumsfeld and do not think he should be removed. His efforts across the entire theater have been more successful in some areas than others. There are some things that I'd like to see tweaked, but he is not the failure the MSM is trying to make him out to be.
I have grave concerns about our practice of hiring local Iraqis to man the mess halls and fulfill some other duties. I would not have given this much consideration until the 'inside job' a couple of days ago. In hind site, I can't help but think this is exposing our men unduely.
I am also in disagreement with the small leaner more mobile force that is being designed. In truth I like some aspects of it, but the numbers just aren't there. We are having to extend rotations in Iraq beyond what is reasonable IMO. On top of that, what happens if another hot-spot ignites? Would we be able to respond with the forces needed?
These are policy disagreements that I have with Rumsfeld, and thereby Bush. I do not think our nation is well served by the reduced size of our forces. Past history has shown us it is far better to be overprepared, than underprepared.
Clinton is the one who reduced the forces to about where we are. That wasn't Bush's doing. Still, I wish he would correct the problem, as I percieve it.
I wish they would bump up the numbers.
And Bill Krystol is the best we can get on camera all too often. That seriously rubs me the wrong way.
It's all about advancing the Socialist agenda.
SOCIALISM AT ALL COSTS. SOCIALISM O MUERTO! These people have not had an original thought since 1969. Unless they are physically liquidated, it will take decades for them to die out and free our body politic of their poisonous Marxist venom
In the mean time, evildoers like Bill Clinton and the other Grammscists will go on redefining the meaning of "it", "marriage", lesbian priestess's as a priest, "gay" as homosexual, infanticide as "choice" and on and on. Rise up and fight this garbage people!
i'm not sure how many countries kristol does NOT want to invade and occupy. his policy reminds me of old fashioned british imperialism.
I've not followed Krystal's rantings on the issue of nations he'd like to see us enter. I do think it's rather obvious that something is going to have to be done about Syria and Iran funding if not outright planning a war effort against us.
If the United States bails on this war effort without seeing it through, we're going to be in a world of hurt. I don't think that's going to happen, but if the Iraqis loose faith that the United States can bring peace to their nation, it could go way south, real fast.
I do not want to see that.
Rummy Phobia is running like a flu epidemic in certain areas of the East Coast, from DC to NYC.
Bravo!
"Gee whiz damn, a CEO who keeps his Defense Secretary rather than throw him out just because the Elite Media yells and screams like children who cannot have their way .
"It is about time the country is run as a business, not a Senatorial fraternity, which is what the Senate represents, not the folks.
"Gee whiz golly damn, how many of these "smarter than God" attorneys/turned legislators actually have a clue what occurs outside of their offices after they have debased their secretarial/staff and left the office?
"This is becoming very tiresome, to listen to whining assed lawyers tell US, the American people what is best for US (the American people), and how they know what is best for "US".
KRISTOL is infected with the Rat/RINO version of Rummy Phobia. Kristol probably infected the Rat/Rino McAinal with Rummy Phobia after one of their close encounters.
We get it Nick. The wedge that hysterical liberals want to insinuate is: "Even the neocons want an end to this illegal mess that Bush and his henchmen have forced on innocent Islamic peace lovers. See! Even Republican members of congress disapprove and have stopped just short of calling for Rummy's resignation." ) ie: Everyone hates Bush's war.
Dream on Losers. Sane people aren't falling for this claptrap.
i just think we should try to stabilize iraq before invading iran or syria.
i'm not sure how many countries our army can handle simultaneously. if we invade all of the terrorist countries at once, we would spread our troops very thin. i would rather have a much stronger presence in iraq and finish that up. (iran and syria might deserve to be invaded, but even our armed forces have a finite limit.)
also, if bush tried to invade iran or syria at this point, hilary would probably be elected president in 2008. (bill kristol only has one vote.)
"And Bill Krystol is the best we can get on camera all too often. That seriously rubs me the wrong way."
I think Brit Hume just likes beating up on "General" Krystol. :P
Your comments about numbers of troops and being spread too thin if we take on more right now, isn't a bad one. I think there's merit to it. And that's why I address the issue of our troops strength. Iraq is the size of California roughly. Here we are talking about taking on more than that, as if our troops couldn't handle it.
Our present troops strength in Afghanistan isn't that large. This tells me we're undermanned in our military services.
We should be able to take on a region like Syria through Afghanistan, and bring it under control.
We call this a war. I believe it is a war. It's a war that is every bit as important as WWI or WWII. The ramifications of this effort are global. They apply to our homeland, something that for the most WWII part didn't, with active military operations that is. These people are bringing it to us here, and we must treat this with the same respect and fervor we did WWII. We have no choice.
Our present size of military is inadequate. If a second campaign broke out, we'd be vulnerable as hell, or at least simply unable to respond effectively.
And I find that humorous. What we fail to do too often IMO, is field people on these shows that are well grounded in true conservative values. All too often we go the neocon route.
McCain, Hagel, Luger, Krystal, even Novak, are just too "Beltway" to be effective representatives of conservatism.
If we don't explain the values of conservatism on subjects, who's going to buy into it and become devoted adherents?
i agree with you about the military. and i agree with you that we are in a serious war.
however, after the pearl harbor attack, all americans knew that we were in a serious war, and that we had to fight. at the present time, many americans seem to think that we should pull out of iraq, beef-up homeland security, and then we will be OK. i would guess that about 40% of our citizens see the situation as more like viet nam than WWII. to fight foreign wars we need more popular committment than we have now.
I would agree with that, but then every war presents the need to explain it in terms that will resonate with the public. While leadership has done some of this, they need to be more effective.
This is why I rail on the neo-con infested representations on Sunday mornings. We need people in there with a solid footing, who are well grounded in communiations and values, to sell the preident's programs.
"Hey folks, we're fighting for our very existance, our very way of life. These terrorists are playing for keeps. We can be divided by them, or face them united. The fewer terrorist states in the middle-east the better. Hussein's Iraq was a terrorist supporting state, and the press in this nation is dead wrong when they try to tell you otherwise. They are in effect, and I am sad to have to say this, fronting for a terrorist state with their misguided, illconcieved blather. Who do they think we are facing in Iraq today, peaceniks? These are the integral partners that used to inhabit Hussein's circles of influence. They are the people who helped Hussein slaughter his subjects. They are the people who helped him pay the families of suicide bombers in Israel. We are at war. There is a reason. Get over it. Support our troops and damn our enemies."
"The press in this nation needs to step up to the plate, and begin to offer credible reporting on the war. There are things happening in the middle-east that are far from negative. The press has yet to find them, and openly report their significance to the American public."
A lot can be done, that isn't being done. I don't blame the president for this, but his party is not fielding a good team on Sunday mornings. If Bosten had fielded a team like this in October, they'd have doing exhibitions at little league parks come springtime.
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.