Posted on 06/09/2015 7:17:30 AM PDT by Leaning Right
Donald Rumsfeld, one of the leading architects of the Iraq war, said in a recent interview that then-President George W. Bush was "unrealistic" to pursue democracy in the country.
*snip *
"The idea that we could fashion a democracy in Iraq seemed to me unrealistic. I was concerned about it when I first heard those words."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I never was a big fan of Rumsfeld, and this does nothing to improve my opinion of him. I don't recall Rumsfeld giving any public hints as to his "true" feelings at the time of the invasion.
Rummy is right. This was obvious.
Anyone with a brain could see that you can’t impose a democracy on people who don’t want it in the first place.
This was a huge reason why Bush failed.
His job at the time is not to give the public ‘hint’s at his feelings. It’s to serve his boss. There were tremendous differences of opinion in the room, as there are with any good cabinet. I am certain the military was less interested in nation-building and democracy-building and more intent on defeating Saddam and getting the hell out with a limited transition. I completely understand the Bush concept of spreading democracy into new parts of the world. I also understand why we ran into problems executing it. It was a strategic mistake to allow the war to go on indefinitely. The purpose was just, but once we moved from taking Baghdad and capturing Saddam, we should have declared victory and then shifted focus to a post-war rebuild. The American people lost faith with the protracted war, which is historically always a problem. In this case, with a hostile media and opposition party, it’s even more the case.
Bush took bad advice. Thewar was sold to the American people that we were going to go in, get rid of Saddam, check for WMD, and then get out.
That did not happen.
And Rummy was also Sec. Defense.
What did he do about it at the time?
Shock and Awe, as I recall.
Rumsfeld is right on this one. One of the problems with the war is that Bush and Rice assumed that once Saddam was gone, the country would just sprout Jeffersonian Democracy.
Oh yes, he is absolutely correct, now. My beef here is that if he saw the obvious back then, he had an obligation to do something about it.
Rumsfeld was no casual observer. He was at the very top of the decision-making process. And his many comments back then gave no hint of what he says (now) he really believed.
Either Rumsfeld is trying to warn the US against such attempts in the future, or he is taking a poke at Bush just to try to improve his own reputation. I'm betting it's the latter.
Purple middle finger bump, Don. Voting for “freedom” doesn’t work even when enshrined in a document limiting government. Witness current events.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Enemies foreign, enemies domestic.
The subsequent farce, where a woman with a dyed finger was paraded before Congress at a State of The Union, was truly an insult to the Founders of modern America--an absolute mockery--certainly not a celebration--of their cultural heritage.
Yep. I agree. Please see my post #9.
Rumsfeld is doing a little revisionist history here. Did not his most senior aid (Wolfowitz) say Iraqis would throw rose pedals in our path? Rumsfeld was every bit as wrong as Bush in thinking the war and the occupation would be easy and cheap. Plus they fired a senior general that disagreed and actually made the correct assessment about the number to troops necessary to occupy/pacify Iraq.
Most M.E. cultures require a dictator to keep them from eating each other.
People had their doubts that Patton could save Bastogne.
Like him, Hate him, the man is honest and intelligent.
I have never seen or heard him lie or divert.
When he speaks, he speaks candidly on what he can talk about.
I felt the same way, but even if I disagree with him on something, I respect what he is saying because of its clarity.
As Defense Sec. it was his job to collect the information from the military and convey it the C-in-C and war cabinet as well as give his own advice. He then executed what the C-in-C and war cabinet decided, not to make up & execute his own plan. Sounds like that's what he did.
Yes, indeed. But he was really confused on the whole subject. His Second Inaugural Address (January 20, 2005) demonstrates this, as he used the term "freedom" in six different and conflicting senses in a short speech:
Undoubtedly, he spoke up and was ignored.
Or resign in protest. That's often a futile gesture, but sometimes it'll shake things up just enough.
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.