Do You Want Rumsfeld Gone?

You know the thing that strikes me about these retired generals calling for Rumsfeld's head? (Batiste can't seem to help himself now that he's started.)

What they're doing is amazingly counterproductive, because they are making it impossible for the President to get rid of him, at least until after a decent interval has passed (assuming they shut up anytime soon.)

If the President dismisses the Secretary of Defense based upon the complaints of retired military officers then the precedent set in terms of civilian control of the military is simply unacceptable. While some have argued that the fact that at least one of these generals claims to be speaking for others still on active duty gives his comments greater credibility, it also makes it even more important that they not be seen as the reason for the Secretary's dismissal.

There's no claim of moral turpitude here, of gross negligence (nobody is claiming Rumsfeld has, for example, a drinking problem.) There are strong disagreements over policy, angry accusations about his management style, and claims that he should take responsibility for failures of policy.

Yet each and every one of those claims is open to argument.

Again, my point is not to defend the Secretary on the merits. My argument is that so long as it is conceivable that Rumsfeld can be defended on the merits, then, sorry, the claims of the generals can not be the grounds for dismissal. Giving them such weight is to give the military a veto power over the civilian leadership in the building, and that simply cannot be permitted.

If his management style is so dysfunctional that it makes it impossible for good policy to result, is there then no recourse? Is there no way for the unique perspective of the military officers who, after all, work most closely with the Secretary and would know most intimately how well he does his job to be heard?

Of course such recourse exists.

First of all, let's be clear. If military officers disapprove of civilian management style, that alone is not a hanging offense. That is likely to be a constant and perpetual source of friction between civilians and military working together in any event. Tough. It's the responsibility of the military to suck it up -- that's how our system of government works -- unless and until we're talking about something so egregious that, again, it makes it impossible for good policy to emerge. And, of course, there is no consensus from the military on that point.

Second, there absolutely are ways for the military to speak out.

Indict the damn policy, in their role as the senior military advisers to the nation's policymakers.

How often do these guys testify? How many "windshield tours" did they host from high level guests?

One of the books towards the top of my pile right now is Amb. Bremer's memoir of his time in Iraq, and it's towards the top because I've been in a slow burn ever since reading this review.

The most startling moment in "My Year in Iraq," L. Paul Bremer III's memoir from his days as the head of the American occupation, comes near the end, when violent uprisings were sweeping most of the central and southern parts of the country in May 2004. With the whole American enterprise verging on collapse, Bremer decided to secretly ask the Pentagon for tens of thousands of additional American troops — a request that, as the rest of his book makes clear, was taboo in the White House and Pentagon.

Bremer turned to Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top American commander in Iraq, and asked him what he would do with two more divisions, as many as 40,000 more troops. General Sanchez did not hesitate to answer. "I'd control Baghdad," he said. Bremer then mentioned some other uses for the soldiers, like securing Iraq's borders and protecting its infrastructure, to which General Sanchez replied: "Got those spare troops handy, sir?"

If this is correct then Bremer and Sanchez bear a heavy burden for helping to erode thirty years work in rebuilding the military's credibility with the press and with the American people. (I wonder why they escape the generals' wrath.)

If they knew, if they knew there were not enough troops, and did not say, did not honestly answer when the press asked -- and the press was asking -- then tell me, how do any of these guys now turn around and demand Rumsfeld's resignation?

But, again, this is now less about Rumsfeld than it is about the position these men, however well meaning, have put the President in. At this point the President might have been right on the brink of firing the sob, and he would have had to hold off. There can be absolutely no appearance, no hint, no suggestion, that he is leaving because of the generals. So long as they aren't producing a smoking gun that proves that 100% of the blame for a complete and total failure rests with him -- and sorry, we ain't there -- then doing so smacks of allowing the military to push disagreements over policy, process, and management style, to the point where they get to choose who's in charge of them.

And that simply cannot be allowed.

So if they really want to get Rummy gone, at least without doing damage to the country, the fastest way right now would be for the lot of them to shut up. Because the worst of all worlds would be for this thing to continue to snowball to the point where either the military begins to pick sides, or the President feels he has no choice politically, or Rumsfeld can't function, or all of the above, while the President feels he can't make the call because of the precedent it would set.

Then we're really in trouble.

Comments

[Bryguy]

The foundations of the republic were already shaken when Colin Powell opposed Gays in the Military. She can't take much more cap'n!

[jim]

If they knew, if they knew there were not enough troops, and did not say, did not honestly answer when the press asked -- and the press was asking -- then tell me, how do any of these guys now turn around and demand Rumsfeld's resignation?

Dude, General Shinsecki knew they would need more troops, and asked for them - and as a result he was retired early.

It doesn't take much for the remaining, active military to see the risk to their careers, for daring to suggest that the White House's plan has flaws.

Remember Harry Truman? "The Buck Stops Here" was placed on his desk. The buck for this Iran debacle and the continued pointlessness of Rumsfeld's incompetent command, goes all the way to Bush's desk in the White House.

[davod]

Jim: your coments are forgettable.

I have not read the book so, in a way, what you quoted is a bit of a tease. The book may cover this but what did Bremer and Sanchez do to get more troops. If the need was so great, and I do not question the need, why didnt someone get on a plane. I am sure with the ongoing battles betweeen State and the Pentagon Bremer would have got a positive reponse from State.

Surely, Bremer, in such a high profile position could have gone to the White House if he wanted. Bremer and Sanchez together would have been hard to refuse.

[matt]

So, if they don't criticize, Bush won't get rid of Rumsfeld, in fact considers him the best Secdef ever.

But if they do criticize, it will make Bush lose face to get rid of Rumsfeld so it's counterproductive.

So the best course for these generals is to sit tight and shut up and pray.

I think your logic is basically so messed up as to be beneath serious consideration.

[Craig]

What a bozo position to take that Bush is 'unable' to get rid of Rumsfeld if he should be removed just because generals are calling for it.

Bush is responsible for doing the right thing first, and putting the politics of it second.

That's one of the problems with the current republicans in power: the way they over politicize everything. Their determination to do the opposite of pretty much anything Clinton did contributed to their refusing to pay any attention to the Clinton administration's warnings to them during the transition that Al Queda was the #1 priority, and 9 months were lost before 9/11; Clinton handed them a war plan for Al Queda, they put it on the shelf.

There will always be people calling for things, and you are wrong to say Bush should put the appearances ahead of the right policy.

[Maimonides]

I find it rather sad that by your own analysis, the POTUS is so worried about looking like a wimp (Daddy issues anyone?) that he can't even fire a loser for being a loser. But that may well be the difference between being an inneffective wimp, and worrying about looking like one.

[Randy]

The latest news on Rumsfeld is that he is under scrutiny because an officer has claimed under oath that Rummy was personally involved in the torture-interrogation of a prisoner. Remember him before Congress play-acting at being shocked and dismayed. The only thing he was really dismayed about was that the pictures got out. Of course they let a few low-level grunts take the fall. Now, apparantly the talking point now is that Bremer and Sanchez are responsable for the FUBAR situation in Iraq. Honestly, these people have no shame. With the Bush people, the buck always stops somewhere else.

[Nate]

From the Professor's comments, It makes it appear that military leaders are currently experiencing a nasty paradox. If they speak out to journalists or to congress, then they risk a backlash from civilian superiors. A general, who recently appeared on NPR (alas I have forgotten his name, my apologies), noted that he had lost a star before retirement, ostensibly due to some very minor violations, but, in his opinion, a direct result of disagreements with the SEC DEF. Moreover, this SEC DEF has taken a very hostile stance already towards many Army flag officers currently serving, as evidenced by his selection of a RETIRED General for the Army Chief of Staff. On the other hand, in remaining silent for long periods of time, we get results such as Bremer's new book, which suggest that the leaders in Iraq perceived something very different from leaders in Tampa or Washington. What options do they have left? They can remain in the service, and be held liable for decisions with which they do not agree or they can leave the service and be accused by many of destablizing a precedent of military impartiality in the political sphere dating back to end of the Revoluationary War. As I have always believed about the Bush administration, they are master politicians, who have devised a perfect system for quelching dissent. The patriotism, honor, and dignity of Generals is above reproach. These men have give 40 years of their lives to others, yet as soon as six of them voice discontent, they are derided for destroying and harming the nation in a time of war. They have been identified as Clinton appointees or other such terms intended to discredit them. For me, the field commander of the 82nd airborne is above reproach. That position is reserved for the soldier's soldier and that man deserves our utmost respect. His methods or timing have less to do with the political and more to do with the larger picture of the GWOT, and his fears about our current direction. It is the media and the cilivian politicans, who have made this a political football. Should Rumsfled go, simply because of his opinion? No. However, should we have a reexamination of Rumsfeld's entire record as SEC DEF? Yes.

[Jimmy]

Do You Want Rumsfeld Gone?

No, I want him in jail.

[Robert]

You can be a good American or you can be a good Republican.

You can't be both!!

[Tara]

Reading most of the comments left here I am reminded why I no longer vote for Democrats.

Robert especially reminds me of that.

Not one comment,other than Davod's, offers anything remotely resembling legitimate criticism of why/why not Rumsfeld should be asked to step down by the President.

The fact that Robert believes I cannot vote Republican and be a "good" American, the kind he apparently believes only votes for Democrats..is reason enough for me to know that Democrats simply have not one thing ..not any plan..to contribute to winning the war on terror.

I would mention Maimonides' childish comment that Bush has "Daddy issues" but it speaks for itself.

Pathetic.

Cori, Bush Derangement Syndrome has overtaken this particular post. They must have found you via Daily Kos or Democratic Underground..you know those sites where only the good Americans that aren't Republicans go to wallow in the fever swamp.

[gil]

Permalink has a point.

I am no Rummy backer... In fact I believe that he will stand as the worst Secretary of Defense since men came out of the cabes.

Generals (Gen. Shinsecky aside) however good intentions are too little too late in their critical remarks.

Rummy represents all the Arrogance, and stupidity of this administration. He will stay as a constant reminder of what happens when the people elect the wrong man for President.

I say his worse punishment is to keep him put and try to resolve his own mess.... I want to see the senile idiot try it.

[Maryland Conservatarian]

Jim says: "Dude, General Shinsecki knew they would need more troops, and asked for them - and as a result he was retired early."

I say: Dude, he announced he was retiring in 2002, made his troop statement in 2003, later retired when his standard 4 year tour was over as planned....

[Xanthippas]

I agree with you completely that the efforts of these generals could be counter-productive. Bush will utterly resist replacing him as a result of outside criticism...unless it snowballs to the point where he simply has no choice, though I don't see it going so far. Nonetheless it won't make a difference. The problem is the man in the White House, not the man in the Pentagon.

[Glenmore]

Dean Goodson, in 'The Times' (of London) expresses much the same thoughts as Dr. Dauber.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-6-2138690-6,00.html
I think they are correct - it would be very dangerous for the Republic if a precedent is set giving the military leadership 'authority' over its civilian leadership.

IIRC, Gen. Shinseki was not retired early - he served the normal tenure in his final office, which was the highest he would have expected to attain. Also, his replacement was announced about a year ahead of the transfer, which is also 'normal'.

When one looks back at decisions made, and asserts that one was the 'wrong' choice, one is claiming some different choice would have been 'right', or at least more right; that alternative choice was never tested, so one will never be able to prove it would have been better (or worse). NOTHING in war ever works as anticipated. One example of hindsight is 'we should have sent more troops'. Some unknowns about that choice are 1) from where, and with what consequences there? 2) would the bigger 'footprint' have caused less civil unrest due to more firepower, or more unrest due to greater resentment of an occupaction force? We'll never know.

[gil]

Glenmore.

If history has shown us anything it is this; In any war it is the leaders that conduct it what makes all the difference. I grant you the point that war is unpredictable, but that's were a good strategy comes in, and strategy is made by man not chance. In Iraq that's were Bush, Rummy, and all the other Neo-Cons failed miserably.

The most succesfull war leaders in history understood this, and prepared by doing their homework correctly. They did not fantasise.

The Bush administration was repeatedly warned by the majority of the leaders in the world, and by W's own father's advicers of the dangers of a war in Iraq. His answer was to arrogantly ignore them all.

As he put it just recently; He is the "decider" ...If he only was the "correct decider" .

[Mithras]

Dauber-
If the President dismisses the Secretary of Defense based upon the complaints of retired military officers then the precedent set in terms of civilian control of the military is simply unacceptable.

You're either being hysterical or dishonest. They're retired, first of all. Second, who else not on active duty is better qualified to opine on such matters? Cori Dauber, Ph.D.? I am afraid you don't have the relevant experience. Rule out retired officers and you put the country in the position of being deprived of the insights of the people best qualified to offer them. Third, the military bitches to the press about everything, including their civilian bosses, on a regular basis (but unattributably), sometimes resulting in policy changes, and the world has not seemed to end.

Did you also have the vapors when retired officers were screaming bloody murder over Clinton's policies? No. You'd be all ready to decorate these guys for bravery if the Democrats were in charge. You just don't like the message they're sending, that's all.

Of course, it would be lovely if serving flag officers would stand in the door over insane policies adopted by civilian fantasists and fools by resigning rather than be accomplices. But if they are human and wait until they retire, I'd rather hear it late than never.

[Ron Hardin]

Where does it come from, that Iraq is going badly?

It seems to me the right people are being fought and defeated, for the right reasons, and quite expertly.

[Richard Aubrey]

Who lost their jobs over the North Korean irruption into the south in 1950? Search for "Task Force Smith", if you want to see a screw up. Who lost their jobs over not noticing the Chinese coming south into Korea?
Read "An Army at Dawn" about Operation Torch. My father fought in Europe and has often said it was an amateur effort. Torch, the first major campaign in decades, was so badly screwed up that my father couldn't read the book. If Overlord to Berlin was Amateur Hour to him, how bad was Torch? [Bad. You can't believe how bad.] Okinawa? Worse for the Navy than Pearl Harbor. No answer for kamikazes. Thousands and thousands of dead Americans and commanders were thinking of abandoning the effort. Who lost their jobs?

Useless torpedos? The Sherman tank, known by the Germans as the "Ronson" because it lit first time [it was hit], every time. Old advertising slogan for cigarette lighters. Or when the Brits had the Sherman, the Germans called it "Tommycooker". Who lost their jobs or was hanged at the Pentagon for putting so many of our guys in this deathtrap?

The fact is that "accountability" here is a scam. It's a political move--for whatever reasons--and using accountability for screwups as a scam. The sins of omission and commission pale into zilch next to the normal, workaday problems of other wars. What wouldn't have raised and eyebrow in earlier wars is invested with the weight of mountains here, hoping the chumps will believe it.

The lefties want Bush and getting Rumsfeld is a tactic. Buried in this is the implication that, if a good guy replaces Rumsfeld, the left will cooperate. Anybody think they will? Anybody? Or will they start right in on the next guy? The implicit good faith and concern for the interests of the country is an act.

Eff'em all.

[dauber]

I am stunned by the responses to this post. First of all, to read what I wrote as somehow being about the "politics" or about "Bush losing face" is to simply misunderstand the argument. This is about civilian control of the military -- and, yes, the way the military rolled the Clinton administration early on struck me as deeply disturbing, not only on gays but on Bosnia. On gays, the senior generals apparently had a "negotiation" with the admin. Are you kidding me? Officers do not negotiate with political leadership. They give their best advice, and then they take orders. Again, this is not an argument about the merits of the policy but about process. (And for about the gazillionith time, I'm not a Republican. This hardly seems to me to be a partisan argument, and believe me, if you're a Democrat, a precedent of having the military get its way in all issues military is not one you want set.) Why is this so very difficult to understand? Civilian control of the military requires that the generals don't get a say in who the Secretary of Defense is, and the reason their retired status doesn't make the issue less complicated is that a. they claim, explicitly claim, to be speaking for their active duty buds who cannot speak, and b. because active duty officers eventually retire -- it will inevitably have an impact on the way political leaders deal with military officers likely to retire before their terms are over.

Second, again, reread the post. Your comments make it sound as if I suggested that there was no hope or possibility for senior military leadership to make their positions known if they felt stymied by the Secretary of Defense. I EXPLICITLY answered that argument.

If senior serving military officers are afraid to tell the American people the truth because they fear career retribution, (and I am here answering an argument made in one comment -- I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS IS THE CASE FOR THESE SPECIFIC GENERALS WHO HAVE SPOKEN OUT) then, first, it is all the more important for them to find outlets to make THAT ALSO be known, and if it is that fear for their careers that holds them in check, then they are not worthy of their rank. If your argument is, well, sure these three-stars could have testified honestly before Congress, but then they might have had to retire as two-stars, are you seriously defending either that behavior or that individual?

[Bryguy]

Well, love him or hate him, you do have to admire the fervor with which Bush sticks to his guns. You probably saw the "I'm the decider" headline, but the extended quote is much more interesting. I'm sure the left will see this as another case of "because I said so that's why", but it's clear from his manner that he doesn't think he owes anyone an explanation.

Here's some audio with the extended version of the quote:

http://decider.cf.huffingtonpost.com/decider.mp3

[Bryguy]

dauber:

re: Gays in the Military: A retired general was the Secretary of State for how many years? And just now you're concerned about the influence of retired military in civilian leadership? Should Eisenhower have been disqualified from even running for the presidency? Wesley Clark?

I'll tell you the moment when this outrage would have been appropriate; that's when Bush appeared in a flight suit under a banner that said Mission Accomplished. Ok, back to the fever swamp for me.

[gil]

Ron.

Iraq is going great???..... Are you for real??.

Some people are so dumb it's just funny to read their comments.

[gil]

Bryguy

I agree with your position on the Generals.
Your ideas about Bush however are terrible.

" You have to admire the fervor with which Bush sticks to his guns".... Really ? .

In your eyes it is an admirable thing for a man to be confronted by the evidence of his mistakes and "stick to his guns"... My friend a lot of people are dying, for this ass hole we call our president to "stick to his guns" . How about opening his eyes and for a change LISTEN and do the right thing.

"Sticking to your guns" when confronted again, and again with the mess Rummy has helped make of Iraq IS NOT A POLICY, is plain stupidity.

"He does not think he owes any one an explanation"....

No?....I don't remember Americans electing a king. If that is what he thinks (I hope you are wrong), he is about to find out we elected him to do a job for us the people. He is OUR servant. He indeed owes us an explanation. In fact he owes us an apology.

[Bill]

When Zinni had to come up with a plan to invade Iraq he probably had to fight the Clintonistas for every single one of the 500,000 he wanted to use and along comes Franks and does it with far fewer and shows up Zinni. Add to it this: if the 'books were cooked' on intel as Zinni says then it goes back to when he was testifying before the Armed Services Committee in 2000.

That not one of these generals has given a solid, reasoned argument against anything Rumsfeld has done shows they shouldn't have been generals in the first place.