Robert Draper’s GQ account of fingerpointing by former Bush officials against Donald Rumsfeld is the media story of the week. Yet a quick tour of the conservative blogosphere finds it mentioned almost nowhere. Our good friend Allahpundit at HotAir.com has a brief synopsis, but other than that … blank, nothing, nada.
Which is a big shame. This is a piece conservatives need to read and understand – although for very different reasons from the reasons that have led liberals to read it with shocked fascination.
The liberal media reaction has focused on one titillating but ultimately not super interesting detail in the piece: a PowerPoint briefing for the president in which selected slides quoted passages from the Bible.
The slide that has everyone most buzzing shows a column of American tanks driving under the crossed sword gate in Baghdad alongside Isaiah 26:2, “Open the gates that the righteous nation may enter, the nation that keeps faith.” This biblical triumphalism strikes many as potentially bruising to Islamic sensitivities. Fair point. On the other hand – the slides were meant to be top secret, and had they remained that way, no bruising would have occurred.
Titillating as it is, the slideshow is not the part of the article that commands conservative attention.
That part is the part in which Bush aides unload on Rumsfeld personally.
“There was exasperation,” recalls a senior aide. “‘How much more are we going to have to endure? Why are we keeping this guy?’”
And:
“What Rumsfeld was most effective in doing,” says a former senior White House official, “was not so much undermining a decision that had yet to be made as finding every way possible to delay the implementation of a decision that had been made and that he didn’t like.” At meetings, he’d throw up every obstacle he could. “Rumsfeld would say, ‘Golly, we haven’t had time to read all of these documents! I mean, this is radical change!’ ” the official adds. “And then, if you suggested that maybe he should’ve read all the documents when everyone first got them a week ago, he’d say: ‘Well! I’ve been all over the world since then! What have you been doing?’ ”
And:
“In many ways,” says one of Bush’s national-security advisers, “Rumsfeld was more interested in being perceived to be in charge than actually being in charge.” When I repeated this quote to an administration official privy to Rumsfeld’s war efforts, this person’s eyes lit up. “One of the most fateful, knock-down-drag-outs was over postwar reconstruction,” says this official. “It was the question of who’d take charge, State or DoD. Rumsfeld made a presentation about chain of command. ‘If State takes over here, are you saying Tommy Franks is going to report to a State official? Mr. President, that’s not in the Constitution!’ ”
“I’m not saying State could have done any better,” this official says of the bungled reconstruction efforts. “But he owned it.”
That is, until he disowned it. In May 2003, six weeks after the fall of Baghdad, Bush decreed that newly appointed envoy to Iraq Paul Bremer would be reporting directly to the secretary of defense. But within seven months, according to Bremer’s book My Year in Iraq, Rumsfeld had completely washed his hands of the faltering reconstruction efforts.
And finally:
At times, this my-way-or-no-way approach could even come at the expense of his soldiers. Shortly before the Iraq invasion, King Abdullah II of Jordan decreed that warplanes could not overfly his country if they had previously flown over Israel. The king’s demand meant that U.S. fighters would need to make a multiple-hour detour before proceeding to their targets. Rumsfeld had himself been a fighter pilot and presumably recognized the absurdity of the detour, and so one NSC aide approached him during a meeting in the Situation Room as the matter was being discussed.
“Excuse me, Mr. Secretary,” said the aide. “I want you to know that Dr. Rice is prepared to call the king to get that restriction removed so that our kids don’t have to fly the extra two and a half or three hours.”
Rumsfeld looked up from his coffee. “When I need your help,” he said, “I’ll ask.”
The secretary did not ask for the help, and so his soldiers went the extra distance ….
Conservatives should be focused instead on a very different question – an unpleasant one, but one absolutely essential to our indispensable, inevitable but still postponed reckoning with the legacy of the Bush administration. The question is: Why did Iraq go so very badly wrong – and why, having gone wrong, did it take so ruinously wrong for the administration to shift to a more successful course? Conservatives rightly take pride and comfort in the achievements of the surge. But the surge does not banish all the antecedent questions about Iraq. The surge may have rescued the American position in Iraq from total disaster, but nobody would describe the present situation in Iraq as anything like satisfactory.
Many, many writers have reported on this history. No definitive answer has ever been reached. Definitiveness has eluded writers in part because there is so much blame to go around. Yet there is something else too, a special factor: the mysterious personality of Donald Rumsfeld. More than any other figure in the administration, Rumsfeld is elusive, his decision-making opaque, his motives inaccessible.
Draper shows us some of the technique by which Rumsfeld used power without leaving traces.
One of Rumsfeld’s other favorite tactics was obfuscation. “He was always bringing questions,” recalls a senior White House adviser of Rumsfeld. “Never answers.”
Imagine you are a general who has presented the secretary with a war plan requiring 300,000 men. Rumsfeld will incessantly push and probe: “Are you sure you need so many? Why?” The general did not achieve high rank by disregarding hints from his civilian superiors. “Maybe we can do with 260,000.” Really? Still so many? What if you omitted this factor or that?” “Call it 200,000.” That still seems awfully high … are you sure? OK, OK, 175,000. “Very well general, if that’s your military opinion, I respect it.”
If all goes well – brilliant. If anything goes wrong – well, the secretary was only asking questions.
Even this however does not quite capture the Rumsfeld method. After all: You can understand why Rumsfeld would wish to fight the Iraq war with the smallest possible force – and then why he might have been reluctant to admit error. These may have been wrong decisions, but they contained an inner rationality. Then there stories like this:
When Condoleezza Rice appointed Robert Blackwill to the Iraq Stabilization Group in 2003 to oversee that country’s rickety reconstruction efforts, Rumsfeld saw the new group as an encroachment and therefore elected to dispatch no DoD personnel to its meetings. Here was the Rumsfeld paradox in action— his need for control trumping his desire for information—and his own subordinates could see the cost. “The truth is,” recalls a former aide, “having people in the National Security Council is how you influence the NSC. So he would weaken himself by not having his eyes and ears there.”
This is a sub-example of a larger tendency that was present from the very beginning of the administration. Much of the National Security Council staff in the Bush administration was seconded from other agencies, especially State and CIA. These people brought with them the distinctive bureaucratic point of view of their home agencies, agencies that paid their salaries, determined their promotions, and to which they would ultimately return. Rumsfeld however refused to send DoD people to NSC. His thinking seemed to be: They worked for him, they should stay in his building. Result: NSC internal thinking did not take DoD points of view into account. The DoD became an external force and therefore inevitably a bureaucratic antagonist. In an effort to maximize his power, Rumsfeld cannibalized it. Henry Kissinger once described Rumsfeld as the most ferocious bureaucratic adversary he ever encountered. And unfortunately one of the characteristic vices of bureaucracies is to carry on bureaucratic warfare long after the issues at stake have been forgotten – indeed even to the detriment of what is supposedly the bureaucracy’s own core mission.
The record of the Rumsfeld years remains one of the highest obstacles to a Republican recovery. It’s hard to imagine how we can achieve that recovery without coming to some kind of reckoning with this record – even if only an inward, private reckoning that will enable us to avoid such mistakes in future. But you cannot reckon with what you won’t recognize.
60 responses so far
1 JJWFromME // May 19, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Rumsfeld, Cheney, Feith. What they did to twist around sane bureaucratic practices, that’s what got Lawrence Wilkerson so upset over at State.
What was Rumsfeld and Feith laughing about here, anyway?: http://tinyurl.com/feithrumsfeld
2 bloodstar // May 19, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Personally I think the Katrina Debacle was a high (low) point. But you are correct, until the right understands just how badly poisoned people are, they’ll continue their purification process and jettison another few Congressmen, another few Senators and raise their mantle of being the purest party. Then look around and wonder why the kooks over at the Libertarian Party are getting more votes than them.
But nope, they’ll never recognize what damage was done, by themselves, by Rumsfeld, because they *don’t know how to admit they were wrong*
Isn’t a definition of insanity, (or the one I like to use at times) Repeating the same action over and over again, expecting a different result. Welcome to the Insanity of the Republican Party.
3 joemarier // May 19, 2009 at 2:20 pm
I’m not a foreign policy maven or nothing, but I did read Feith’s book. It led me to the conclusion that, in retrospect, Bush should have accepted Rumsfeld’s resignation after Abu Grahib.
4 ireign // May 19, 2009 at 2:46 pm
I would be more impressed if the aides were quoted by name. Dealing with anonymous complaints isn’t really fair. The fact is the Iraq War didn’t go as David Frum and many others believed it would. There is plenty of blame to go around starting with the false premises that the Iraq opposition was moderate and secular and would work across sectarian lines. Trying to lay all the blame on the Secretary of Defense is really unfair.
Moreover, Draper isn’t known for being particularly fair. Then again, apparently neither is Frum who appears ready to throw anyone under the bus at this point to try and preserve his reputation.
5 Mike K // May 19, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Feith’s book led me to a different conclusion. Most active duty or recently retired military people I know have a very high opinion of Rumsfeld (who was not a fighter pilot, by the way; he flew trash haulers). I think he was not enthusiastic, just as Tommy Franks was not enthusiastic, about the whole thing, especially the occupation. They wanted to put Iraqis in charge and get out. That might have been worse but what Bremer brought to Iraq was pretty bad.
Another good view of Rumsfeld is in Hayes biography of Cheney. Lincoln was a at better at “Team of Rivals” than Bush was.
6 Cforchange // May 19, 2009 at 3:42 pm
I agree with Bloodstar. Iran is complicated, Katrina is not. Everyone simple citizen watching the tube knew how to quickly assist the stranded. A land to ship shuttle to a waiting Disney cruise ship could have saved the day and the public mood.
.
7 joemarier // May 19, 2009 at 3:48 pm
I have a very high opinion of Rumsfeld too, actually. In so may ways, he was the right man in the right place at the right time. It’s Bush that refused his resignation repeatedly, though, and then let him go only when the election didn’t go his way. That I continue to have a problem with…
…oh, and Lincoln was a great man for reasons other than his management of the war and of his administration, I think.
8 sinz54 // May 19, 2009 at 5:24 pm
I don’t want to personalize any discussion of Iraq.
The issue isn’t what kind of a character Rumsfeld is, or what kind of management style he enforced.
The issue is what was wrong about the *decisions* that Rumsfeld made.
And here’s your answer:
The following formerly Top Secret briefing, now declassified under the Freedom of Information Act, shows that the Defense Department never anticipated any significant post-Saddam insurgency. And that as a result, all but about 5,000 U.S. troops could be withdrawn by December 2006:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB214/index.htm
If you want to examine more of the original thinking on Iraq, you can consult the archives of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC); one of the signatories was Donald Rumsfeld.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast2002.htm
So what should we do better, going forward?
1. Never again will the U.S. launch a pre-emptive invasion of another country based solely on extrapolations of past behavior. Times change.
2. Never again will the U.S. occupy a country that has not formally surrendered to us, without expecting resistance (insurgency)–and preparing for it. An enemy is always dangerous until he’s either surrendered or destroyed.
3. Never again will an Administration attempt to sell a war to the American people on false optimism. War is hell; the enemy always gets a vote in counterattack; and therefore, *no war* should ever be sold to the American people as a “cakewalk.”
9 rsnichols // May 19, 2009 at 6:07 pm
David Frum has it right. Before conservatives can move forward and once again be credible with the American people, we must come to terms with how badly Rumsfeld’s intransigent, mean-spirited and ultimately ineffective job performance damaged the Bush administration and, ultimately, conservatism. We also have to recognize how much harm was done by the President’s stubborn support for Rumsfeld throughout 2004, 2005 and almost all of 2006 when an objective consideration of the facts plainly supported his dismissal. Throughout much or all of that time period, many conservatives, including myself, refused to seriously question Rumsfeld’s job performance and the wisdom of the President’s unwavering loyalty to him.
.
We need to rediscover the value of introspection.
10 ND Pendent // May 19, 2009 at 6:30 pm
What I have noticed about many of my most conservative friends is a dislike of introspection or objectivity when it comes to critiquing conservative leaders. It is almost as if to protect the purity of the ideology they ignore obvious failures of their politicians lest somehow the superiorty of the ideology is diminished. This was exemplified by the blind loyalty to the Bush administration as they terribly mismanaged the Iraq war and Katrina. How do you logically explain the “mission accomplished” debacle other than gross imcompetence & miscalculation?
I believe many moderate Republicans (aka RINOs) and conservative Dems that were in the GOP camp are more pragmatic and objective and not beholden to the ideology if in application it fails to deliver. The true believer may now say that Bush wasn’t really a conservative but for eight years there were not many voices on the right questioning what was obvious to more fair minded Americans. Fundamentally some elements of what conservatism represents no longer resonates with a majority of Americans especially when it has been obvious for years that the middle and lower middle class has experienced stagnating wages, outsourced jobs and escalating health & education costs as the fortunes of the wealthy has soared.
11 ireign // May 19, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Sinz-(1) Rumsfeld did not want to occupy Iraq. He wanted to turn the Iraq over to Iraqis relatively quickly instead of having the US stay as an occupying force. Whether the exiles he wanted to turn the government over would have had the street cred to rule Iraq is questionable but in fairness to Rumsfeld and others at the Pentagon, they didn’t plan for an occupation because they didn’t want to have one. Thus, Bush (who I like) made the mistake of taking Rumsfeld’s troop levels with Powell’s post-war plans. If Bush wanted an occupation than he should have had more troops. If Bush was going with Rumsfeld’s troop levels he should have had Rumsfeld’s post-war strategy.
2. Leave the pre-emption bs aside. The President and his team unnecessarily entered into the pre-emption discussion. As a Joe Lieberman op-ed at the time noted, the case for war need not be on pre-emption. Iraq violated the terms repeatedly of the cease fire agreement from 1990. Thus, we were perfectfully justified in going to war. Whether we should have is different from arguing that we went to war pre-emptively.
3. Going forward, let’s listen to generals and foreign policy experts and not bloggers consulting wikipedia. I have no idea how good of a job Rumsfeld did and neither does anyone else who has no background of intricate millitary strategy. Let’s stop playing Monday morning quarterback and armchair warrior here.
12 Chrisc23 // May 19, 2009 at 7:15 pm
President Bush had some of the most experienced and qualified people working in his cabinet. Mr. Rumsfeld is a great man not to mention he is a fellow Eagle Scout.
I am confused on why people are quick to pass judgement on the Iraq war. Fifteen to twenty years from now might be a reasonable time to review the Iraq war. We have to continue to nurture Iraq as it is still in the infant stages of democracy, unless you are in the category as Senator H. Reid who has declared the Iraq war lost.
War is war. I cringe when I hear people comparing Iraq to Vietnam. There is NO draft. People are fighting because they signed up for a job, voluntarily. US and coalition casualties are minimal. Of course there are difficulties, but again that is war.
I repeat that in fifteen to twenty years it might be fair to pass judgement on Iraq. We all need to hope for peace in the Middle East and I believe Iraq is the beginning toward peace. Remember, Freedom is worth the fight.
13 Chrisc23 // May 19, 2009 at 7:27 pm
President Bush had some of the most experienced and qualified people working in his cabinet. Mr. Rumsfeld is a great man not to mention he is a fellow Eagle Scout.
I am confused on why people are quick to pass judgement on the Iraq war. Fifteen to twenty years from now might be a reasonable time to review the Iraq war. We have to continue to nurture Iraq as it is still in the infant stages of democracy, unless you are in the category as Senator H. Reid who has declared the Iraq war lost.
War is war. I cringe when I hear people comparing Iraq to Vietnam. There is NO draft. People are fighting because they signed up for a job, voluntarily. US and coalition casualties are minimal. Of course there are difficulties, but again that is war.
I repeat that in fifteen to twenty years it might be fair to pass judgement on Iraq. We all need to hope for peace in the Middle East and I believe Iraq is the beginning toward peace. Remember, Freedom is worth the fight.
14 Chrisc23 // May 19, 2009 at 7:29 pm
President Bush had some of the most experienced and qualified people working in his cabinet. Mr. Rumsfeld is a great man not to mention he is a fellow Eagle Scout.
I am confused on why people are quick to pass judgement on the Iraq war. Fifteen to twenty years from now might be a reasonable time to review the Iraq war. We have to continue to nurture Iraq as it is still in the infant stages of democracy, unless you are in the category as Senator H. Reid who has declared the Iraq war lost.
War is war. I cringe when I hear people comparing Iraq to Vietnam. There is NO draft. People are fighting because they signed up for a job, voluntarily. US and coalition casualties are minimal. Of course there are difficulties, but again that is war.
I repeat that in fifteen to twenty years it might be fair to pass judgement on Iraq. We all need to hope for peace in the Middle East and I believe Iraq is the beginning toward peace. Remember, Freedom is worth the fight.
15 Mike K // May 19, 2009 at 7:32 pm
I see a few rational comments, which is reassuring. Rumsfeld has denied all this and the sources are anonymous. I don’t know if Republican “consultants” are the most cowardly but they are right in there.
The Iraq war will be dissected for decades and the long term result is yet to be seen. I don’t see the Democrats being the heroes but, of course, the leftist professors do write the histories.
16 InTheMiddle12 // May 19, 2009 at 8:18 pm
I agree with Mr. Frum. The longer the majority of the GOP take to become introspect (I said it more eloquently on a different post a couple of days ago – I’m wondering if Mr. Frum read it!), humble and honest about the realities of the policies they supported, the longer they will stay in the outer darkness of the electorate’s consciousness.
I do not say this lightly: there is blood on the hands of Rumsfeld, from Katrina to Iraq. His need for power usurped the greater good, time and time again – to the point it literally killed people.
Not unlike Nixon, Mr. Rumsfeld will likely live his remaining days in a sense of shame and regret. I guess we all pay for our mistakes in life – it’s just tougher when they’re main on such a grand scale in such a grand way.
Nothing would be better for the GOP and the country then Mr. Rumsfeld himself writing an honest book about his ego and how it got plaed out, though I’m not going to hold my breath.
17 Churl // May 19, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Too bad that Mr. Frum cannot summon up as much energy for fighting the machinations of the Obama administration as he expends on propagating anonymous criticisms of the administration that favored him with a nice job. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Axelrod et al. are busy messing up the future while Mr. Frum whines about the past.
A time is coming when the “moderates” will look back with a wistful longing at the days when their biggest problems were Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and Donald Rumsfeld.
18 barker13 // May 20, 2009 at 5:53 am
David. Please tell me you’re kidding, that this contribution is meant as satire.
“This mixing of Crusades-like messaging…”
Yeah. That’s it. Unbeknowst to most people, our crus… er… troops are actually converting the Heathen at gunpoint – or else!
(*SNORT*)
Subtle, Draper… real subtle.
(*CHUCKLE*)
OK… so after rambling on about cover sheets for several paragraphs we get to the… er… meat of the… er… reporting.
“…one government official…”
“My conversations with more than a dozen Bush loyalists, including several former cabinet-level officials and senior military commanders…”
All conveniently unnamed of course.
(*SMIRK*)
“Though few of these individuals would speak for the record…”
(*ROLLING MY EYES*)
David…
David… David… David…
(*SIGH*)
“…they believe…”
Ah, yes… “they.” As in… er… “them.” Aka: “Those folks.”
(*SNORT*)
Listen. Seriously. I’m not even through with page 2 and already I get the gist.
At the risk of irony allow me to just end with…
JESUS, David… why waste our time?
BILL
19 barker13 // May 20, 2009 at 6:02 am
Re: Ireign, 2:46 PM –
“I would be more impressed if the aides were quoted by name. Dealing with anonymous complaints isn’t really fair.”
BINGO!
Ireign… here’s the deal, though… it goes to character.
Me? My opening commentary down below (assuming it hasn’t been removed already) would have been the same if the article were slamming Obama.
(*SHRUG*)
The sad thing is… Frum KNOWS all this. He knows right from wrong, shoddy, sloppy, “reporting” as opposed to “on the record” reporting.
No. It’s about agendas.
Sad.
“…Draper isn’t known for being particularly fair. Then again, apparently neither is Frum who appears ready to throw anyone under the bus at this point to try and preserve his reputation.”
Yep. (*SIGH*) And quite honestly, it just depresses me. I don’t want to think ill of Frum. I actually don’t want to think ill of anyone. I only wish there were more men and women of integrity in politics.
BILL
20 ireign // May 20, 2009 at 6:17 am
It really is disappointing. I used to really enjoy reading David’s columns and blogs. He pointed out a lot of things that other conservative columnists didn’t notice. Moreover, he didn’t have the obsession that some on the NRO corner had over abortion. As such, I had high expectations for this blog. Instead, the blog seems designed mainly to bash Republicans, to pick fights to drive up traffic, and to absolve Frum of any blame for past foreign policy predictions all under the guise of his being a “reformer”.
As an aside, the other “reformers” such as Douthat and Salam have a diametrically opposed prescription to the GOP woes. They want to have the GOP focus more on blue-collar voters. Unlike Frum who believes we can win by focusing on upscale professionals by tacking to the left on social issues. Frum, has shown no ability to reconcile their views.
All in all, it has been a disappointing effort by one who was generally considered to be one of the smartest conservatives out there.
21 sinz54 // May 20, 2009 at 6:23 am
ireign: You’re trying to drag me into a discussion of Iraq again, and I think that’s counterproductive. Let the historians sort it all out. Likewise, I don’t want to discuss Rumsfeld personally either.
I want to discuss what the GOP should say to the people from now on, to help the GOP regain its traditional edge on national defense.
I listed three specific policy recommendations that I think the GOP should stand for, in the future.
1. Don’t devise your military strategy based solely on what the adversary *used to do* in the past. World War II wasn’t like World War I, as the French found out. And the Iraq War wasn’t like the Gulf War either.
2. Expect resistance until the day the enemy formally surrenders. If he never surrenders, you can *expect* to fight a counterinsurgency guerrilla war.
3. Never sell a war to the American people on false optimism. Every war carries with it a risk of catastrophe.
And now that I’ve thought about it some more, I’m going to add a fourth:
4. Nation-building is NEVER a grand strategy for winning a war. You can’t build a nation while it’s infested with insurgents and terrorists who are doing everything they can to disrupt civil order and instill terror in the populace. Those insurgents have to die first.
22 ChristianMiller // May 20, 2009 at 6:25 am
“The question is: Why did Iraq go so very badly wrong and why, having gone wrong, did it take so ruinously wrong for the administration to shift to a more successful course? Conservatives rightly take pride and comfort in the achievements of the surge. But the surge does not banish all the antecedent questions about Iraq.”
Every war has gone wrong in many ways, David. Why aren’t you using some historical perspective here? Generals and Defense Secretaries have made monumental blunders in Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, That truly make the Iraq War look very well done, especially in the casualty department. Predictions were 10,000 US , and many more Iraqi deaths, to take Baghdad! And even the Gulf War had it’s critics.
Remember when all those who were afraid to fight and invade Kuwait, (oooh… a quagmire….) were criticizing Bush I about not going after Sadaam once the rout started ? They turned on a dime after the fact.
But as most educated people know, that would have been a betrayal of the coalition to have gone to Baghdad. Serious long-term diplomatic fallout with ME countries would have ensued – and we had less of a plan then to deal with the aftermath of a regime vacuum in Iraq.
Then a mere decade later, these same people who wanted us to follow the retreating Republican Guard up the Tigris, betraying the coalition, proceeding to take out Sadaam with no plan for occupation, these same armchair generals are criticizing the Iraq War as being non-prisine, illegal and unnecessary!
As a chess player, I know that every move made creates a new weakness. I also know that you can’t take moves back. But chess with all it’s symphonic complexity, is confined and elegantly codified compared to war. Great games can be analyzed by grandmasters who still may not agree what the best course of action would have been.
The fact is that no one knows what would have happened had the US committed more troops to Iraq. It does NOT mean that they would have solved certain problems, and it also doesn’t mean that new problems would not have been created that would rebound even more negatively.
A good deal of the blame for difficulties the administration had in coping with compounding problems in Iraq was the leftist media, which could have done us all a service by reporting fairly and completely on all aspects of the Iraq War. Instead they hyper-focused all criticism to their own preconceived narrow issues, which forced the administration to deal with secondary issues, and served to polarize and then isolate the administration from their raving critics.
In short, the media ruined their credibility by taking sides and then could not serve as a realistic critic. The Bush Administration had their own reports on the one hand and a bunch of screaming harpies in everyone’s ears.
Had the media been rational and fair they would have had more influence on the Administration and therefore could have served us all better.
I’m sure Rumsfeld, as well as any real leader has made mistakes and has flaws. OK. So what?
23 sinz54 // May 20, 2009 at 6:27 am
ireign: New Majority is NOT designed to bash Republicans.
It’s trying to learn what we did wrong in the past, so we don’t repeat those mistakes in the future.
The polls show that the traditional GOP advantage on national defense has been wiped out; to within the margin of error, as many Americans now trust the Dems on national defense as trust the Repubs.
WHAT DID WE DO WRONG?
AND HOW CAN WE FIX IT?
David Frum is daring to ask those questions.
As I said, I wish that Frum hadn’t personalized it. I don’t want to know how bad Rumsfeld was personally.
I want to know how we can avoid another debacle like Iraq in the future.
And we have to start off by AGREEING that Iraq was a debacle.
I say it was.
24 barker13 // May 20, 2009 at 6:37 am
Re: Mike K; 3:17 PM –
“…Bremer…”
Yep. EXACTLY!
And Bremer was WHO’S guy… WHO’S “fair haired boy…???”
(*SNORT*)
What a world we live in when many believe Rummy was a “bad guy” and Powell (and that dishonorable cretin Armitage) represent “good and light.”
Am I in the tank for Rummy? Nope. Thing is… I believe Rumsfeld was and is an honorable man who tried his best and in his mind always sought to put the country’s good above his own.
Powell? Stabbing Bush, Cheney, and especially Scooter Libby in their backs in concert with Armitage vis a vis the Plame Affair.
Hell… I blame Powell for screwing up the outcome of the FIRST Gulf War – Powell’s screw-up (yeah, yeah, GHWB was President, but Powell was the commander who insisted we not totally pulverize Saddam’s armor) inevitably led to the SECOND Gulf War.
Powell… Armitage… Bremer… (*SNORT*) (*SIGH*)
Re: Sinz54; 5:24 PM –
“The following formerly Top Secret briefing, now declassified under the Freedom of Information Act, shows that the Defense Department never anticipated any significant post-Saddam insurgency.”
Fair enough, Sinz… as far as it goes. But Rumsfeld wasn’t in favor of an occupation in the first place. He was an “in and out” man and if we had just had an iron fisted temporary puppet regime ready to go I’m guessing things would have worked out better.
WHY we didn’t have a pre-formed puppet regime ready to go…??? You could ask Powell as readily as Rumsfeld, Tenet as readily as Powell or Rumsfeld; heck, you could ask BILL CLINTON since he was president in ‘98 when the Iraqi Liberation Act was passed and became official U.S. foreign policy.
ULTIMATELY… I blame Bush. George W. Bush. The buck stopped at his desk.
BILL
25 sinz54 // May 20, 2009 at 6:39 am
Franco asks: “Every war has gone wrong in many ways, David. Why aren’t you using some historical perspective here?”
OK, I’ll use some historical perspective:
1. While we made lots of mistakes in WW2, our basic strategy was correct: Preserve Britain at all costs as the base for a future invasion of France; hold our noses and support the Soviet resistance on the Eastern front; go island-hopping through the Pacific; and build the atomic bomb and the B-29 long-range bomber. All of these points were crucial.
Whereas the basic strategy with Iraq was wrong. We attacked a nation that had NOT declared war on us, to find WMD that we had NO HARD EVIDENCE really existed anymore.
2. In WW2, we accepted nothing less than unconditional surrender of the enemy–because we did NOT want to fight an endless guerrilla war. We wanted them finished off–permanently.
Whereas in the Iraq War, we never got ANYONE in the Iraqi government to formally surrender. Without a formal surrender, you can expect a guerrilla war. As I proved in my earlier post, Bush never expected one.
3. In WW2, FDR told the American people that beating the Axis powers would be VERY hard, and we had to sacrifice. The American people had a healthy respect for the Axis war machine; we knew that beating the Nazis would be no cakewalk. And so we put up with rationing of food and gasoline, a military draft, and a defense budget equal to 40% (!!!) of GDP.
Whereas with Iraq, the Bush Administration consistently underestimated the effort by a huge amount. We were originally told that the war would cost less than $100 billion (!!!), and that Iraq’s oil revenues would pay for most of it. We were told that all we were doing was to go into Iraq, topple the Saddam regime and destroy the WMD. NOT to do nation-building, NOT to fight a counter-insurgency war which could take years.
That’s why.
As commander-in-chief, Bush FAILED. He failed the most crucial test of any commander:
KNOW YOUR ENEMY.
26 sinz54 // May 20, 2009 at 6:45 am
barker13: You’re wrong about “in and out” too.
When the insurgency got started in the early summer of 2003, Rumsfeld not only didn’t move swiftly to crush it, but didn’t even consider it an insurgency at all! He called them “just a few dead-enders,” remember? Remember that phrase in all his press conferences? As a result, the insurgency was allowed to grow and metastasize until it was too late.
And the looting that broke out in all Iraqi cities also helped to destroy civil order. What was Rumsfeld’s breezy response to the looting? “Democracy is messy.” Can you imagine a President Rudy Giuliani saying that about looting in major cities? Giuliani, unlike Rumsfeld, strongly believes in the maintenance of CIVIL ORDER as a prerequisite for social progress. And so do I. Unlike Rumsfeld, Giuliani was a real mayor of a real large city–and he knows how society can collapse if civil order is disrupted.
You’re absolutely right about the need to rule an occupied country with sufficient force to maintain civil order. In fact, the Geneva Convention states that an Occupying Force (that’s us) *must* maintain civil order in an Occupied Country (that’s Iraq).
But we didn’t.
27 sinz54 // May 20, 2009 at 6:48 am
So here’s another lesson learned:
To paraphrase Napoleon: If you’re going to occupy a country, OCCUPY THE COUNTRY.
Shoot looters on the spot.
Declare marshal law, with a strict curfew.
Install a military government.
Bring over sufficient civilians to jump-start the civil service.
And you better train those civilians to be able to defend themselves with deadly force. Because if there is an insurgency, they are going to be prime targets.
28 ottovbvs // May 20, 2009 at 6:53 am
This made me think a bunch of white house insiders are going to make Rumsfeld the fall guy for a system of governance that was deeply flawed. Clearly David has never heard of the buck stops here. Quite apart from what it tells us about Rumsfeld it’s tells us an immense amount about the president who throughout seems totally disengaged. This was the essential message that came from O’Neill who was Bush’s first treasury secretary and confirmed what I’ve always felt about Bush which is that he was lightweight operating way above his ceiling. Now you can put this down to fecklessness on the part of Republicans, or if you are a conspiracy theorist, go with the front man theory. What it does highlight is the danger of nominating a lightweight to the most powerful office in the world. It’s dangerous for the country and in the long run ruinous for the party.
29 barker13 // May 20, 2009 at 6:55 am
Re: Ireign; 6:33 PM –
“…Bush…made the mistake of taking Rumsfeld’s troop levels with Powell’s post-war plans….If Bush wanted an occupation than he should have had more troops. If Bush was going with Rumsfeld’s troop levels he should have had Rumsfeld’s post-war strategy.”
BINGO!
“The President and his team unnecessarily entered into the pre-emption discussion. As a Joe Lieberman op-ed at the time noted, the case for war need not be on pre-emption. Iraq violated the terms repeatedly of the cease fire agreement from 1990. Thus, we were perfectfully justified in going to war. Whether we should have is different from arguing that we went to war pre-emptively.”
RUMMY! (As in Gin Rummy!) (*GRIN*)
No… seriously… right on target, Ireign.
Re: Mike K; 7:32 PM –
“I don’t know if Republican “consultants” are the most cowardly but they are right in there.”
(*SIGH*) Yep. Again… disagreement is fine and dandy, but integrity… character… I just don’t see how men and women of integrity and character can engage in some of the tactics they do… tactics such as those many of us have noted being used by journalists, pundits, and politicians.
Re: Churl; 10:44 PM –
“Too bad that Mr. Frum cannot summon up as much energy for fighting the machinations of the Obama administration as he expends on propagating anonymous criticisms of the administration that favored him with a nice job. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Axelrod et al. are busy messing up the future while Mr. Frum whines about the past.”
Yep.
BILL
30 ottovbvs // May 20, 2009 at 6:56 am
sinz54
wrote 5 minutes agoSo here’s another lesson learned:
“To paraphrase Napoleon: If you’re going to occupy a country, OCCUPY THE COUNTRY”
……..Yes this was also dear departed Fuhrer’s maxim too. And it works as he demonstrated……whether it’s a pattern the US wants to follow is more problematic.
31 ottovbvs // May 20, 2009 at 7:04 am
“Too bad that Mr. Frum cannot summon up as much energy for fighting the machinations of the Obama administration as he expends on propagating anonymous criticisms of the administration that favored him with a nice job. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Axelrod et al. are busy messing up the future while Mr. Frum whines about the past.”
Yep.
BILL
…….Forgetting of course that this is a fiasco that has already cost $700 billion; claimed the lives of about 4300 Americans and over 100,000 Iraqis; maimed 30,000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis; and destroyed American primacy in the middle east…….Sure lets not whine about these little problems of the past.
32 ottovbvs // May 20, 2009 at 7:15 am
Franco, Churl, Mike, Barker, irreign…….You can try and sweep this elephant under the carpet but it’s going to leave a hell of a bump under the rug……The Bush admin will be characterised in the history books by two events: Iraq and the financial collapse.
33 barker13 // May 20, 2009 at 7:17 am
Re: Sinz54; wrote 10 minutes ago –
“barker13: You’re wrong…”
(*USING BEST HOMER SIMPSON VOICE*)
WHY YOU LITTLE…!!!!
(*GRIN*)
“When the insurgency got started in the early summer of 2003, Rumsfeld not only didn’t move swiftly to crush it…”
Granted! But, Sinz… you provide your own counterpoint via your follow-up “To paraphrase Napoleon” post.
I’m with ya! I’m with Napoleon!
But, hey… don’t blame Rumsfeld. I’m guessing if he had had his druthers he would have done what was necessary to clip “the resistance” in the bud.
Here’s the problem in a single word: REALITY.
Curfews with shoot on sight orders? Can you imagine…?!?! Can you imagine American GIs and Marines shooting scores, dozens, hundreds of Iraqis – women and children along with me?
Hey… catch a looter in a museum and take him outside and hang him by the nearest lamp post… fine with me… but obviously *my* views in this regard – being closer to yours and Napoleon’s than Anthony Romero – ain’t exactly reflective of “civilized world opinion.”
Hey… Sinz… I don’t recall Powell calling for “Napoleonic measures,” do you? How’bout Democratic leaders in Congress? (Heck… how’bout Republican leaders in Congress…?!?!)
You sound as if you believe Rumsfeld had a realistic option of using “Napoleonic measures.” He didn’t. Did he ask Bush for permission? I don’t know. If he did, Bush obviously refused.
Again, Sinz… let me make this perfectly clear… I AGREE WITH YOU on what “should” have been done; I’m simply noting the political infeasibility of the case we’re both making.
Hell… my guess is that if Rumsfeld and Bush HAD given the orders you and I both agree should have been given that Colin Powell would have resigned and publicly undercut Bush’s entire Iraq/Afghanistan policy and provided cover for the opposition Parties of our allies (the coalition of the willing) to cause actual civil unrest in countries like Spain and Britain to an extent far beyond anything that actually did happen during the time period.
Anyway…
(*SHRUG*)
BILL
34 Churl // May 20, 2009 at 7:24 am
ottovbs, one can argue either way whether the sacrifices of Iraq (or WWII, or Korea, or Vietnam, or the Somme, or the US Civil War…) were worth it. You say “fiasco” others have different opinions. I don’t know, the future will tell.
But I don’t see how excoriating people like Rumsfeld who did the best they could given current information under trying circumstances is going to advance the cause of conservatism at all.
A ringer from the lefties, however, sees the value of such character assassination in furthering the left’s agenda.
35 dendup // May 20, 2009 at 7:38 am
The “Axis of Evil” was posited in part as 3 rogue states in various stages of aquiring nuclear weapons.
I think a resonable hypotheses is that the Iraq war was a test case for a military strategy to eliminate that threat.
A relatively quick victory in Iraq would have vindicated a controversial military doctrine needed to politically sell a controversial approach to not just diffusing, but eliminating the nuclear threat from all 3 countries.
Winning quickly in Iraq, with minimal force, would have been the best argument for a military solution to the threat of both Iran and N Korea.
This hypothese explains, I think, the refusal to adapt to the Iraq War turning into a different kind of war from what they envisioned.
Once things started to go bad, pursuing victory in Iraq was to admit defeat for the larger strategy.
David, please tell us in one unqualified, straightforward sentence I am wrong about this.
36 sinz54 // May 20, 2009 at 1:44 pm
barker13: I really believe that if Giuliani had been President instead of Bush, that’s the way he would have handled it: Public order comes first.
37 sinz54 // May 20, 2009 at 1:53 pm
dendup: I think there was also a hope for a “Finlandization” type strategy. That is, smashing Iraq and setting up U.S. air bases there would throw the fear of God (or Allah) into nations like Libya, Iran, Syria, etc. And they would rush to make major concessions to us out of fear of being attacked themselves, in which case further U.S. military action might be unnecessary.
And for a short time after the Saddam government fell, this seemed to work. Libya’s Qaddafi concluded a deal with the U.S., after which we took him off the list of state sponsors of terrorism.
But once the insurgency grew and stopped us cold, these other nations become more emboldened. Iran in particular.
ottovbvs: The Geneva Convention states that it is the responsibility of the Occupying Power (that’s us) to maintain civil order in the Occupied Country (that’s Iraq). When we allowed looting and crime waves and anarchic conditions after the fall of the Baghdad government, we were not living up to our responsibility. I thought you liberals loved the Geneva Convention.
38 sinz54 // May 20, 2009 at 2:04 pm
IntheMiddle12: I don’t think we need to become “introspective” in the sense of bashing present or past Republicans. I think we need to learn our lessons and present better policies going forward.
I remember the successful Republicans of the late 1970s and 1980s. They didn’t go around blaming Taft or Nixon or Ford or Rockefeller. They simply learned how to present better policies going forward. In that era, National Review said that the old green-eyeshade *policies* of belt-tightening had been abandoned (without mentioning who the belt-tighteners had been), in favor of offering hope and opportunity. And the old detente policy vis-a-vis the Soviet Union had been abolished (without mentioning Nixon by name), in favor of a more skeptical attitude toward the Soviets. Nobody pointed fingers; the Republicans just went and made these policy shifts.
I tried to suggest how we could frame this discussion. Can we stop talking about “Rumsfeld” and ask ourselves these questions:
What should we do about Afghanistan-Pakistan? Should the U.S. commit to another costly nation-building venture? Should we commit to a surge of lots more troops? What exactly is our goal there?
Is a pre-emptive strike still a good option to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities? If Iran test-fires a nuclear bomb, is any military option gone at that point?
Isn’t offering policies for *today’s* problems more productive than looking backward at what might have been in Iraq?
39 dendup // May 20, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Sinz: Certainly the focus should be on going forward, and I think that is in fact David’s objective. I think the apparently obsessive focus on Iraq is to prove that the military centered approach failed merely because of incompetence, not because it was the wrong policy.
Then, when we talk about Pakistan or Iran, or N. Korea, the militarists will talk as if Iraq never happened. In fact, my guess is they will see a military centered approach as a chance for vindication.
40 dendup // May 20, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Sinz: Certainly the focus should be on going forward, and I think that is in fact David’s objective. I think the apparently obsessive focus on Iraq is to prove that the military centered approach failed merely because of incompetence, not because it was the wrong policy.
Then, when we talk about Pakistan or Iran, or N. Korea, the militarists will talk as if Iraq never happened. In fact, my guess is they will see a military centered approach as a chance for vindication.
41 l2d2 // May 20, 2009 at 7:43 pm
This is a sick ego maniacal man and the silence that kept this cancer in the white house is disturbing and culpable. May God have mercy on his soul…less. Rumsfeld has blood on his hands and Chey, his co-conspirator…Shame on all of us who enbaled this. God forgive us all. So very sad that they sat, listened and let it happen. Only they had the power to intercept this creep. They didn’t until we forced change.
42 dragonlady // May 20, 2009 at 8:15 pm
When so many senior generals come out and ask for your resignation, Houston, you have a problem. While I read the piece and do not know if it’s being entirely fair to Rumsfeld (he has already issued a statement denying he took the powerpoint slides with biblical quotes to POTUS), the problem is there are other credible sources like Woodward’s books who detail the former SECDEF’s problematic management style. Does anyone remember what happened to Gen Shinsheki, army chief of staff? When he testified in front of Congress we would need several hundred thousand troops for the occupation, he was upbraided and retired early. The message was clear. I believe in civilian control over the military, but the CJCS is supposed to be the primary advisor to the POTUS and SECDEF. How can anyone give impartial advice after that message? Also, Gen Rick Sanchez, the MNF-I commander on the ground during the beginning of the occupation had some startling revelations about him. He may be bitter because he was retired after the Abu Gharib scandal, but that aside, I do not believe he is flat out lying: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1736831-1,00.html
I have not read Feith’s book yet, and want to get all sides of the story, but clearly, Rumsfeld was a problematic SECDEF.
43 TrickyDickToo // May 20, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Nice piece. So the man who coined the Axis of Evil phrase and helped to enable so much of the destruction through the happy propaganda campaign, now is sorry his bosses were bad guys? Hmmm. Revisionists Rock!
44 j_mcdouglas // May 20, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Republicans have been making the same mistakes over and over and over again since the 1960’s.
They always break the law, demean anyone who’s not a WASP, and then put their fingers in their ears when the rest of the country votes them out of office and calls them a joke.
This time they screwed it up so bad that Americans are going to have a very hard time forgetting. The problem is that Republicans not only got themselves into another war they couldn’t finish, but they almost sunk us into a new Great Depression. Americans aren’t going to forget because their retirements are gone.
But Republicans never learn anything from their failures, because Republicans aren’t the types of people who are sophisticated enough to be that self-critical.
Why are the vast majority of Republicans like this?
Because their base is comprised of bigots and that fundamental equation isn’t ever going to change. It’s been the same thing since Nixon.
Bigots have to vote for someone, and it’s never going to be Democrats.
Frum evidently can’t do the math.
45 danbmil99 // May 21, 2009 at 1:49 am
Anyone who has worked at a large, bureaucratic corporation or other type of organization knows about people like this. He’s the pointy-haired manager from Dilbert: always angling to take credit and deflect blame.
Rumsfeld may have been the classic paranoid, self-serving, bumbling political hack, but we can’t blame him for Katrina, or the financial meltdown. The fish rots from the top. The real blame for all of this is in the person and personality of GWB. He was simply not competent to get the top job, and he never should have been nominated. There are reasons we don’t believe in dynastic succession.
And yet, after all this, somehow the GOP managed to nominate a VP who DIDN’T KNOW THAT AFRICA WAS A CONTINENT. Please, everyone who reads this blog, put aside your personal feelings about Palin and ask yourself, is it sane to put someone with her background and capabilities a heartbeat away from the most powerful post in the modern world? Especially after what we went through with W? That decision alone put the party back ten years.
And yes, I realize the big O is not that experienced. But please, credentials count for something. Sarah Palin could not have become a law professor at Harvard. She is simply not cut from the same cloth.
There is a strange, deep-seated anti-intellectualism in the DNA of the GOP. It come from years of tension between the intellectual, academic class in this country, who tend to be liberal, secular, and — I’ll admit it — even socialist/communist in their thinking. This ideological divide has somehow devolved into an attitude that intelligence itself — at least as expressed in the way we usually understand it — is suspect.
Well, the last election shows how the populace feels about that attitude, at least to some degree. Really, it’s not enough to have the right positions on key issues, and a passion for politics. The candidates you put forward for national office have to be competent, intelligent, and able to analyze situations and respond with reasonable decisions. They cannot be the kinds of people who “look into a person’s soul” to make momentous decisions affecting the future of our world. At least not when their soul-searching eyesight is not up to snuff.
46 loki1967 // May 21, 2009 at 4:20 am
I am curious why the conservatives are not screaming for Rumsfeld to be held accountable. To be tried for murder since he is the main reason we lost over 4,000 troops as well as all the corruption in procurement. It has always baffled me how so called conservatives could look a blind eye at all the spending waste and all the deaths. It goes against everything real conservatives stand for to let this criminal stay on the streets.
I also wonder if maybe Bush/Cheney didn’t want a quick win and pull out because of all the money their friends were going to reap from this endeavour.
I bet Patton and Eisenhower are waiting for Rummine in the afterlife so they can drag him to the tool shed for some disciplining.
47 Andyi99 // May 21, 2009 at 5:14 am
Donald Rumsfeld is a war criminal.
48 sinz54 // May 21, 2009 at 7:58 am
danbmil99: The anti-intellectualism of the GOP also comes from the death or semi-retirement of the old patrician intellectual conservatives like William F. Buckley and William Rusher, who worked hard to develop an intellectual thoughtful Right, on journals like National Review. They’re gone, and the effect is obvious.
So far, no one has arisen who can take their place. The new editor of the National Review, Kathryn Jean Lopez, is part of the Religious Right.
49 sinz54 // May 21, 2009 at 8:06 am
danbmil99: Bush in 2000 had better credentials than Obama in 2008.
Bush had been a successful governor of Texas, who won election to a second term handily. He had a track record of working with Democrats.
And as President, Bush worked with Democrats to pass No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D.
So I absolutely disagree that Bush was unqualified in 2000. He had more executive experience than Obama, who had none. If anyone is unqualified, it’s Obama, who was only a one-term senator with zero executive experience.
However, Bush had no foreign-policy experience. And he didn’t know much about foreign policy. So when 9-11 happened, leaving Bush shaken and determined to deal with it, that left him open to being sold a bill of goods by Wolfowitz and the other neo-conservatives.
Obama, on the other hand, was forced by events to learn about foreign policy and develop his own ideas. How could he ignore foreign policy when America was at war while he was Senator?
The lesson from all this is that America, as a superpower. cannot afford to elect anyone as President who is not already well versed in world affairs and who has already developed his own worldview. Let’s not repeat that mistake with Sarah Palin (unless she can shape up on that score).
50 sinz54 // May 21, 2009 at 8:25 am
dendup sez: “I think the apparently obsessive focus on Iraq is to prove that the military centered approach failed merely because of incompetence, not because it was the wrong policy.”
Right. Rumsfeld and a couple of others get scapegoated for personal incompetence, and that way the GOP doesn’t have to do any new thinking about foreign policy. Yeah, right.
If Frum or other Republicans think THAT will enable the GOP to win back the trust of Americans, they are very much mistaken. They are dealing with an articulate President who is going to insist that alternate policies are better.
Having said that, I take issue with your term “militarists.” McCain was a hawk too–but he was a strong critic of Bush’s peculiar war policies. I’m just as hawkish, but I don’t believe in nation-building or pre-emptive invasions.
Reagan was the most hawkish President since FDR–but he conducted the Cold War peacefully for the most part except for minor skirmishes in Grenada.
So it’s not favoring a strong national defense that gets us into messes like Iraq. I hope you don’t believe that war breaks out because America is a strong country. The Iraq War broke out because America felt weak against terrorism. The idea that you can achieve peace by weakening the West’s defenses has gotten the West into even worse messes than Iraq.
BTW, neo-conservatives like Wiliam Kristol strongly denounced Reagan’s decision to withdraw from Lebanon in 1982, after our Marines were killed by a terrorist bombing there. They wanted Reagan to invade Lebanon and stabilize the country. In which case I believe that Reagan would have gotten us into a debacle comparable to Bush’s in Iraq.
51 dragonlady // May 21, 2009 at 10:27 am
j_mcdouglas, your comments are absolutely loathsome. Repubs and Dems may disagree on policies and philosophy, but for you to hurl personal attacks by categorizing the entire GOP as a bunch of bigots is quite self-revealing. It’s truly a spectacle to see someone try to pump up their own ideology and by extension, their self-image by demeaning others.
52 barker13 // May 21, 2009 at 10:33 am
Re: Sinz54; 1:44 PM –
Well… we’re never know, Sinz. Perhaps you’re right, perhaps you’re not; either way it’s alternate history, not reality. I gave my views in light of what was – in light of reality. (*SHRUG*)
Re: Sinz54; 2:04 PM –
“What should we do about Afghanistan-Pakistan?”
And that’s the $64,000 question. (Pre-Inflation.) (*WINK*)
I’m thinking “less is more” is about the best we can do, particularly in Afghanistan. Keep a low profile. Play whack-a-mole. (*SHRUG*) We’re just NOT going to turn Afghanistan into a “civilized” “real” country. It is what it is – tribal warlords… religious fanatics… opium lords and peasants… a bit too much “diversity” for the US or the West to “remake.”
Pakistan…??? (*SIGH*) A different story. The thing is… short/mid/longterm… it’s INDIA we need as our friend and ally.
As wasteful and long term counterproductive as it is, I see no choice but to basically keep to a carrot/stick approach heavily tilted to the Pakistani military.
For what it’s worth… just based on the small amount of research I’ve done… it would be no picnic (and perhaps beyond our capacity) to forcibly disarm Pakistan in terms of their nukes.
(*SHRUG*) (*FROWN*)
“Is a pre-emptive strike still a good option to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities?”
We simply don’t have access to that info, Sinz. I sure as hell hope so though! In any case, Israel would have to take the lead and the brunt of the backlash.
I doubt they could pull it off without our cooperation… but again… we simply don’t have the factual knowledge to know for sure. (*SHRUG*)
“If Iran test-fires a nuclear bomb, is any military option gone at that point?”
No. Not at all.
(BTW… how exactly would Iraq test a nuclear weapon? Think geography.) (*SHRUG*)
BILL
53 barker13 // May 21, 2009 at 11:01 am
Re: Danbmil99; 1:49 AM –
“…the GOP managed to nominate a VP who DIDN’T KNOW THAT AFRICA WAS A CONTINENT.”
Dan. I’m more of a sarcastic, condescending s.o.b than a name caller, but for you…
Are you a frigg’n idiot…???
Seriously.
I’m not saying you can’t attack Palin… I’m just saying don’t sound like a damned fool via spreading nonsense like the above cut quote. (And especially not using all caps!)
(*SNORT*)
I’d be quite happy if Gov. Palin were President today; happier in fact than if my other choices included McCain as well as Obama.
(*SHRUG*)
Palin clearly has a much better grasp of real world as well as governmental economics than either the serving President or the Senator from Arizona – who admitted his ignorance… amazingly enough seemingly without much embarrassment after having spent decades as a congressman and senator.
(*SIGH*)
“But please, credentials count for something. Sarah Palin could not have become a law professor at Harvard. She is simply not cut from the same cloth.”
Hmm… you know much about Woodrow Wilson?
How’bout Carter? Annapolis? And HE had business experience too!
I agree with you. I can’t see Palin as an academic. But I don’t take the same lesson from that as you do apparently. (*SHRUG*)
“There is a strange, deep-seated anti-intellectualism in the DNA of the GOP.”
Not so. Better to say there’s an entirely understandable and justifiable disdain for intellectualism that… er… ain’t all that “intellectual” if by “intellectual” you mean favoring the RIGHT POLICIES over the WRONG POLICIES.
(*SMILE*)
You familiar with Newt Gingrich? “Anti-intellectual…???”
(*SNORT*)
Dick Armey? Phil Gramm?
Dan… seriously… at best you’re… er… oversimplifying.
“Well, the last election shows…”
That eight years of Bush, six of which featured an often corrupt and usually fiscally irresponsible RINO Congress, the beacon of Hope and Change couldn’t manage to win a Nixon or Reagan style landslide.
(*SHRUG*)
Dan. We’ve been over this. Over this and over this. You can’t beat something with nothing and in many respects… McCain was less than nothing as opposed to Obama.
Hey. Maybe if Palin had been on the top of the ticket and had campaigned against both the RINOs (and Bushism) and Democrats as far as TARP and bailouts and Stimulus Plans were concerned President Obama would still be Senator Obama.
Hey… it also could have worked out that Obama won emulating Johnson’s victory over Goldwater! We’ll never know. But at least there would have been a REPUBLICAN vs. DEMOCRAT presidential race as opposed to a “real” Democrat vs. John McCain (of the House of Bush) race.
(*SHRUG*)
We tried McCain in ‘08. Let’s try a conservative in ‘12 and see what happens. We KNOW what happened to McCain.
BILL
54 barker13 // May 21, 2009 at 11:05 am
Re: Dragonlady; wrote 34 minutes ago –
I too notice we’re getting more cranks here. Perhaps they mistake NM for the Slate comments forum or perhaps online letters to the editor of the New York Times.
(*CHUCKLE*)
BILL
55 danbmil99 // May 21, 2009 at 11:46 am
sinz54: “danbmil99: Bush in 2000 had better credentials than Obama in 2008.”
Actually, you have a point. I’d say it’s about a wash, though I do count executive experience as something important, so maybe GWB has an edge there. It’s certainly true that intellectuals can f* up a country (that guy from Georgia [the one near Russia] comes to mind).
But the crux of my point stands, which is that Bush is anti-intellectual, and tended to hire people and trust them using his gut rather than his head. Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Brownie come to mind as three examples of how that worked out for him. Not only did he have bad instincts when it came to picking people (Harriet Meyers for Supreme? Really?) — he also stuck with them way too long, when it was obvious to everyone else in the world that they were incompetent or worse. (lately rumors have circulated that he was laughing along with ‘Darth Vader’ jokes about Cheney towards the end…)
As to Sarah P, all I can say is — really?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWZHTJsR4Bc
56 chephren // May 21, 2009 at 12:09 pm
It is terribly ironic to read this article. Frum, Bush’s former speechwriter, and for years a determined cheerleader for the war in Iraq, now proposes a “reckoning” for the errors of Rumsfeld?
Excuse me? Where were you back in the day? The very qualities of Rumsfeld criticized in this post – obfuscation, ruthlessness, stubbornness, a talent for bureaucratic infighting – are the same ones he was celebrated for at the time of the invasion. I remember articles in Newsweek and elsewhere about “Rumsfeld’s Rules”, about what a tough, take-no-prisoners guy he was. It was Don’s way or the highway, and that was how the administration – and the conservative press – liked it.
Conservatives loved the guy. And now they’re supposed to ‘reckon’ with the errors of Rumsfeld’s ways?
Are Conservatives ‘reckoning’ with domestic spying without warrants? With trashing Clinton’s budget surpluses and doubling the national debt? With the marginalization of their own party?
Whole lot of reckoning to be done around here, I’d say.
57 barker13 // May 21, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Re: Danbmil99; 11:46 AM –
“But the crux of my point stands…”
(*GRIN*) You keep on telling yourself that, Dan! (*WINK*)
“…Bush is anti-intellectual, and tended to hire people and tust them using his gut rather than his head.”
But… but… but… what of the neocon cabal…?!?!
“Anti-intellectual…?!?!” The neocons WERE the intellectuals…!!!
Rumsfeld attended Princeton on academic scholarship as well as receiving a NROTC scholarship. Last time I checked, Princeton’s one of them thar poison ivy league university type… er… places. You know… the kind of places really… er… smart people… er… go.
Cheney got into Yale (having grown up in Wyoming!) and while it’s true he partied himself out of there pretty damned quickly the guy did go on to get a BA, Masters, and start work on a Doctorate which he never finished.
Seriously, dude… some of these inferences you’re throwing around about other peoples intelligence just… er… doesn’t wash.
Again, Dan… and I’m trying to TEACH you something here… it’s not that conservatives are “anti-intellectual,” it’s that we’re “anti-bullshit.”
Me? I follow Charles Murray and James Q. Wilson, Camile Paglia and…
(*SMILE*) You get the idea. Do you get the point…???
Krugman has a Nobel prize. OK. He’s still wrong far more often than he’s right.
Tom Friedman has what… three Pulitzer prizes…? Half the time I just roll my eyes when I read his ever changing as the wind blows recycled output.
Is Friedman a smart, knowledgeable guy? Sure. Is Krugman? Sure – and once he starts mixing numbers and letters he’s sure to impress. (*SMILE*) Still… again… the disdain for CERTAIN “intellectuals” is based upon how “right” one thinks they are.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but I’d guess the average liberal arts conservative respects the average engineering student or even business student (anyone who has to do math!) more than the average liberal arts liberal. If so, does that make the average liberal arts liberal “anti-intellectual?”
“…(Harriet Meyers for Supreme? Really?)…”
I’m with you there, Dan! As I like to put it…
“…yeah… I knew Bush had lost his frigg’n mind when he tried to appoint his third grade art teacher to a seat on the Supreme Court.”
(*SMILE*) (*HANDSHAKE*)
Finally… as to your clip…
(*SNORT*)
Com’on… at least be intellectually honest; that was a pro-McCain “From side of the Party” reporter serving as a mouthpiece for the McCain/Frum side of the GOP.
(*SMILE*) (*SNICKER*)
BILL
58 barker13 // May 21, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Re: Chephren; 12:09 PM –
“I remember articles in Newsweek and elsewhere about “Rumsfeld’s Rules”, about what a tough, take-no-prisoners guy he was.”
Yep. I remember those days too. Hell… remember the SNL skits that basically GLORIFIED both Rummy and Cheney (and even laughed WITH Bush as opposed to AT Bush) following 9/11?
(*SIGH*)
Remember Rumsfeld refusing to be taken to a secure location in the moments after the Pentagon was hit (with no one knowing if follow-up attacks were imminent) and instead physically helping with the wounded…?
I do.
A nation of Rummy’s may screw up, but, yeah… a nation of Frums… worrisome indeed.
BILL
59 danbmil99 // May 21, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Ignoring all the pointless trollbait –
Let me rephrase. I agree credentials can be bs. What differentiates say Obama from say Palin, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush, is a combination of intelligence, a reasoned temperament, and plain old common sense.
When a team fumbles as many balls as the last admin did, it’s a pointless exercise in futility to argue for their competence.
And Sarah Palin as President… Really?
60 barker13 // May 21, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Re: Danbmil99; 2:44 PM –
Well… I don’t know what you mean by “trollbait,” but I notice you keep on backing away from your original argument.
(*WINK*)
In any case, even if I grant you the “style over substance” argument with “Professor” Obama vs. “Palin the Wolf Killer,” I certainly wouldn’t put them in the same club resume wise absent Obama’s political victory to win the presidency.
Palin is – and was – a Governor. She had actual executive responsibilities. Obama was a freshman U.S. Senator, on junior member of a “club” of 100 where few exercise individual power in a way where one can easily measure any result other than pork coming into a particular state.
(*SHRUG*)
As to Rumsfeld and Cheney….
(*SNORT*)
Jeez… using YOUR criteria Rummy and Darth stand head and shoulders over Obama. I’d love to see a debate between Obama and Biden vs. Rummy and Darth!
(*SMILE*)
As to Bush…
(*BILL EXISTS THE BUILDING*)
(*CHUCKLE*)
Ya got me.
BILL
You must log in to post a comment.