Anonymous:

April 17th, 2006 at 12:00 pm

Unfortunately, the Iraq war will define much of what this administration has done.

When Rumsfeld started out, I felt that his “transformation” was very much needed in a Cold War, pork-infested department. Had 9/11 not happened, a streamlined defense department might have been his legacy.

However, when he actually began to cut back on expensive equipment programs, he ran into the usual porkbarreled opposition and lost. Part of the reason for that may have been that he failed to rally his own troops, civilian and military, within the department. It was clear that that would be one enormous battle.

I even enjoyed some of his early press conferences and his jousting with the press’s ill-informed questioning.

It’s possible, though, that the capabilities that served him to take on the press were the same that kept him from rallying the troops against pork and led to this “revolt of the generals.” Ultimately sure of himself and not needing any advice from anyone. That’s become clearer in his recent spat with Condoleezza Rice.

The news reports this morning are of more civilians calling for Rumsfeld’s replacement. Not a good sign for Rummy and his boss.

CKR

Eddie:

April 17th, 2006 at 1:25 pm

Excellent post of your own and a great roundup of other bloggers’s remarks!

On Rumsfeld, I give him full credit for his great leadership in Afghanistan, but I think he got chewed up and spat out by the military-industrial complex. The new QDR is a defeat for him and his vision of transformation, no matter how hard people try to spin it. Look at what the Navy is up to with its unrealistic, unsustainable ship-building plan, in literal full defiance of what Rumsfeld has tried honorably to accomplish.

His mistakes on Iraq are well-documented, and I will point (as I did in my blog post on this) out that the most fierce yet reasonable criticism of him has come from conservative quarters, especially in the form of that Elliot Cohen essay in the WAPO last year when his son was shipping out to Iraq.

(These generals know their target audience well and are tailor-making their criticisms to conservatives and the “hawks” in the moderate camp)

In regards to major errors, while it is very true that major mistakes and errors have happened often in the past, we are now in an age where the slightest mistake is magnified x 10 by the global media and sophisticated political partisan machines. Thus, the margain for acceptable error is low. The populace is notoriously fickle, and the loss of popular support for the war is becoming an ever more distinct possibility, a tragedy if it ever occurs.

(Rumsfeld doesn’t seem to realize that, but Zinni and others do, all the more good for them to point it out in public)

I truly do hope and pray Rumsfeld can somehow transcend this disaster he’s partly responsible for and achieve greatness if he is to remain for the remainder of this presidency, but I seriously doubt it.

Abu Gharib was really the point of no return for him though. In the military (as has been reinforced upon me in currently reading “Misfortunes of War”), failures in training, discipline and the breakdown of the chain of command like Abu Gharib usually result in the commander taking the fall for it. For Rumsfeld, whose unclear policices on torture and detainee rights certainly helped add to the air of confusion, (as well as his military subordinates in charge in Iraq) not to be fired or resign after that was and still is unbelievable. Beyond the moral issues at hand, the troops needed clear leadership and guidance on that issue. They recieved neither, to the point where Rumsfeld actually was arguing with Gen. Peter Pace late last year about the responsibilities of US forces to report/and/or stop torture or abuse. That is totally unacceptable.

mark:

April 17th, 2006 at 2:45 pm

Hi CKR & Eddie,

Re: transformation, Rumsfeld has accomplishments here but at the core sustaining the pork barrel are ” jobs back home” for congressmen. Hence the ludicrous building of seawolf submarines in preference to far higher priorities. At this point Rumsfeld, who is a master of vertical bureaucratic politics, needed to engage laterally a build a coalition of support for defense realism in Congress. Perhaps the war made that kind of investment of SecDef time impossible ( it would be a major investment) but I agree, the service chiefs won the last QDR/budget process much to the detriment of national security.

Alarmingly, if Rumsfeld, with his overbearing style and relentless drive, could not prevail here, who can ?

I too criticized Rumsfeld heavily for Abu Ghraib. On balance though I think keeping him now is preferable to putting in a caretaker figurehead in the midst of a war. Barring finding somebody of equal bility who can also hit the ground running at the Pentagon and not need a year or more to learn the job, the costs of dropping Rumsfeld isn’t worth the short-term political benefits that a change at the top would yield.

Anonymous:

April 18th, 2006 at 1:46 pm

Mark, you answered your own question

Alarmingly, if Rumsfeld, with his overbearing style and relentless drive, could not prevail here, who can ?

in the previous paragraph.

Someone who can build a coalition across the DoD and congress that will stand up to the military-industrial complex.

It won’t be easy, but hey, that’s what the SecDef gets the big bucks for!

CKR

mark:

April 18th, 2006 at 3:49 pm

Unfortunately, I don’t see anybody who fits that description who isn’t a product of the status quo.

Eddie:

April 19th, 2006 at 9:56 am

Mark,
On further consideration, I have to agree that a caretaker DOD sec. would make the situation even worse, especially because there would be a real possibility that enemies of transformation and reform could use the absence of strong leadership (or Rumsfeld’s still potent ire) to roll back some of the reforms. What about Sam Nunn though?

mark:

April 19th, 2006 at 2:12 pm

Good question, Eddie. I’m not up to speed on what Nunn has been doing lately but politically speaking, he would seem to be an attractive choice.