Pentagon Circles the Wagons around Rumsfeld

In just a few days, the War in Iraq will have gone on longer than the Korean War. While the American casualties are fewer in Mesopotamia, the inconclusiveness of the current conflict is even more stunning than the war 50 years ago. This time, the enemy hasn’t stymied America; it’s own leaders have. Several retired generals have asked for Donald Rumsfeld to resign as Secretary of Defense, and the Pentagon has lashed out defending him. Strategically, the Bush Administration would benefit from throwing him overboard.

That Field Marshal Donald von Rumsfeld has mismanaged the war is not in question. This journal predicted that an insufficient American ground force would result in an insurrection (actually the word “insurgency” was used) that would last for years back in March of 2003. It required no special Pentagon briefing or CIA analysis. A nodding acquaintance with military history was sufficient to see that General Eric Shinseki was right when he said that 500,000 or so US troops would be needed to hold Iraq. Still, Field Marshal von Rumsfeld spent 2002 and early 2003 reducing the number of troops planners called for to pull off the regime change. (Remembering of course that at the time the pretext for war was the non-existent WMD).

Incompetence is, however, the hallmark of the Bush administration. Unlike Bush the Elder, the current president doesn’t do his homework, and he doesn’t require that his people do theirs. The Pentagon is defending the Secretary of Defense by pointing out how many meetings he holds with military officers (139 times with the joint chiefs, and 208 with combat commanders from 2005 to the present). Quantity is not quality, and meeting isn’t winning.

There is a line of defense that the pundits on the right have offered saying that sacking the Field Marshal won’t change anything. While it is true that the Bush White House is going to leave the withdrawal of American troops to a successor, a new face at the Pentagon would allow Mr. Bush to call this “Rumsfeld’s War,” and not his own. That is somewhat unfair to the Secretary of Defense. Just as Vietnam was LBJ’s war as much as his Defense Secretary’s, this one belongs to Little LBJ and the Field Marshal. However, this would get Mr. Bush some flexibility and divert attention during November's mid-term elections.

Also, the thought that changes at the Pentagon would aid the enemy pre-suppose that there is competence at Defense, which is demonstrably untrue. Getting rid of a blundering boob actually aids the war effort. Then there is the straw man argument that troop morale would suffer if the Field Marshal took his baton somewhere else. Nonsense. If the morale of the troops depends on who is Defense Secretary, then they haven’t enough enthusiasm to perform, and that clearly isn’t the case. If one were to ignore his UN performance in 2003, Colin Powell’s status would actually enhance morale were he appointed to succeed the Field Marshal.

Once again, the Bush White House is engaging in loyalty offensive on behalf of a man who let the side down. Michael Brown was forced out at FEMA after the mess the agency made of the Katrina recovery effort, which was not quite as serious as botching a war. Mr. Bush may believe that the attacks on his man at the Pentagon are attacks on him. He is right if he keeps the Field Marshal on because he is then endorsing the blundering that is so evident outside the Green Zone in Baghdad.

© Copyright 2006 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Home