Replace Rumsfeld

[lao tzu]

David Ignatius of the Washington Post joins the chorus:

Replace Rumsfeld

The administration needs to look this one clearly in the eye: Without changes that shore up public support in America, it risks losing the war in Iraq.

I went looking for this op-ed after listening to Shields and Brooks on the Newshour tonight. As a veteran, this Iraqi debacle is especially painful to me. It doesn't matter how well the troops do their job if they're not doing the right job. And determining the right job is the job of the secretary of defense. The president's job is to put the right person in that seat, and if it turns out he made a mistake in doing so, to replace him. Misplaced loyalty to his appointee is no substitute for loyalty to the troops.

As ever, Jesse

[Meh_Gerbil]

Why replace him?
I've seen no good reason to replace him.

[lao tzu]

Why replace him?
I've seen no good reason to replace him.

Really, Gerbs? There seem to be more reasons being voiced daily. You can't have missed them all. The strongest seem to revolve around accountability and credibility.

Rumsfeld is the author of the strategy behind our Iraq adventure and that strategy has proven itself false. Accountability demands his resignation. It's quite apparent that he has fostered an environment in the military which simply does not brook opposing opinion. At a time when fresh ideas are most needed, he represents an insurmountable roadblock to their adoption.

From the Ignatius article:

Much of the American public has simply stopped believing the administration's arguments about Iraq, and Rumsfeld is a symbol of that credibility gap.

Rumsfeld himself has lost credibility. People don't believe him any more, and he has become the poster child for dissatisfaction with the overall Iraq policy. His removal is thus needed to reinspire confidence in what each of the most recent criticisms from general officers has been firm in noting is a necessary battle. From Zinni on down, they're all saying we can't afford to lose Iraq to chaos, and Rumsfeld's continued presence as secretary of state is contributing to that loss.

This latest call for his resignation is somewhat more subtle. It's based on an appeal to Rumsfeld's own principles, an argument that his resignation is necessary to avoid disastrous failure in Iraq. Ignatius takes it as a given that Bush won't ask Rumsfeld to resign.

Rumsfeld is a stubborn man, and I suspect the parade of retired generals calling for his head has only made him more determined to hold on. But by staying in his job, Rumsfeld is hurting the cause he presumably cares most about. The president, even more stubborn than his Pentagon chief, is said to have rejected his offer to resign. If that's so, it's time for Rumsfeld to take the matter out of Bush's hands.

So, while phrasing the article as a call for the president to replace Rumsfeld, it's clear the real focus behind Ignatius thinking, along with the most recent calls by Batiste and Swannack, is that Rumsfeld should take the honorable path and step down.

As ever, Jesse

[Gromit45]

Really, Gerbs? There seem to be more reasons being voiced daily. You can't have missed them all. The strongest seem to revolve around accountability and credibility.

Rumsfeld is the author of the strategy behind our Iraq adventure and that strategy has proven itself false. Accountability demands his resignation. It's quite apparent that he has fostered an environment in the military which simply does not brook opposing opinion. At a time when fresh ideas are most needed, he represents an insurmountable roadblock to their adoption.

From the Ignatius article:

Much of the American public has simply stopped believing the administration's arguments about Iraq, and Rumsfeld is a symbol of that credibility gap.

Rumsfeld himself has lost credibility. People don't believe him any more, and he has become the poster child for dissatisfaction with the overall Iraq policy. His removal is thus needed to reinspire confidence in what each of the most recent criticisms from general officers has been firm in noting is a necessary battle. From Zinni on down, they're all saying we can't afford to lose Iraq to chaos, and Rumsfeld's continued presence as secretary of state is contributing to that loss.

This latest call for his resignation is somewhat more subtle. It's based on an appeal to Rumsfeld's own principles, an argument that his resignation is necessary to avoid disastrous failure in Iraq. Ignatius takes it as a given that Bush won't ask Rumsfeld to resign.

Rumsfeld is a stubborn man, and I suspect the parade of retired generals calling for his head has only made him more determined to hold on. But by staying in his job, Rumsfeld is hurting the cause he presumably cares most about. The president, even more stubborn than his Pentagon chief, is said to have rejected his offer to resign. If that's so, it's time for Rumsfeld to take the matter out of Bush's hands.

So, while phrasing the article as a call for the president to replace Rumsfeld, it's clear the real focus behind Ignatius thinking, along with the most recent calls by Batiste and Swannack, is that Rumsfeld should take the honorable path and step down.

As ever, Jesse

So who do you think can do better a job?

Certainly not a bunch of Clinton administration retired generals.

This is an attack at Bush. A fringe element wants Cheney, Rummy, Rice-y and everyone fired and ultimately take down Bush

[ApologiaPhoenix]

It seems as if the polls are the main determiners of what goes on today. If the polls say we're losing credibility, well forget the war in Iraq, let's regain credibility.

Do I expect Rumsfeld to do perfect? No. This is war though and war requires tough decisions and sometimes wrong ones. Unfortunately, the attacks on Rumsfeld are more on his character than on his strategy. I personally think we have handled the war quite well.

I just read this and I think that I look forward to a day when the media realizes that we ought to do what is right regardless of the polls. That is the kind of leader I admire. The one who says that this the right way to do something even if it costs him popularity.

[lao tzu]

So who do you think can do better a job?

Certainly not a bunch of Clinton administration retired generals.

This is an attack at Bush. A fringe element wants Cheney, Rummy, Rice-y and everyone fired and ultimately take down Bush

Greetings, Gromit45,

While there are those who'd like to see the entire administration brought down, I think linking them to the general officers' calls for Rumsfeld's resignation is mostly hyperbolic. If anything, keeping Rumsfeld is the best gift the Bush administration can give to its political foes.

All of today's generals served during the Clinton era, and it's simply absurd to say they were Clinton supporters. Don't you remember the rallying cry, "Help is on the way"? I'm trying to think of the last democrat who had the respect of the military and I think it was probably Lyndon Johnson. It certainly wasn't Clinton.

As far as a replacement for Rumsfeld, I can think of a number of possibilities. Either McCain or Powell would top my list, but in any case I think it's absolutely necessary the replacement should come from among those who served.

As ever, Jesse

[lao tzu]

Forgive me, Nick, but that just seems like a long drawn-out non-sequitur.

The credibility lacking right now is Rumsfeld's. From the idea that we'd be "greeted as liberators," to the "dead-enders", to the "we're turning the corner", Rumsfeld has been the credibility-assassinator-in-chief. From the disbanding of the Iraqi military, to the decision to fight on the cheap, to the micro-management of the deployment, Rumsfeld has shown a proclivity to failed policy and poor strategy unsurpassed since the days of McNamara.

He's incompetent and a loser. Dump him.

There's a reason why the polls show declines, especially about Iraq. These guys aren't democrats, they're general officers. That means they're conservative republicans. Like Buckley, they're all saying the same thing. Rumsfeld's policies and strategy have failed and he needs to go.

As ever, Jesse

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Forgive me, Nick, but that just seems like a long drawn-out non-sequitur.

The credibility lacking right now is Rumsfeld's. From the idea that we'd be "greeted as liberators," to the "dead-enders", to the "we're turning the corner", Rumsfeld has been the credibility-assassinator-in-chief. From the disbanding of the Iraqi military, to the decision to fight on the cheap, to the micro-management of the deployment, Rumsfeld has shown a proclivity to failed policy and poor strategy unsurpassed since the days of McNamara.

He's incompetent and a loser. Dump him.

There's a reason why the polls show declines, especially about Iraq. These guys aren't democrats, they're general officers. That means they're conservative republicans. Like Buckley, they're all saying the same thing. Rumsfeld's policies and strategy have failed and he needs to go.

As ever, Jesse

I'm sorry, but I don't see the demonstration of the failed poilcy. Personally, I'm glad he's not a Democrat. I always vote Republican because we are in a war. We are in a war and we need to fight it as a war and not worry about any polls.

I still don't see the failure in policy and in regards to what you said to Gromit, I don't see any reason why a political gift should be given to the foes. It's strange that the Democrats seem to think that even though the Republicans are the leading party, that the Democrats should still call the shots.

No. A real leader makes a decision regardless of the polls.

[lao tzu]

What's not to see?

There are more Iraqis dying on a daily basis today than occurred under Saddam. The battlefield has become a training ground for terrorists. The idea of erecting an example of stable arab democracy in the middle east to emulate has instead become an object lesson in maintaining autocracies.

This is the failed policy dissected in detail by Buckley in his article It didn't work

"the Democrats [seem to think they] should still call the shots"

What part of the fact that these guys are conservative republicans are you missing? William F. Buckley, a democrat!? He's the founder and publisher of the National Review, Reagan's favorite magazine. General officers, democrats!? What country are you living in? Here in the US, general officer is synonymous with conservative republican.

Yes, we're in a war, and an important battle is being lost because the secretary of defense is an incompetent bungler. Nobody expects Bush to replace him with a democrat, and I haven't even suggested it.

Again, that "polling" thing just doesn't fit in with any part of the argument. It's not the state of the polls, it's the incompetence of the secretary of defense.

If you don't think the political opponents of the administration should be given a gift, then you should be consistent about it and join the call for Rumsfeld's resignation. I'll say it again. Keeping him in office is the best gift the Bush administration can give to the democratic party.

Look, I'm no supporter of Bush or any of the other chickenhawk neocons. But I am a veteran, and that trumps politics in my world. I don't want to see our troops led to defeat. And above that I'm an American, and I don't want to see the ideals this country was founded upon dragged through the mud.

As ever, Jesse

[Bagger_Vance]

If you can't see the policy failure in Iraq then obviously you don't see why Rummy should resign. But for the rest of us we can't see adequate forces to complete the mission, a working moderate Iraqi government, or armor to protect our troops.

I don't think Rumsfeld should resign however. It is pointless. Yet another Bush drone would be installed and the same policy would be followed with rose colored predictions and dismissals of all doubt and dissent. It would be another suit up there trying to call looting and riots freedom pains. Why not just let Rummy swing the whole way?

[Busheses]

I always vote Republican because we are in a war. We are in a war and we need to fight it as a war and not worry about any polls.

That's the reason you always vote republican??!!!!! Wow. We are not always at war. Moreover, even if we were, is that reason enough to vote republican? Are there not any other issues that concern you?

[Darth Executor]

I've been saying Rummy should be replaced by someone more competent (like me) for years. Bah.

[Gromit45]

So we have only 6(!) retired generals who think Rumsfield should go.

Check this out by retired general Michael DeLong:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/opinion/16delong.html


Maybe these 6 generals just didn't get their way? (waaah!)

And of course the newspapers and TV news trumpet the 6 because they hate bush.

[Jme]

Quick question (not taking the mick or anything):

How is he qualified for the position?

I would have thought that more military experience would have been needed. The info I read was from his Bio at this link:

http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/rumsfeld.html

[Gromit45]

Quick question (not taking the mick or anything):

How is he qualified for the position?

I would have thought that more military experience would have been needed. The info I read was from his Bio at this link:

http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/rumsfeld.html

This quote from the General DeLong NY Times article hopefully leads to answers for you:

"...I witnessed many heated but professional conversations between my immediate commander, Gen. Tommy Franks, and Mr. Rumsfeld — but the secretary always deferred to the general on war-fighting issues.

Ultimately, I believe that a tough defense secretary makes commanders tougher in their convictions..."