The Army Times (and its sister trade journals for the armed forces) are running an editorial calling for Donald Rumsfeld to go:
Time for Rumsfeld to go
“So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion ... it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth.”
That statement was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent Marguerite Higgins more than a half-century ago during the Korean War.
But until recently, the “hard bruising” truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington.
One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “mission accomplished,” the insurgency is “in its last throes,” and “back off,” we know what we’re doing, are a few choice examples.
Military leaders generally toed the line, although a few retired generals eventually spoke out from the safety of the sidelines, inciting criticism equally from anti-war types, who thought they should have spoken out while still in uniform, and pro-war foes, who thought the generals should have kept their critiques behind closed doors.
Now, however, a new chorus of criticism is beginning to resonate. Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war’s planning, execution and dimming prospects for success.
Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in September: “I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I’ve seen it ... and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war.”
Last week, someone leaked to The New York Times a Central Command briefing slide showing an assessment that the civil conflict in Iraq now borders on “critical” and has been sliding toward “chaos” for most of the past year. The strategy in Iraq has been to train an Iraqi army and police force that could gradually take over for U.S. troops in providing for the security of their new government and their nation.
But despite the best efforts of American trainers, the problem of molding a viciously sectarian population into anything resembling a force for national unity has become a losing proposition.
For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for the money, don’t show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves.
Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.
And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.
Now, the president says he’ll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.
This is a mistake. It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation’s current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.
These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority.
And although that tradition, and the officers’ deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.
Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.
This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:
Donald Rumsfeld must go.
I have only a couple of points to make about the editorial. The first, and there has been some confusion on this point, is that the various Army/Navy etc. Times newspapers are not affiliated with the Defense Department or the US government. They're owned by Gannett, and thus are sister publications to USA Today. They are written by journalists, not soldiers, though some of the journalists used to be soldiers.
My second point is that the editorial's arguments are weak. They boil down to "We haven't won yet, and the Administration said we would win." Many of the statements the editorial makes, like "Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership" or "colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops," are not supported by the facts supplied. In any event, as long time readers know, I firmly reject the "more troops" position. It wouldn't have helped before and it certainly wouldn't help now. The only solution now is for an Iraqi government (or three) to stand up and bring peace. (If Iraq were broken up, either
de jure or just
de facto, two of three parts would probably have peace, more or less, from day one.)
My concern at this point -- and it has little to do with Rumsfeld or the Iraqi war -- is that the remaking of the military Rumsfeld has been pushing, while attacked as extreme, has been so moderate. It has been almost 60 years since a real shake up of the Pentagon, and another is past due. Here are five ideas for really shaking up the military.
First, and with all due respect for Colonel Guinn, we need to abolish the Air Force. Air power is just artillery writ large, and it should be part of the Army. Pilots should have to serve with infantry units for promotion to field grade. Both the US and Israel have been ill-served by having Air Force officers at the top of their general staffs. It is time to return the infantry to the center of our military thought. Similarly, Marine aviation should be turned over to the Navy, but Naval Officers should have to put in a tour with the Marines just as Army pilots will have to serve with the infantry.
Second, there should be a professional General Staff separate from the Army and Navy. Officers should be seconded to the General Staff for tours of duty, during which they should wear uniforms distinct from their branch of service. The Chairman of the General Staff should always have a CIB.
Third, the Quartermasters for all the services should be centralized into a single corps, and perhaps privatized.
Fourth, all special forces should be incorporated into a single centralized command.
Fifth, we should engage in a thorough review of foreign bases with the presumption that they should all be abandoned. Only a clearly positive cost-benefit should be allowed to save any foreign base. US troops should not be kept in an area as a "trip-wire" so that when they are wiped out, we will be forced to respond.
As a bonus, and only because I am a conservative, I'd love to rename the Defense Department the War Department.
