Increasingly, Rumsfeld a lightning rod for Iraq criticism
Retired US general, former top officials take Rumsfeld to task on Iraq war's 3rd anniversary.
On a day that saw
sharply divided opinions over the war in Iraq, and its aftermath three years later, one of the Bush administration officials who
faced the strongest criticisms was US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Retired US Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who was responsible for training Iraqi troops until 2004, said Mr. Rumsfeld should resign. And top officials from two past administrations disputed his analogy that if the US pulled out of Iraq, it would be like the US handing Germany back to the Nazis after World War II.
General Eaton wrote in a commentary in
The New York Times that "Rumsfeld is
not competent to lead America's armed forces," and that President Bush should accept the resignation that Rumsfeld
has offered in the past. Mr. Eaton was in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004.
Rumsfeld has put the Pentagon at the mercy of his ego, his Cold Warrior's view of the world and his unrealistic confidence in technology to replace manpower. As a result, the US Army finds itself severely undermanned – cut to 10 active divisions but asked by the administration to support a foreign policy that requires at least 12 or 14.
In an interview last week with
CBS News, Eaton, who was appointed to train Iraqi troops eight days after President Bush had declared "mission accomplished," said
he had felt it was a little late to be getting that kind of assignment – that he figured this person would "have been on station already."
"In the beginning," he adds, "there was no, zero, urgency on the part of the Secretary of Defense to provide the requisite resources to truly develop the Iraqi security force." One month later, Eaton and his team of six went to work at an abandoned Iraqi base that had been stripped by looters. Just when he thought he was beginning to make some progress with the Iraqi Army, his job was expanded to include training all of Iraq's security forces including the police. "I found absolute chaos," he says.
It was like starting all over again. The resources he needed "came late, nine months late," says Eaton, meaning that time was "if not completely wasted, largely wasted."
David Brooks, the prominent conservative columnist for
The New York Times, also called for Rumsfeld's resignation last week. But
Editor & Publisher editor and columnist Greg Mitchell says that Mr. Brooks and other pro-war Rumsfeld critics are trying to say that the war itself was a good idea
that Rumsfeld messed up.
Brooks opens his column today with: "Some weeks nothing happens; some weeks change history. The week of March 24, 2003, was one of those pivotal weeks." There you have it right at the start. The week that changed history was not the week Bush took us into war, but the following week when Rumsfeld started to mess it up, by not listening to generals who said they would need more troops to handle a surprising, and surprisingly strong, insurgency.
This presumes, of course, that even if Rumsfeld has sent more troops that the country would have been pacified, sectarianism stilled, and the country blossoming secular democracy today, with American troops long gone. About 2000 of those now buried in the ground would be enjoying life with their friends and families, instead. Still, it's a neat way of saying: War good, Rummy bad.
In 2003, Brooks did an interview with
NPR on March 12, 2003, where he said that President Bush
wanted straight-talkers like Rumsfeld.
In times of peace, a Donald Rumsfeld can be a real problem, but in times of war, I think the president thinks you want a straight talker, someone who will not varnish things, who will not spin things. So Rumsfeld's a package – you take the good with the bad. For his part, Rumsfeld wrote in a commentary in
The Washington Post that "
history is not made up of daily headlines, blogs on Web sites or the latest sensational attack. History is a bigger picture, and it takes some time and perspective to measure accurately." He also said, "Turning our backs on postwar Iraq today would be the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis."
Two former top administration officials, however, (one Republican, one Democrat) took Rumsfeld to task for this comparison.
CNN reports that former GOP Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said that the situations "
were not analogus."
"In Germany, the opposition was completely crushed; there was no significant resistance movement," the German-born diplomat told CNN's "Late Edition." Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served as national security adviser under President Carter, was far more hard-hitting in his comments.
"That is really absolutely crazy to anyone who knows history," he said. "There was no alternative to our presence. The Germans were totally crushed. For Secretary Rumsfeld to be talking this way suggests either he doesn't know history or he's simply demagoguing."
Reuters reports that when recently asked how
history would judge him, Rumsfeld replied he didn't have the vaguest idea, but that "I don't worry about it." And Heritage Foundation defense analyst James Carafano said that while how the war in Iraq ultimately turns out will influence history's decision, it was probably a good thing that Rumsfeld didn't resign.
"He's stuck it out when lesser men would walk away," Carafano said. "I don't care what you call that, hubris or whatever. I truthfully think just changing the captain on the ship wouldn't have made any difference. If anything, it may have slowed things down because at least that captain knows the mistakes he made." Finally,
The Daily Telegraph of London reported Sunday that Rumsfeld has admitted that the US has
begun making plans to deal with a civil war in Iraq. He said that US military intelligence has started holding war games on the scenario. Although President Bush continues to insist that Iraq is not in a civil war nor will it be, the war-gaming, known as "Plan B," is an attempt to "devise strategies in the event of conflict."
Also...
•
Task Force 6-26: In secret unit's 'Black Room,' a grim portrait of US abuse (International Herald Tribune)
•
Rumsfeld singled out as crisis deepens in Iraq (Guardian)
•
Western leaders insist: No civil war in Iraq (ITV)
•
Increase in contracting intelligence jobs raises concerns (Washington Post)
•
Prepare for long Afghan stay: Powell (Toronto Star)
• Feedback appreciated. E-mail
Tom Regan
.
|
RSS feed