Pressure On Rumsfeld Growing Daily
I spent most of the day on the road, and got in just in time to see Tim Russert talking about a ‘civil war’ at the Pentagon. In the face of increasing calls for Rumsfeld’s replacement, Bush today felt it necessary to reiterate his ‘full support’:
Brushing aside an intensifying clamor among retired military commanders for Donald H. Rumsfeld’s resignation, President Bush said Friday that his defense secretary enjoys his full support and that Rumsfeld’s leadership of the Pentagon was “exactly what is needed at this critical period.”
Bush apparently issued his statement to put to rest increasing calls for the secretary to go because of criticism from six former military commanders that he has mishandled the Iraq war and made other mistakes.
“I have seen first-hand how Don relies upon our military commanders in the field and at the Pentagon to make decisions about how best to complete these missions,” Bush said in a written statement, issued while the president was spending the Easter weekend at Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland’s Catoctin Mountains.
“Secretary Rumsfeld’s energetic and steady leadership is exactly what is needed at this critical period,” Bush said. “He has my full support and deepest appreciation.”
I’m not playing the apologist here, but it’s worth keeping in mind that there are a lot more than a half-dozen retired generals, as Pentagon spokesman Eric Ruff pointed out:
“I don’t know how many generals there are — a couple thousand, at least. And they’re going to have opinions,” Ruff added. “It’s not surprising, we’re in a war.”
Having said that, I’m not entirely opposed to Rumsfeld’s departure, for the simple fact that I do believe a fresh start would be potentially quite helpful – but not just a fresh start for the sake of appeasing critics. Obviously, I would want to know who exactly would be the new Secretary of Defense and what their agenda might be…
While there are lots of retired generals, their stature (especially Zinni) and the fact that they are speaking out in time of war is significant. I think that in addition to Iraq, one of the reasons that they are speaking out is that they are seeing the steady erosion of human resources in the armed forces. For example, the Times had a story earlier this week which said that junior officers (i.e., recent West Point graduates) are leaving as soon as their commitment is up at an alarming rate. There is also a recruitment problem and the reserves are stretched thin. My guess is that this is as alarming to the retired generals as Rumsfeld’s inability to strategize and execute.
If Bush fired Rumsfeld, it would be a tacit admission that their policies and strategies have failed. The best thing for Bush would be for Rumsfeld to find a fig leaf and resign (e.g., “health reasons”) and then convince Joe Lieberman to take the job.
Truthfully, I don’t really care if Rumsfeld is the SecDef or not. One thing is more important than Rumsfeld, though. Whatever you call it (Net-Centric warfare, the Revolution in Military Affairs, Military Transformation), Transformation has been the stated goal of three concurrent administrations (Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43). Reorganizing the entire military is a tough and painful process. Its also necessary. Most of the criticisms of Rumsfeld, when you boil it all down and strain the politics out of those criticisms, are a negative reaction to Transformation.
Transformation is tough, and it sucks that it has to go on during a war, but in order to make our military as quick and responsive as our enemies, we need to go forward. Whoever the SecDef is, it is absolutely essential that they realize this.
If Bush decides to swap out Rumsfeld, it won’t be to admit mistakes or failure, or to change course – as those in opposition argue and hope. Replacing Rumsfeld will be done to improve the politics for Bush so that he can reassert and affirm the goals and objectives of being in Iraq.
Be careful what you wish for.
I’m not sure why Bush didn’t follow Reagan’s 2nd – term blueprint for re – energizing his administration (and base). Replacing Rumsfeld should have been one of his first priorities, followed by the usual suspects (although Rice was a good step in this direction). Reagan essentially salvaged his second term in doing so, but Bush is quite late in making any changes that would make a significant difference for the rest of his term.