Lieberman Is Right: It’s Time For Rumsfeld To Go
I’ve been hinting around about writing a piece about the need for a change near the top, but Joe Lieberman stole my thunder:
Sen. Joe Lieberman on Sunday called on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign and backed an international conference to find a way out of the crisis in Iraq.
Lieberman, who is seeking a fourth term as an independent candidate after losing the Democratic nomination to newcomer Ned Lamont on Aug. 8, also criticized some fellow Democrats. He said several Democrats are trying to impose a “litmus test” on the party.
“I think it’s still time for new leadership at the Pentagon,” he said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”
Lieberman, an early supporter of the Iraq war, said he called for Rumsfeld to step down in 2003.
“With all respect to Don Rumsfeld, who has done a grueling job for six years, we would benefit from new leadership to work with our military in Iraq,” he said Sunday.
Lieberman said the Bush administration should have sent more troops into Iraq “to secure the country.”
It’s not the first time Lieberman has called for Rumsfeld’s resignation, but it’s the first time he’s been right to do so.
Look, I’m not blaming Rumsfeld for losing Iraq – for one thing, he’s one player (a big one, but just one) in a game with a lot of participants – for another, Iraq is not lost, as Lieberman also acknowledges:
Lieberman also said the administration must “put severe pressure on the Iraqis to contain sectarian violence.”
“There is still hope in Iraq and as long as there is we cannot just pick up and walk away and leave them to the sure disaster that would follow and would compromise our security in the war on terrorism,” he said.
Lieberman said he would support an “international crisis conference on Iraq” with the United States, its allies and Arab countries worrying “that if Iraq collapses and falls into civil war that Iran will surge in and dominate and claim a victory.”
Well, I’m not sure about an international crisis conference – I do think we need to have a sitdown, however, with the principal parties in Iraq, and a new Defense Secretary would provide the perfect spark. With the new Defense Secretary should also come an announcement that we are sending more troops.
Why should Rumsfeld go? Three reasons:
(1) New blood seldom fails to invigorate. It’s been six years, and they haven’t been six uneventful years, either. Rumsfeld has served his country well and he can exit with pride; if things have gone badly in post-occupation Iraq, it’s also true that his ‘speed kills’ offense was brilliant in the primary fighting at the beginning of the Iraq War, and he has overseen a transformation in U.S. forces and tactics. Rumsfeld can also take pride in deposing the odious Taliban from their perch in Afghanistan.
But the clock is ticking on Iraq. We have basically two years to get things right (the duration of the Bush Administration). We cannot take for granted that the next President will keep the troops in, at least not in significant numbers. We need exactly that, then: a two-year plan for setting up to at least be prepared to pull out and leave Iraq in decent shape. Fresh blood will help spark new thinking.
(2) About that occupation…if there’s one thing that almost all observers, American, international, Democrat, Republican, agree on, it’s that we did not have enough troops in place to manage the occupation of Iraq properly. Rumsfeld cannot escape responsibility for this blunder. Even if his tactics were correct for the ground war, we should have ensured at least three more combat divisions were ready to roll in fresh, unbloodied, and ready to impose order.
We probably should have kept the Iraqi Army intact, as well, and we should have learned from the Powell Doctrine. Too often we remember Powell’s dictum that overwhelming force is the only way to go, but there is a corrolary: there must be a clear exit strategy (this is one of the reasons we didn’t roll to Baghdad in Gulf War I, nor get involved in the messiness between Saddam and the Iraqi opposition that followed). The Bush Doctrine is morally stirring, but it doesn’t supercede all of history, and there was (is) much we could still learn from Powell’s tactics and strategy.
(3) Appearances matter. What happens on the ground in Iraq is the primary concern, but the position of Defense Secretary is a political one, and there are compelling political reasons for a change. By all accounts, the Republicans are in deep, deep trouble in November, and face a possible landslide. Republican candidates support the president and his policy in Iraq by instict, but most are too afraid to publicly embrace either at the moment.
A Rumsfeld resignation would give a little slack to Republicans who must campaign this fall by refocusing the debate and allowing us to say we’re not just ‘staying the course, we’re actively adapting our tactics, strategies, and personnel.
It’s not a matter of throwing Rumsfeld overboard; it’s a matter of timing on what is, ultimately, a political decision on a political appointee. There is much Rumsfeld has done right, and a few things he has done wrong. He has a chance to make one final contribution to his country, his party, and his president.
For all of these reasons, Rumsfeld should resign.
WRONG!!!!!!!!!!! Sec. Rumsfeld gets the big picture – if you don’t or won’t, let the grownups do their jobs, and let the children (left wing socialist, liberal, communist, Democrat,etc.) continue their tantrum. Please don’t fall for the Left’s delusional crap. I’ve been following you for awhile – stand up straight and stand on principle. G.W. and Rumsfeld are remarkable men and deserve our support and appreciation. This former Dem and now proud Republican from the Blue Northeast couldn’t be prouder of our President. Stand for your country. (sorry for the emotional outburst, but now isn’t a great time to go wobbly)
Who would replace Secretary Rumsfeld? Or who could? Or who would want to?
Secretary of Defense is not a place for thoes looking to advance in politics. More than one Secretary of Defense has gone down in flames, and few come out of it smelling like rose, or at least not smelling that bad. (Cheney’s the only one I can think of that came out of it with his reputation intact.)
The hearings for just about any potential replacement would be contentious at best, a disaster at worst. And look at what the prize is, a job which is going to get more partisan sniping than any other outside of the Presidency and the Vice Presidency.
Sorry, Bob, but what big picture is Rumsfeld getting that I don’t?…I’m not wobbly on Iraq or the War on Terror; you’d be hard-pressed to find a bigger hawk. It’s not a delusion that three years(!) after the fall of Saddam Baghdad is a seriously unstable environment. That’s not right, and it’s got to change…
Again, I repeat, Rumsfeld is not a scapegoat, in my view…but sometimes you need new blood…
Shawn, those are good points and good questions…perhaps we’ll have a chance to revisit them at another time. For now, I’ll just say, I don’t know…but I’m sure there are many excellent candidates. The idea is not to surpass Rumsfeld, or repudiate him, but to invigorate our effort by bringing in a fresh face with a new approach…
Who would replace Secretary Rumsfeld? Or who could? Or who would want to?
How about Sam Nunn?
[...] David Hogberg has an article in the American Spectator that argues that opposition to the War In Iraq is the Democratic meal ticket to the White House, and that (shades of my Rumsfeld piece this weekend) we have basically two years to get things right: Imagine that presidential candidate John Kerry had somehow time-traveled back to 1972 and ran in place of George McGovern. But instead of campaigning on a unilateral withdrawal from Vietnam, he campaigned as he did in 2004. Imagine Kerry saying that fighting communism was more of a law enforcement issue, that before America engaged in any more Vietnams it had to pass a “global test,” and that he had voted for funding the Vietnam War before he had voted against it. Would Kerry have fared any better on election day than McGovern did? Oh, with his obfuscating and flip-flopping, he might have done a little better in the popular vote than McGovern’s pathetic 37%, but not by much. The electorate of 1972 would have soundly rejected him. [...]
hmmm…Lieberman doesn’t name a replacement, no one ever does, and he is running for reelection after losing his party nomination to the anti-war, anti=bush crowd.
I still like joe, but it is a cheap political move.
Well, fatman named one! But doesn’t Joe get a little cover from the fact that he also called for Rumsfeld’s resignation way before anyone ever heard of Ned Lamont?
Worth noting that even the NYT has the story labeled under ‘CT-Senate’.
Joe’s tipping point was clearly a politcal one.
I wonde,r what exactly, served as your tipping point, mark.
Well, it’s not a tipping point, so much, with me. I think the key point I was trying to make is that a shakeup might be just what the doctor ordered. It just feels like it’s time for a change.
Shawn asks who would replace Rumsfeld, as do you – it’s a fair question. I’ll give it some thought…
My problems with rummy go back a lot further:
aspartame-(while only anecdotal,) I have met two people who tested positive for Hep-C. Two seperate doctors asked the ‘infected’ if they drank a lot of diet soda. Both did, and both were advised to cut back. Result? both no longer test positive for Hep-c-go figure.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. (I personally feel it isn’t, but your mileage will vary.) But change just for the sake of change is hardly ever a good idea. If we’re going to replace Secretary Rumsfeld, I hope we replace him with someone who’s going to do as good a job, if not a better one than Rumsfeld. Otherwise, what’s the point?
Let’s be honest, who has any clout equivalent to Rumsfeld (especially with the troops) and is willing to take the job?
Who is willing to take responsiblity for the dead and maimed soldiers from this point foward?
How about Sam Nunn?
Dang Fatman, I’d almost forgotten there were ever such a thing as a principled democrat. Seems like an eternity since guys of his caliber used to run the show. Sigh.
[...] Let’s not overplay this factor too much, though – clearly, Iraq is, at the moment, a deeply unpopular war (and it will remain so for the duration). I made my own position clear: I’d like to see a big change with Rumsfeld vacating for new blood. The silence from my regulars and elsewhere was deafening. I’m open to suggestions – but we do need some push between now and November to regain at least a little of the high ground on this issue… [...]
[...] I have no doubt that Iraq will give many Republicans grief in November, and I have no doubt that many of those Republicans are going to make critical noises regarding our policies. They have a right to do so, even if their motives are transparent. I myself have suggested that Bush needs to shake things up, and that Rumsfeld could do a service to his party by stepping down and taking some of the heat off of those seeking to retain their office. [...]
[...] Here’s why I think the ‘new blood’ argument is not only a political winner, but perhaps even a necessity. From the Pentagon’s latest quarterly report to Congress on Iraq: Sectarian violence is spreading in Iraq and the security problems have become more complex than at any time since the U.S. invasion in 2003, the Pentagon said Friday. [...]