Archive for ‘Rumsfeld Bites’

May 6th, 2004

Foreshadowed and Forewarned

by Venomous Kate

There are a lot of great comments being left here on my Bush/Rumsfeld post. I want to point out two things about the “What Rummy Knew When?” situation.

First, the Dems are urging Rumsfeld’s resignation primarily as a punishment for Rumsfeld’s failure to be omniscient. To put it another way – and to borrow a vintage Rumsfeld phrase – there are knowns and there are unknowns… but there are also “should have knowns.” The Dems want Rumsfeld fired because Rumsfeld knew about the investigations and should have known about the severity of the atrocities, all of which were unknown to Congress and the public. They want Rumsfeld to pay the price for the fact that such horrors were committed, as if his termination could somehow expiate the evil. That is not why I believe Rumsfeld needs to go.

Rumsfeld’s failure is that he did not fully and candidly brief the President concerning the Pentagon’s investigation in a timely fashion, a decision on his part which is both alarming in any Cabinet member but which is all the more alarming because of the massive harm it will work on President Bush’s re-election campaign.

There is no excuse for Rumsfeld’s failure to inform President Bush in this situation. As Scott McClellan noted in yesterday’s press corps briefing, Generals Abizaid and Myers, as well as Rumsfeld, knew more about the prison abuse the President. As the Cabinet member who oversees Abizaid and Meyers, Rumsfeld’s failure to adequately brief the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Forces shows an obliviousness to the fact that he serves “at the pleasure of the President.” Were it not for the political implications of the situation, the President should fire him. But he can’t, and that leads to my second point.

As I’ve written previously in other contexts, Rumsfeld has been a long-standing potential political liability for the President in the same vein as Cheney. We’ve watched as the Left pointed toward Rumsfeld as “proof” of the Bush Administration’s hawkishness, and we’ve watched as moderates and centrists have been increasingly alienated by Rumsfeld’s apparent belief that the American public should not know certain facts about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Remember the photos of the coffins we weren’t supposed to see? Or the Pentagon’s urging of the media to stop calling it a “War in Iraq” in favor of calling it the “Fight for Iraq”?) All that has been manageable until now, when Rumsfeld appears to believe that even the President does not need to know certain facts about the war. And that stance may very well cost Bush the Presidency.

The single greatest weakness of the Bush Administration – IMVO – has been the President’s heavy reliance on advisers who may have their own agendas and who, we’ve repeatedly learned, have not been fully candid with the President. Obviously, a President is supposed to rely on his advisors instead of micromanaging in a Carter-esque fashion, but the danger for Bush – which goes back as far as the 2000 campaign – is the appearance of over-reliance on his advisors.

During the last election, the best weapon the Democrats had against Bush was the implication that he was not intelligent enough, not policy-oriented enough, not detailed enough to lead the nation on his own and, therefore, he would rely on those around him to run the Oval Office for him. Bush, we were warned, would be little more than a figure-head,a marionette whose strings would be pulled by oil- and defense-industry interests. Then 9/11 came and Bush asserted himself as an individual. He was a leader. He was engaged and running the Presidency. He made huge strides in rallying the entire country behind him. Those gains began eroding last March when we declared war in Iraq, and the Administration has since been amazingly savvy in its efforts to recoup the loss, positioning the President once again as an independent leader.

For example, in the past nine months Rumsfeld had ceased holding daily press conferences to deliver his pithy soundbites and stepped out of the limelight, letting the President take the lead. At the same time, the President’s approval rating started climbing up again. When we heard about the war, we heard about it primarily from Centcom briefings. When we heard about policy, we heard about it from the President. When the two issues overlapped, it was again the President who spoke to the nation. The message? That the military is fighting the war and the President is leading them – and us.

Then the 9/11 Commission interviewed the President in the Oval Office, and the President insisted – for reasons which have yet to be adequately explained – on Cheney being present. Once again, the shadow of a puppet Presidency surfaced. As it happened, the murders of American contractors in Iraq, the battle in Fallujah, and even the revelations about Kerry’s dissembling over his post-Vietnam actions all served to distract the voting population’s attention. Consequently, the opportunity for the Dem’s to hone and wield their best weapon against Bush was lost.

Until this week.

Now, Rumsfeld is indirectly back in the news. Now Rumsfeld himself is an issue. His decision to withhold information from the President (information which, as it turns out, had international political implications) has created yet another opportunity for the Dems to attack the President on his weakest front: his choice of and reliance on advisors who may have their own agendas. Now, to avoid confirming the “puppet Presidency”, the President has to defend his original selection of Rummy as SecDef and also defend his continued support for Rumsfeld. And it’s costing the President greatly to do so: just look at this week’s plunge in the polls which show the President at his lowest approval rating ever.

Talk about a political Catch-22. If the President retains Rumsfeld, he appears to accept and condone a Cabinet which inadequately or erroneously informs him on issues with major global significance, a là “Where are the WMDs?” But to fire Rumsfeld at this point is to acknowledge that the SecDef kept the President in the dark on the prison abuse and torture and – as the Dems are already arguing – if Rumsfeld deceived the President on that situation, what else has he failed to disclose? Either way, any action right now on the President’s part with respect to Rumsfeld will work against Bush in the next election.

The solution? It’s time for Rumsfeld to resign.

February 13th, 2004

News Service or “Ministry of Truth”?

by Venomous Kate

You know, I always wondered why the DoD’s clipping service seemed a little rosy.

Senior Pentagon managers have repeatedly ordered the department’s widely read clipping service to exclude articles critical of the military and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, according to officials familiar with the practice.

Next thing you know, they’ll put out a policy telling all of my nipr.mil readers they can’t visit EV anymore, either.

February 8th, 2004

Color Me “Undecided”

by Venomous Kate

Never before have I been in a position where anyone outside of my immediate family cared about who I’d be voting for in a Presidential election. Now, daily emails arrive asking why I haven’t come out and declared my preference for Bush. The fact is, I’m not ready to do so. Yet.

Before I explain why, let me say that although I am a registered Republican, although I contribute regularly to the Republican National Committee and proudly display my personally-signed portrait of George and Laura Bush in my den, although I always assume I’ll be voting Republican in every election (but sometimes don’t), I don’t cast my vote based on a candidate’s vision for America. I vote based on my vision for America, and I cast my vote for the candidate who seems not just more likely to move in the direction that I think is best for our country but also more capable of keeping our country from going in directions we should never go.
read more »

December 30th, 2003

Sorry Soldier, You’re Stuck.

by Venomous Kate

Granted, there’s nothing new about the “stop loss” measures announced today.

The Pentagon is increasingly refusing to allow American soldiers to leave the armed services – even if their original contracts to serve are expiring – as commanders struggle to keep up the military’s numbers in the face of increasing demands from multiple overseas missions, most notably in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I can’t even say that I disagree with the rationale. We do need to maintain sufficient force presence, after all. Still, it sure chaps my hide when I remember that in April Rumsfeld was pushing to reduce our military presence in the Gulf Region and military sources leaked reports that prior to the war’s onset, Rumsfeld had repeatedly cut the number of participating troops “by as much as half.” In May, he continued pushing for a “lighter” military, particularly the Army, and insisted that we needed fewer personnel worldwide. In June he implied that with higher-tech but lighter-weight weapons, the military could get by on significantly reduced manpower.

But then came July, when Rumsfeld evidently caught on to the fact that in a ground war, a “lighter and leaner force” is synomymous with high attrition. Come August, Rumsfeld began putting out the word that “significant numbers of U.S. combat soldiers may have to start serving back-to-back overseas tours of up to a year each in places such as Iraq, Afghanistan and South Korea.” Yet two months later – after announcing extended tours – Rumsfeld began cutting the number of troops stationed in all three locations, beginning with 30,000 fewer soldiers in Iraq.

So what does this all boil down to? Seems to me that the current “stop loss” measure is just another way of saying that Rumsfeld was wrong all along but it’s the very same Army soldiers he’d previously disparaged who are going to have to bear the brunt of his arrogant ignorance. And that, of course, raises two more questions: why won’t he squarely step up and take the blame for his plans gone awry instead of passing the buck upwards to the President? And why is the President letting him?

November 12th, 2003

DoD To Cut Family Benefits

by Venomous Kate

I always knew I’d regret eliminating my “Rumsfeld Bites” category and lumping news of his conduct in with the rest of the “War Bites.” Of course, it’s still no secret how little respect I have for him – and things like this outrage just add to my venom.

Commissaries and the Defense Department’s stateside schools are in the crosshairs of Pentagon budget cutters, and military advocates, families and even base commanders are up in arms.

Defense officials notified the services in mid-October that they intend to close 19 commissaries and may close 19 more, mostly in remote areas.

At the same time, the Pentagon is finishing a study to determine whether to close or transfer control of the 58 schools it operates on 14 military installations in the continental United States.

The two initiatives are the latest in a string of actions by the Bush administration to cut or hold down growth in pay and benefits, including basic pay, combat pay, health-care benefits and the death gratuity paid to survivors of troops who die on active duty.

The roots of all these efforts reach back to the highest levels of the Defense Department.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has made no secret of his desire to get the military out of support activities that are not central to its core war-fighting functions, said Joseph Tafoya, director of the Department of Defense Education Activity. As soon as he arrived at the Pentagon three years ago, Tafoya said, Rumsfeld began asking: “Why am I running stores? Why am I in education?”

Gee, Mr. Rumsfeld, if it’s that much trouble for you to provide family benefits, what will you do when the families themselves decide it’s too much trouble for them to keep supporting you?

For those interested in reading the whole thing, you can voice your opinion by writing:

Donald H. Rumsfeld
Secretary of Defense
1000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-1000

Or use this link and the “Ask a Question/Make a Comment” tab to send email to Mr. “Why Am I Running A Website?” Rumsfeld at the Department of Defense.

August 25th, 2003

The Army Is Out of Schlitz

by Venomous Kate

Not good news for those in the Army and those who love them:

For the first time since the all-volunteer Army began in 1973, significant numbers of U.S. combat soldiers may have to start serving back-to-back overseas tours of up to a year each in places such as Iraq, Afghanistan and South Korea, top Army officers say.

Grappling with large, simultaneous deployments around the world, Army planners are trying to determine how many troops will have to serve extra tours. Based on the forces they must keep in place overseas, planners have concluded they will have no choice but to force thousands of troops to return to new overseas assignment after only a short time at home. Currently, troops can deploy with their families for years to places such as Germany or Japan, but they go to war zones or potential war zones such as Iraq or Korea without their families and typically serve there no more than a year.

“The Army is monitoring the situation,” says Maj. Steve Stover, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon. “But we will do everything in our power to prevent back-to-back deployments.”

Army officials are worried that the added tours will lower morale and cause a wave of exits throughout the Army. A key concern is that the deployments will cause an exodus of experienced, mid-career veterans such as sergeants, staff sergeants and captains, who are harder to replace than younger soldiers

.
It’s nice to see that the Army is starting to recognize the shortage of personnel, but this “solution” seems more self-defeating than anything. Why not slow the op-tempo a bit by freeing up some of the highly-trained soldiers who aren’t seeing live combat, and let them backfill for those who’ve seen too much of it before sending them out to see more?

The army rotates between 9 and 11 brigade elements with battalions through both the National Training Center and the Joint Readiness Training Center at Fort Polk. The time in the box for the rotations is around 2 weeks, but equipment is out of pocket for 2 weeks before and 2 weeks afterwards. On top of that, there’s train-up time beforehand, sometimes consisting of multiple 2- and 3-week exercises as advance preparation. Currently, the requirements are for each brigade commander and each battalion commander that are combat arms (infantry/armor) must rotate once during their tenure as a commander, which is normally around two years. In numbers, that translates to roughly 16 rotations for the two training centers – or anywhere between 7,000 and 12,000 personnel.

Most of all, it frees up two of the best-trained brigades throughout the Army by allowing deployment of those who teach and conduct the training exercises – those that participate as the opposing forces, adding another 2,000 to 3,000 battle-ready soldiers for rotation throughout the various theaters.

Bottom line: if the Army is worried about morale, the solution is not to up the tempo and increase the load. One day maybe Rumsfeld will get that.

July 21st, 2003

Rummy Backtracking?

by Venomous Kate

As Sgt. Hook pointed out in a comment left here today, we haven’t heard much from Rumsfeld lately about his prior “bright idea” to cut the Army from 10 divisions down to 8. In fact, what we’re hearing out of Rummy is just the opposite these days.

The strains on American ground forces as the Bush administration extends their global missions are prompting new debates on Capitol Hill and within the Pentagon over the question of whether the military needs more troops worldwide.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and senior military officers spent time over the weekend considering how to assign enough soldiers to fill the long-term mission of stabilizing Iraq while simultaneously fulfilling other overseas commitments and providing security against terrorism at home and abroad.

Frankly, I’m still waiting to hear him say that his “bright idea” wasn’t so bright after all.

June 10th, 2003

Rumsfeld Picks New Army Chief

by Venomous Kate

Always one to buck the trend, Donald Rumsfeld has called 4-star Army General Peter Schoomaker out of retirement to become the Army’s new Chief of Staff. Such a move is being called unprecedented, since it hasn’t happened since prior to the Civil War. Evidently, Schoomaker – who has a Special Forces background, much favored by Rumsfeld – was the third choice. Two other Army generals turned Rummy down.