Ok, so, this is being billed as an editorial that is going to run tomorrow in The Army Times (seriously? It's called The Army Times?).
Now, if it is an editorial, that means it comes with the endorsement of the publishers of the paper (ostensibly the Army). If it is just an opinion piece, then it will have an individual byline and come under the heading of "the views expressed on this page do not necessarily represent the opinion of the paper or its publishers."
Either option has tantalizing properties. First of all, if it is an editorial, then members of the publishing house of the Army feel OK enough to call for the firing of the Secretary of Defense. That is astounding and an indictment of the way the military actually feels about its leadership.
If it is an opinion piece, attributed to an individual, then it also speaks volumes that a single writer feels comfortable enough in his position to say something so damning without fear of repercussion (or perhaps there will be consequences, but this person just doesn't care).
At any rate, this is a huge blow to the Republican party, the Bush administration and Rumsfeld.
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.
Ouch.
UPDATE: My Dad said this in the comments below: "If you go to armytimes.com you'll see this is a private commercial
publication aimed at a military audience. While it does not diminish
the power of the message it is clear this does not represent an
official army point of view." He's right, it's not quite as damning, officially, as I said, but it's still a huge deal that the rank and file would say something like this. I also saw a link (I think it was on Matt Yglesias' site, but it's been a little while and I don't really wanna dig through his archives to find it) that showed that somwhere around 57% of people support the impeachment of George Bush. That's stunning to me. My thought, mostly because it resonates with the way I think too, is that most people just don't want to go through another impeachment proceeding, both because we're tired of that sort of thing and because it sets a bad precedent, I think, to have two president's in a row have to go through it just because they were disagreed with. Understandably, Bush's transgressions may warrant it, but still...
Recent Comments