Rumsfeld Needs Windex for His Spectacles
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s report to Congress yesterday generated a heated debate according to The Washington Post. Rumsfeld was the object of a “scalding attack” and “some of the toughest questioning since the war in Iraq began.”
Not breaking from his or the administration’s prior position, he rebuked the notion that the war in Iraq is failing and attempted to defend that the cost of lives and dollars are worthwhile.
“Any who say we have lost or are losing are flat wrong. We are not”
President Bush previously stated, “he did not read the newspapers.” Obviously, Secretary Rumsfeld adheres to the same policy. He can’t be watching the abundance of news available on the television either.
Rumsfeld makes these declarations, but where are the facts that back them up? Where are the metrics supporting his view and the continuance of a plan (if one could call it a plan), which historically has demonstrated nothing but failure since the fall of Hussein?
Rumsfeld’s contingency included Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari, Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, Gen George Casey, and Gen. Richard B. Meyers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In varying fashions, Rumsfeld’s lieutenants supported his testimony. Do we really expect for these people to formally, before Congress, contradict the hand that feeds them?
Lawmakers pressed Rumsfeld for a scheduled withdrawal date. I have to agree with Rumsfeld that providing a specific date is not wise. A defined date without qualification simply tells the insurgents to save their energy and forces until the U.S. and the “coalition of the willing” (does that really still exist) wipe their hands of the matter.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy told Rumsfeld that the war had become a “seeming intractable quagmire.” Rumsfeld responded that none of the three four-star generals agreed with the Senator that we are in a quagmire.
quagmire ( kw
g
m
r
) – A difficult or precarious situation; a predicament.
If we are not in a quagmire, then someone needs to notify the dictionary publishers they need to revise their definition. See Secretary Rumsfeld for the new appropriate definition.
Republicans continue to break rank with their party. Senator Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said, “I’m here to tell you sir, in the most patriotic state that I can imagine, people are beginning to question, and I don’t think it’s a blip on the radar screen. I think we have a chronic problem on our hands.” Does anybody remember how vocal and partisan, then Congressman Graham, was during the Clinton impeachment proceedings?
General Abizaid, commander of U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf, supported Rumsfeld, but also provided an assessment that contrasted more with optimistic portrayals by the administration. He said that the opposition has the same strength it did six months ago, and that the insurgents have ample reserves to mount “a military surprise.”
Rumsfeld appears to need a refresher course in statistics and semantics.
“Despite a rise in enemy attacks since earlier this year, the number remains about the same level as a year ago and at only about half of previous peaks.”
First, Rumsfeld contradicts himself in that statement. Which is it, a rise in attacks or “half of previous peaks”? Second, how can the U.S. forces be winning, as per Rumsfeld, and enemy attacks continue to rise each day? I doubt seriously that would parallel the teachings at War College.
Rumsfeld continues to utilize tools of measurement that are meaningless and in direct conflict with his policy of not providing dates.
“Iraqi opinion polls showed more confidence in the forces and in the interim government. Additionally, Iraqi political authorities remain on track to draft a new constitution and elect a new national government by the end of the year.”
Who are the poll respondents? Are the insurgents included in that sampling? Does Rumsfeld actually believe that a few politicians drafting a new constitution will have any effect on the insurgents’ activities?
From The Washington Post referring to its interview with Iraqi Prime Minister Jafari:
Throughout the Post interview, Jafari did not sound like a leader who thought U.S. troops were close to coming home. He said three conditions must be met to snuff out the insurgency.
“First of all, the borders must be made very, very secure,” he said. “Secondly, Iraqi security forces must be of a caliber to carry out widespread and effective offensives against terrorists, and thirdly the judiciary must be activated so that justice” can be carried out. He counseled Americans to remember what happened to Germany after it was ignored by the United States and others after World War I, giving rise to Nazism. “Let’s go back and take lessons from history,” Jafari said.
Rummy needs some Windex to clean his spectacles. The United States needs a new plan and a new Secretary of Defense.
A Deficit of Decency. I could not have picked a more appropriate title myself. Foreward by Chris Matthews?