Rumsfeld’s Interviews about Insurgency
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld strongly defended on three television programs yesterday that the US-led forces were succeeding in Iraq. He went so far as to say the US was making significant progress. While boasting successes, Rumsfeld specifically noted that the insurgency could last a dozen years.
“It won’t be won by the coalition forces…insurgencies tend to go on 5, 6, 8, 10, 12 years”
What does Secretary Rumsfeld base that statement on and are those statistics applicable to the current situation in Iraq? Did the insurgencies presented in these metrics fight the most powerful military force in history?
Rumsfeld and General John Abizaid, who appeared on two television programs, were forerunners to the president’s speech on Tuesday of this week. Obviously their objective was to build momentum for President Bush’s expected attempt to address the increasing criticism he has faced in Congress and by the public. In a press conference on Friday President Bush was clear about his intentions.
“I am not giving up on the mission”
I don’t believe the American people expect or want the US to give up. What is expected is to have a plan and carry it out efficiently and effectively.
Rumsfeld was confident throughout the interviews.
The insurgents “were losers, and they’re going to lose.”
That seems to be a much different view that what is demonstrated by the frequency, efficacy and scope of the attacks by the insurgents.
General Abizaid said on CBS’s Face the Nation that a US retreat was not a consideration.
“The insurgents don’t have a chance.”
If the insurgents don’t have a chance and are seemingly presented as only a nuisance, why has the US military been in Iraq for more than two years and the insurgents are in fact progressing rather than declining?
“We don’t need to have the same number of troops in the region 10 years from now or 5 years from now or even 2 years from now.”
Was that a Freudian slip or tongue firmly planted in cheek statement? Is it remotely possible that Abizaid’s thinking was we need more troops, be the variance to which he speaks? I’m sure the general was supposed to convey reductions, but is that what he really believes?
Rumsfeld drew upon historical conflicts to further his convictions.
“Unlike past revolutions in Vietnam and China,” he said, “There was no charismatic leader. There is no Ho Chi Minh or Mao there. There’s a Jordanian terrorist who’s killing Iraqi people” (i.e. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi).
What does this statement say about our leadership; we don’t seem to be winning.
The insurgents’ ability to kill large numbers of people was a poor indicator of Iraqi support for their cause.
So then, killing small groups of people is not a concern? If their capabilities are so limited why are we so seemingly incapable of stopping them?
“It doesn’t take a genius to go blow up a restaurant, a kid with a suicide vest can kill a lot of people.”
Again, if it is not rocket science, what has been the cause of our impotence? The most powerful country in the world with the greatest military force in history cannot secure a one and one-half mile section of road to the Baghdad airport; it is probably the most dangerous spot on the planet.
Rumsfeld was questioned about the contrast between Dick Cheney’s comments last week when he said the insurgency was in “its last throes” and General Abizaid’s assessment to Congress that the insurgency’s “overall strength is about the same” as six months earlier.” To top it off, Abizaid noted that the flow of anti-American fighters into the country had grown.
“Throes can encompass violent spasms. There is no contradiction at all.”
And your point is? Is he talking about childbirth, the severe trouble of the country, or what? One dictionary defines throes as:
- A severe pang or spasm of pain, as in childbirth. See Synonyms at pain.
- A condition of agonizing struggle or trouble: a country in the throes of economic collapse.
It is clear Secretary Rumsfeld was AWOL for that question.
Rumsfeld blatantly denied the existence of any policy of abuse or torture at Guantanamo Bay. Maybe that’s been the problem all along.
“There have been, I believe, 50 convictions of people for not obeying the rules that have been established. The prisoners are being treated humanely.
The idea that there’s any policy of abuse or policy of torture is false, flat false.”
Crumpets and tea at four, right?
Who are the 50 people that have been convicted? 50 people does not sound isolated, it sounds systemic which indicates a common element such as policy, procedure, or command.
What is the explanation for everybody but the administration being wrong? Why do we hear about these acts of torture now and have not before - you can’t blame it on the speed and access of information. It is possible acts of torture occurred in Bosnia during the Clinton administration, but if so, why were they not discovered just the same?
And, the best is always saved for the last.
The overall progress in Iraq is “solid.” Followed by: “It’s amazing. It’s historic.”
