Maureen Dowd:The Rummy Mutiny

[cal04]

When Donald Rumsfeld was 10, his operating principle, as described by his dad, was: "If it doesn't go easy, force it." Not much has changed in the last 63 years. Goodness, gracious! Will that dadburn Rummy ever follow any of his own rules? Rumsfeld's Rules offer many wise axioms that Washington's most famous infighter is ignoring as he engages in the Mother of All Infighting Battles against rebellious generals.

One rule advises: "Preserve the president's options. He may need them." Others include "It is easier to get into something than to get out of it" and "Try to make original mistakes, rather than needlessly repeating" the mistakes of your predecessors. History will long dwell on how America made the same bloody errors in Vietnam and Iraq within a generation, trading the arrogant, obtuse, wire-rimmed Robert McNamara for the arrogant, obtuse, wire-rimmed Donald Rumsfeld.

First the public began bailing on supporting the conduct of the Iraq war, and now top military voices are balking. Six prominent retired generals say that Rummy discounted the dangers in Iraq and managed with an intimidating style that left commanders feeling jammed into submission. He promoted sycophants like Richard Myers and Peter Pace, while slapping down truth-tellers like Eric Shinseki. Again, Rumsfeld's rules could have helped. There's one about the "indispensable" and "gracious" art of listening.

W. should have fired Rummy long ago, after the sickening news of Abu Ghraib and torture stories out of Gitmo. He should have fired him as soon as it became clear that the defense secretary who bungled the occupation and insurgency has no idea how to get out of Iraq and stop American kids from getting blown up day after day by homemade bombs. But W. took a break from a long holiday weekend (is there any other kind for him?) at Camp David to defend Rummy and tamp down the mutiny. The commander in chief is the one who put Rummy in charge of the botched postwar non-plan and hates admitting a mistake as much as his defense chief. He thinks that if he caves to keening generals, he will be seen by his base as weak. His whole presidency, his whole muscle-bound adventurism in Iraq, has been designed to prevent him from being labeled a wimp, as his dad was.

more
http://www.topplebush.com/oped2678.shtml

[saltpoint]

1. He stands up to the generals but flees Cindy Sheehan.

Nice piece in the TIMES by MoDo.

[cliss]

2. Great article, and so true.

This is why this whole issue is so devastating: Bush typically ignores the will of the people, whatever the issue.

He's trying to ignore the generals, as well.

Here's why it WON'T work. This is the military. Without their support, there IS no war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran. There's already some talk about troops and commanders mutineering.

[Cha]

3. "You can't pray a lie"!

That lets out all of the bush gargoyles and his voters.

Kicked and Recommended :kick:

[necso]

4. One of her best,

a work of gravitas, cast in effervescent humor and style.

And while the word "coup" (in the context of a general's coup) would be something of an overreach in the context of other countries, given the American context, it's not far afield. -- This public dissent by (former) high-ranking officers is both daring and dutiful (as coups are often only claimed to be), in an all-too-unfamiliar way. (But, unfortunately, will and dedication to duty (along with other elements of principle) are not necessarily enough of themselves to acheive some hoped-for end. Because there is also the matter of, for want of a better phrase, usable power -- that is, the ability and capability to make things happen.)

Moreover, when referring to the takeover by the neocons of the organs of government (particularly the military and the intelligence agencies), the word "coup" is most apropos.

...

To save myself the trouble of finding another location (there are several candidates, some dupes, etc, and I'm feeling lazy), I'm attaching another post here.

...

The people of the United States pay a great deal to equip, train and maintain their armed forces. And the people of the United States entrust these armed forces to a professional officer core that is relied upon (and required) to: demonstrate superior professionalism, abilities and skills in all things military; plan for, provide for, and insist upon whatever is necessary to acheive victory in the form of reasonable and attainable war objectives, whenever military efforts are engaged in; preserve the capabilities, forces and well-being of the nation's military establishment; serve, protect and defend the Constitution; serve, protect and defend the national interest in a nonpartisan way.

Now, arguably, our military culture and history are such that for active-duty officers (while not violating regulations) to openly criticize civilian-command-related military shortcomings is something approaching a taboo. But the American people have a right to know when: civilian-dictated military policies are grossly ineffective, counterproductive, defeat-ensuring, or simply hopeless; the civilian command tries to turn the military into a partisan, personal, or ideological instrument; political and personal practices of the civilian command run dramatically against (and harm) the military's ability to do its job, its need for teamwork, leadership, efficiency and effectiveness, etc; & etc. And it's the duty of those officers in-the-know to tell the people what they must know -- and have every right to -- when they must know it.

However, given said military culture (and history), it is primarily retired officers that the American people can turn to, when unpleasant things need to be said about military affairs and the civilian role in serious military problems. And if the voice of these officers is stilled or drowned-out, then the necessary frankness may never be forthcoming -- practically guaranteeing that the people have little or no chance to demand necessary, fundamental changes in policy... and personnel.

Moreover, for the military (retired or active) to take an active role in silencing (or overwhelming) such voices, particularly in what appears to be a politically oriented and orchestrated campaign, is to venture onto very, very, thin ice.