BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Rumsfeld, on the way out?

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
sleazenation
07:24 / 15.04.06
I guess this thread is born out of the revelations that now six retired seperate retired generals have spoken out against Mr Rumsfeld's handling of the war in Iraq and apparent distain for experienced military commanders.

Bush is standing behind his man, but he stood behind FEMA boss Michael Brown too. If this was in the UK, it would be right about now that the papers would be keeping on the pressure and continue with the story, attempting to discover how widerspread disatisfaction the defense secretary had become within the military brass still serving, but I get the impression that the US media is still reluctant to do that...

So, what do people, particularly those in the US, think of Rumsfeld's chances of remaining in place? What would it take for the US press to start to seriously question his competency?
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
08:11 / 15.04.06
I don't think Rummy has been that popular ever since the troops went into Iraq and started dying has he? It's like Bush, he wasn't that popular, got a spike that enabled him to win the election two years ago then almost immediately started slumping again. Considering the number of Iraqi troops over there and the fact they seem to be winding up to a possible attack on Iran I reckon he's pretty safe, they'll just start cowing opponants for being disloyal through FoxNewsCo again.
 
 
ShadowSax
11:35 / 15.04.06
this might help things a bit.

i think rumsfeld is on the way out. it seems almost orchestrated, how this is going. based on how the andrew card resignation went, where bush supported him publicly one week before he resigned, this may be the same, particularly with this new article saying that rummy approved degredation of prisoners.

the neocons have to pull something that looks like competence before the november elections, where they stand to experience a bad outcome. firing at the obvious sitting ducks is easy.

what bugs me is that these stories help the administration bury the cheney problem, the chertoff problem, the leak problem. at this point, getting rid of the warmonger who oversaw the disaster that is the iraq war is elementary compared to what else should be done.
 
 
Slim
14:36 / 15.04.06
I think Rumsfeld will stay in office. Rumsfeld is different than Brown, he's part of the Big Three. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove...for Bush to voluntarily get rid of any one of these three guys seems unlikely. They are, after all, architects of the White House's strategic vision. Although it's a slight exaggeration, Bush firing Rumsfeld would be like me firing my boss.

When non-retired generals start criticizing Rumsfeld, that's when you know it's over. Unfortunately, given the nature of the military and those in it, that's a fairly unlikely occurrence.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
15:12 / 15.04.06
Slim- I take your point, and I know it's not directly analagous, but over here Mr Tony managed to ditch Alastair Campbell and keep right on trucking.
 
 
Slim
16:35 / 15.04.06
That's interesting, Stoats. In response, I'd have to say that Bush prides himself on loyalty to his friends and would be unwilling to ditch Rummy. Secondly, removing Rumsfeld would mean one of two things (that I can think of): 1)It's in response to something such as the cases of torture. It puts the administration in a difficult spot because it would mean firing someone for something they refuse to admit happened/is morally wrong. 2)Firing the Secretary of Defense in the middle of a war would signify a change of course in Iraq. Is the White House ready to do this? Would they even know what changes to make?
 
 
T Blixius
22:25 / 15.04.06
Doesn't look like Rummy is going anywhere now, does it ?
 
 
feathered_up
00:55 / 16.04.06
I was reading the paper in a coffee shop this afternoon (I think it may have been USA Today, which is truly an awful paper) and came across an article which was definitely spinning the demand for Rumsfeld's resignation in a way I hadn't heard before, and one that I could see the Neocons raising as a defense for Rumsfeld. The article (which I can't find now...will post later if I can locate it) brings up the issue of the American tradition of civilian control over the military, which is a means to ensure that the military represents the will of the civilian population (make of that what you will). It seemed to me that the article was subtly framing this recent outcry by Zinni and the others as an attempt at subverting this tradition.

In my book, this is pretty much bullshit. Rumsfeld came into office with the intent of totally restructuring the military into a slimmer, more efficient and high tech force, and I think the anger of these generals has more to do with telling them how to undertake military operations rather than when and where. For example, one of the Generals who has spoken out, Anthony Zinni, helped map out a military plan in the late 1990's for the occasion of a war with Iraq that would require 300,000 troops, a slow build up in the region, and an occupation that might last as long as 10 years to rebuild the region. This was the plan that General Tommy Franks first suggested to Rumsfeld when asked to deliver a plan for the invasion of Iraq. Rumsfeld rejected every plan Franks brought him until he came up with one that used nearly half that amount of troops, and a much much shorter build up, operation, and occupation. It seems less a case of the military trying to gain autonomy and a much more like an administration that rejects expertise when it doesn't suit its agenda.

We'll see...as much as I would like Rumsfeld out, the propaganda machine has been pretty effective up to this point.
 
 
sleazenation
06:52 / 16.04.06
well, the story is still running, apparently the number of ex-generals calling for Rumsfeld to resign is now up to eight... If Rumsfeld is going to go at all, it will be because he has become associated with a drip, drip, drip of stories questioning his fitness to remain as defense secretary...
 
 
Triumvir
19:17 / 16.04.06
Rumsfled is as good as gone. People are mad and the administration needs somebody high up to take a fall. Especially with all the army generals calling for his resignation, I don't see how he could stay in office. The fact that Bush is supporting him for now means nothing. He just needs to show that he is a loyal strong-willed guy, etc. As sax said, the larger republican apparatus needs to throw somebody to the dogs before the midterm elections to boost their poll numbers, and it seems like Rumsfeld is the one.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
20:15 / 16.04.06
Especially with all the army generals calling for his resignation, I don't see how he could stay in office.

Easily, I imagine. He simply does not resign and hey presto, he's still there. Also these are retired generals, not "all the army generals".

People are mad and the administration needs somebody high up to take a fall.

Mmmm I'm not so sure, but I'd like to be convinced. Tell me, what do you make of Slim's two points?
 
 
sleazenation
20:30 / 16.04.06
In answer to questions about how Bush could justify Rumsfeld leaving his post without admitting any faults or wrong-doing has occurred - health problems and spending more time with the family are two perennial favourites...
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
20:52 / 16.04.06
Could he get away with that now, what with all the fire directed at Rumsfeld? I suppose he could wait on it, until the heat dies down. That'd probably float.
 
 
Triumvir
22:21 / 16.04.06
Easily, I imagine. He simply does not resign and hey presto, he's still there. Also these are retired generals, not "all the army generals".

Their exact status in the military is beyond the point. In the eyes of the public, its men with military expertise saying that Rumsfeld ought to step down. Its the general idea that matters in this situation.

As to Slim's points, Rumsfeld will probably use some excuse about health problems or family issues to step down, he won't admit to any wrongdoing. Nobody ever does.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
23:09 / 16.04.06
Their exact status in the military is beyond the point.

That's just it. They are not, in fact, in the military anymore. If it were active military members expressing great dissatisfaction and asking for Rumsfeld to step down, this would all be a very different story. So I'm afraid it is not quite "beyond" the point.

In the eyes of the public, its men with military expertise saying that Rumsfeld ought to step down. Its the general idea that matters in this situation.

I guess we'll see.
 
 
Jack Denfeld
23:16 / 16.04.06
Easily, I imagine. He simply does not resign and hey presto, he's still there. Also these are retired generals, not "all the army generals".
At least one of these generals was active during the beginning of the war against Iraq, was offered a third star promotion, and opted to retire instead due to how he thought Rumsfeld and the administration were handling the war.
 
 
Jack Denfeld
23:19 / 16.04.06
They are not, in fact, in the military anymore. If it were active military members expressing great dissatisfaction and asking for Rumsfeld to step down, that would be a different story.
High ranking officers in the U.S.Army would not be able to say much about the administration without risking future advancement in their careers.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
23:26 / 16.04.06
...which would lend a lot more weight to their claims, I would imagine. As I noted, it would be a very different story if this were the case.

At any rate, do you think he could get away with the "health trouble/family issues" deal? Would it fly? Or would everyone just be like "oh, right, sure" and remember him as a general embarrassment?
 
 
Jack Denfeld
23:36 / 16.04.06
I kinda think the whole administration is safe, and they'll be able to dodge any bullets while they ride out their term. Their approval ratings will go down, and up and down some more, but they'll cruise to the finish line.
 
 
Slim
01:56 / 17.04.06
The whole "time with family excuse" doesn't fly because it would come after direct criticism towards Rumsfeld. If criticism was being leveled at the administration in general, and not Rumsfeld in particular, then Bush & Co. might be able to save some face. As it is, there is only a slim chance he'd get rid of Rumsfeld. It's simply not possible to do without destroying the credibility of the White House and everything it has worked for over the past term and a half.

When I think about the issue, I ask myself what's more likely- Bush cutting loose a trusted friend or buttoning down the hatches and plowing ahead? My guess is the latter. I think that there is a tipping point but 8 former generals are not it. Christ, look at how bad Robert McNamara was as Secretary of Defense during the Vietnam War and what forced him to step down? Not the thousands and thousands of dead, not the billions in taxpayer money wasted, not the poor war strategy...it was his disagreeing with the President. I think that this speaks volumes about how politics actually work.

Of course, I might be wrong. I don't think like President Bush does (thank god) so who knows what he has up his sleeve.
 
 
quixote
03:42 / 17.04.06
I'm with the folks above who say Rummy is one of the Big Three and can't be fired. Shrub's just the pitchman. If Rumsfeld himself decides to resign for some reason, (eg Rove makes the case that it's the only way to keep control of Congress this fall, and thus to keep them all out of jail), then he might resign as a way to distract people from other problems.

Rummy is the rabid wolfhound in the living room. Nobody dares to get him out, and the only option is to try to keep him placated with food and water dropped off near the door.
 
 
feathered_up
11:59 / 17.04.06
For the record, military officials can be court martialed for saying anything disparaging about the President or their bosses, including the Secretary Defense, which is surely one reason why we only hear from retired generals.
 
 
ShadowSax
17:07 / 19.04.06
apparently bush hopes that getting rid of mcclellan and "demoting" rove is going to stave off the wolves.

i still think that rumsfeld won't be the sec'y of defense when bush leaves office. if things get crazy (good crazy) with impeachment talk, rummy is the best and easiest target to try to buy some time, and the tougher the democrats talk about the war, the more focus will go there, especially this year.

or, i'm dreaming.
 
 
diz
23:07 / 19.04.06
Christ, look at how bad Robert McNamara was as Secretary of Defense during the Vietnam War and what forced him to step down? Not the thousands and thousands of dead, not the billions in taxpayer money wasted, not the poor war strategy...

Don't even start on McNamara. Poor war strategy? Whatever faults he may have had, he was a strategic genius compared to Westmoreland and the other Army boneheads at the time.

Getting involved in Vietnam was the mistake. McNamara did better than anyone else in a bad situation based on stupid beliefs. His biggest fault was not criticizing the war as a whole, not in his execution.

In any case, Bush came out a few days ago and slapped his presidential weenie on the table and announced that he was "the decider" on the issue of Rumsfeld. He's staked his personal credibility on Rumsfeld staying now, and Rove would never have let him do that if there was any chance that Rummy was going.
 
 
Triumvir
00:06 / 20.04.06

Don't even start on McNamara. Poor war strategy? Whatever faults he may have had, he was a strategic genius compared to Westmoreland and the other Army boneheads at the time.

Getting involved in Vietnam was the mistake. McNamara did better than anyone else in a bad situation based on stupid beliefs. His biggest fault was not criticizing the war as a whole, not in his execution.


Although this thread is about Donald Rumsfeld and not Robert McNamara, I really had to correct you on this one. The fact that he was marginally better than the pack of imbiciles running the pentagon at the time doesn't make him a strategic genius. He hadn't the faintest idea how to wage a counterinsurgency campaign, and he got thousands of US soldiers killed through his ineptitude in an unconventional environment.

And don't say that US generals had never faced such a situation before, because they had. In the period between the Civil War and World War I, America faught in about a dozen 'small wars,' involving counterinsurgency campaigns, from the Indian Wars, to the Phillipine War, and we were damn good at it. Had McNamara taken any lessons from our past, rather than rushing in like a blistering idiot, then Ho Chi Min City might still have been called Saigon.
 
 
Slim
00:13 / 20.04.06
The point, diz, is that if Vietnam is any indication, the Secretary of Defense can fuck up as much as he wants to without concern for losing his job as long as he doesn't contradict the President.
 
 
diz
01:48 / 20.04.06
Although this thread is about Donald Rumsfeld and not Robert McNamara, I really had to correct you on this one. The fact that he was marginally better than the pack of imbiciles running the pentagon at the time doesn't make him a strategic genius.

Note that I said "compared to." It's akin to saying "That guy's so ugly, he makes me look like Tom Cruise."

Had McNamara taken any lessons from our past, rather than rushing in like a blistering idiot, then Ho Chi Min City might still have been called Saigon.

That's complete horseshit. Vietnam was unwinnable by the US under any circumstances. The whole reason we got involved was the CIA's accurate assessment that Ho Chi Minh's political support was broad and deep throughout Vietnam, not just in the north, and that he would easily win the countrywide election scheduled for 1956. So we essentially created the Diem government (and its successor governments) out of thin air with no support among the population. You can't win a civil war when there's no domestic support for your side. The Communists won in Vietnam because the majority of the population was committed to communism before the war even started. It's a joke to pretend that anything McNamara or anyone else in his position could have done would have overcome that.

The point, diz, is that if Vietnam is any indication, the Secretary of Defense can fuck up as much as he wants to without concern for losing his job as long as he doesn't contradict the President.

My point is that McNamara didn't really fuck up - the fuck up was the policy decision to get involved in Vietnam in the first place. Considering that the objective he was provided by his boss was unobtainable, he didn't do so bad. It could have been worse, and it would have been worse had the generals had the operational latitude they had wanted. His primary failure was either not understanding or not being willing to stand up and say that the war was unwinnable, but that was a very widespread failing and he had a much more modest understanding of what was within reach than most at the time.

Also, it's a fallacy to assume that the way one administration handled this sort of issue can be used to reliably predict how another will act. You really couldn't get two more different modern American administrations than the Johnson administration (or the Kennedy administration, for that matter) and the current Bush administration.
 
 
diz
01:51 / 20.04.06
In any case, I don't think Bush is going to back down here. I think the only way Rummy will leave is if the pressure increases, Rumsfeld himself decides that he is a liability to his boss, and voluntarily decides to fall on his sword for Bush. Frankly, I don't know if Rumsfeld is that kind of guy.
 
 
Slim
03:14 / 20.04.06
My point is that McNamara didn't really fuck up - the fuck up was the policy decision to get involved in Vietnam in the first place. Considering that the objective he was provided by his boss was unobtainable, he didn't do so bad. It could have been worse, and it would have been worse had the generals had the operational latitude they had wanted. His primary failure was either not understanding or not being willing to stand up and say that the war was unwinnable, but that was a very widespread failing and he had a much more modest understanding of what was within reach than most at the time.

It was not until late in his term as SoD that he realized he was way off base. IIRC, up to that point he was a firm believer in bombing, body counts, and distorting the news before releasing it to the public.

Also, it's a fallacy to assume that the way one administration handled this sort of issue can be used to reliably predict how another will act. You really couldn't get two more different modern American administrations than the Johnson administration (or the Kennedy administration, for that matter) and the current Bush administration.

It is a fallacy. They differ, in my mind, in that the Bush administration is in far greater lockstep. Bush himself would be less likely to let a friend go for doing poorly and quicker to cut him loose if said friend crossed him.

Rumsfeld has offered his resignation twice but yes, I don't see that happening again.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
17:30 / 20.04.06
Triumvir Their exact status in the military is beyond the point. In the eyes of the public, its men with military expertise saying that Rumsfeld ought to step down. Its the general idea that matters in this situation.

Fox News have managed to spin the mother of a dead soldier into appearing to be a deranged traitor, if they mentioned the generals at all I dare say words like 'has-been' and 'doesn't understand the issues on the ground' and 'everything's changed since they left' have been used. The generals matter less in public opinion than all those people attacked because they were writting books about how useless the Bush administration was.
 
 
Triumvir
19:50 / 20.04.06
That's complete horseshit. Vietnam was unwinnable by the US under any circumstances. The whole reason we got involved was the CIA's accurate assessment that Ho Chi Minh's political support was broad and deep throughout Vietnam, not just in the north, and that he would easily win the countrywide election scheduled for 1956. So we essentially created the Diem government (and its successor governments) out of thin air with no support among the population. You can't win a civil war when there's no domestic support for your side. The Communists won in Vietnam because the majority of the population was committed to communism before the war even started. It's a joke to pretend that anything McNamara or anyone else in his position could have done would have overcome that.

Look, I'm trying to be polite here, but you're just wrong. Go to the library and take out a short history of the Phillipine insurrection, maybe "Small Wars for Peace," by Max Boot. It explains in detal the many small American military operations in which we sucessfully subjugated countries despite wide ranging and popular guerilla movements. Please get some factual and historical background before you go making baseless assertions.
 
 
sleazenation
20:27 / 20.04.06
Rumsfeld has offered his resignation twice but yes, I don't see that happening again.

Cheifly, I feel, because the possibility of it actually being accepted are on the increase...

There was a pretty good article by Robert MacNamara in Foreign Affairs a few months ago. He was responding to in inevitable Vietnam/Iraq comparisons, and during the course of his essay pointed the finger squarely at congress for the failures of Vietnamization. His claim being that a proxy war between South and North Veitnam would have effectively prevented a North Vietnamise victory, but pesky Congress failed to keep funding it...
 
 
Jake, Colossus of Clout
18:06 / 25.04.06
Rumsfeld came into office with the intent of totally restructuring the military into a slimmer, more efficient and high tech force

That's incorrect. The downsizing of the US military was a Clinton policy, and Clinton's model General for that policy, General of the Army Eric Shinseki, was canned early into the Bush administration. Rumsfeld and his cohorts were in favor of keeping troop numbers at Clinton-era levels, but increasing high-tech weaponry, made by their buddies in the arms industry. Paying for soldier's training doesn't pay you back, but giving Lockheed-Martin a multibillion-dollar contract might just get you some kickbacks.
 
 
Baz Auckland
03:19 / 06.09.06
*bump*

It seems like firing Rumsfeld has popped up again in the news... with Democrats calling for his resignation after he went on the "Democrats would have appeased Hitler" track.

It doesn't look like he's going anywhere though, and Bush has taken up the Hitler and Fascism references now...
 
 
sleazenation
21:23 / 14.11.06
Just bumping this thread in light of Rumsfeld's recent fall.

I guess in retrospect it seems even more obvious that Rumsfeld was being kept around to be dumped like so much chaff in the event of a meltdown at the polls...
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply