December 24, 2004
The Value of a Visit
Well, it was nice of you, Secretary Rumsfeld. Now you can get back to Washington and give the soldiers what they need to win this war. The plan. The supplies. The armor. The way out of a war we can’t afford to fight forever, which we must win to protect our children.
To some people, the visit will be all that you need to prove your concern. A lot of people have too many other worries and not enough real knowledge of your mistakes to have a strong desire to keep you honest. Unfortunately, I can’t say I believe this isn’t just a P.R. stunt, like your boss’s surprise visit last year.
I mean, if this was meant to be just a surprise visit, why bother to bring a television crew along? It's not a surprise if everybody knows about it. And given the relentless coverage given to it, you can't say this wasn't meant to get attention
Once, quite some time ago, my mother and I saw you bringing wounded out of the Pentagon. We admired that, because it demonstrated the virtue that you didn't have to demonstrate. No sensible man risks death without some principle to give him courage. But plenty of men, competent and incompetent have done what you've done here and now, and have done it for reasons that have nothing to do with where one's sympathies might lie.
So why are you doing this, Mr. Secretary? You might dismiss my doubts because I'm a Democrat and a Liberal, and I've given you a hard time over the years, but just understand one thing: my problems with you aren't personal, though personal emotion figures into my response. They are entirely related to how you and others have carried out your job. Millions of Americans could give a crap less the political party under which a secretary serves, and under the right conditions, I'm one of those people.
But for me to put aside partisan impulses, I must be assured that I put it aside in the name of a common cause. Winning the war against terrorism is a common cause. A Campaign designed to remake the political landscape of the Middle East is not.
For me, fighting in a common cause does not mean pardoning you from your mistakes. You and your people have shown great stubbornness in even admitting to error. You can't seem to admit you're wrong, period. To me, this is a source of great dismay, especially in the light of all that has gone wrong. So many of us were dedicated to depriving you and your boss of your next four years of employment, because we believed you would be unwilling to redress your mistakes.
Now you have been publically called to task again for your error. And yes, whether it was intentional or not, it was an error, especially after you chose not to correct it. This time people listened because it was a soldier, not just some reporter who you guys would say had it in for you anyways.
Yes, that soldier had help, but help in expressing what he wanted to ask anyways. He asked you that question with no political agenda aside from getting better protection than hillbilly armor. For that he's been treated like a dupe, and was the subject of a veiled insult you gave out during one of your speeches on that surprise visit of yours. To me, the right answer was not excuses, rationalization, political positioning, but the simple and rather effective solution that has always been in your hands: getting the job done.
From the start, your people have had that option. You could have admitted mistakes early on and just gotten things done, not stored up the tension of distrust by the conflicts between your words, your actions and the situation as a whole.
In this post-9/11 world, we don't expect perfection or body counts with less than three figures, but we rightly expect higher standards of behavior, policy, and intelligence gathering. We know that our country cannot afford to linger in error indefinitely, especially not for the sake of the political anxieties of one party.
We have an enemy quite willing to strike at us, and all too capable of turning all your vain public relations endeavors and hollowing them out, as the Iraqi insurgents have done consistently throughout this war. Many of us know this, and therefore are not satisfied with placatory gestures, but instead demand action that yields real, tangible progress.
We would rather have elections that work than elections on schedule. We would rather have a policy that actually does its job, than one that merely gives the appearance of you doing yours. Yes, it's hard work, yes, conditions are never ideal, and yes, people may unfairly give you crap about the job you do. But you signed up to do a job with real consequences for our nation's security, and you must at some point stop blaming the people who merely make public your mistakes, and start dealing with those mistakes themselves. Otherwise neither you, nor anybody else is going to get out of this trouble without pain and suffering we can hardly afford to inflict on ourselves.
Start getting the armor there. Start mobilizing now. You're in the hole already, spend what you need to spend, and tell people you're doing what you have to. That will cause you political trouble, but that's something you could have avoided by admitting or avoiding your errors. It's not something you can really avoid anymore.
Stop worrying about keeping up appearances that most people in this country don't trust anymore. Don't just visit our troops and then go back to continue the errors of your ways. Take the lesson at it's face value, and do what you've got to do for the good of this country. Stop trying to escape the criticism. Start making it unnecessary.
Posted by Stephen Daugherty at December 24, 2004 06:36 PMWell said Stephen!
I’ve actually read Bush Apologists defending Rummy in the Auto Pen controversy, and of course blaming us Dems for the witch hunt!
My theory as to why Bush’s approval rating fell 6% percentage points in one month, is as simple as you just put it - the GOP controls the White House and Congress, and therefore cannot effectively blame the Democrats anymore.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at December 25, 2004 05:43 AMYeah, there’s a disconnect between, “their grief is something I feel to my core,” and not personally signing the condolence letters, isn’t there. You’d think Rumsfeld could make signing a few, “We regret” letters part of his daily routine. :/
There is way out of Iraq that will work. If the US means what it says, we could accomplish what we set out for, and render the silly PR visits unnecessary, the call for more armored vehicles a moot point, the demands for additional boots on the ground meaningless.
First, hold the elections as planned. Coordinate with the Shias. As soon as the Shia government is in place, they should request an immediate and complete withdrawal of US troops, as well as the cancellation of all contracts.
The US should comply.
The Shias should then make it clear to the Sunnis that what the Sunnis attempted to solve by force, the Shias have accomplished through the ballot box. If necessary, an additional round of elections might be held in the Sunni areas.
Consider what this would accomplish: an independent, viable, democratic Iraq; an Iraq that has ‘won’ its freedom by vote; an economy run by Iraqis, for Iraqis; international aid would flow, and the opportunity for the US to patch international relations would be there; the violence and carnage would come to an end; the $80 billion hole in the US budget would decrease; and the Iraqis might, of their own free will, look upon the US as the liberators we claimed to be.
This would require wisdom & planning & foresight by all parties, something that has been in short supply.
Rumsfeld’s PR problems would end, few letters of condolence would need to be signed, and Iraq could actually be considered a victory and a success, rather than a quagmire.
Peace on earth, good will to men, and best wishes to you all,
Don
One would think that the security nescessary to facilitate this trip could have been better served at the army base in Mosul.
Posted by: Rocky at December 26, 2004 12:42 PMSo much to respond to and so little space to do so.
First of all, there are hundreds of news crews in Iraq already. He didn’t have to bring one with him.
Secondly, having served in the military I can tell you that a visit by the Secretary of Defense is a big deal and, no matter how controversial he might be, those guys appreciated every moment of it. What is a PR stunt to a cynical liberal is called leadership to the troops in the field.
Oh, and that “infamous” armor that the pawn - I mean soldier - asked about? It seems that 95% of his unit’s vehicles had already BEEN up-armored, with the remainder up-armored within 24 hours of his asking that planted question. Another non-story made up by the liberal media.
Rumseld has plenty of substance, but appearances mean a lot too - otherwise the liberal media would not spend so much time trying to make it appear like we are losing this war. And they do so becuase making Bush look bad is more important than winning.
David,
“…otherwise the liberal media would not spend so much time trying to make it appear like we are losing this war. And they do so becuase making Bush look bad is more important than winning.”
I’m not sure what to make of this. Are you saying the media should not report bad news, and leave the public uninformed for the sake of morale? Or are you saying Iraq is actually going well, & the ‘liberal media’ are misreporting events?
When conservatives publicly note how badly it’s going in Iraq, what do you make of that?
Having served in the military as well, I’m amazed an enlisted person would publicly ask Rumsfeld a difficult question, and that those in attendance would support the questioner; by support, I mean cheer. How do you explain the cheering?
Posted by: phx8 at December 27, 2004 02:28 PMDavid-
Your comment about the Armor are problematic at best, because 55% of the armor that constitutes the armor you refer to is the improvised armor the Soldier (not dupe, not plant, not fool, not pawn) complained about in the first place.
I will call it a publicity stunt until I see results in other areas. Then it will be a genuine display of affection for the soldiers. Details must be examined in context, and the context here is a secretary of defense who has been loathe to fix mistakes that have cost lives, and who has taken a blithe, deceptive approach to the policy abroad.
You talk of leadership. Well, don’t step in any around Rumsfeld. He’s lead this country to not gear up to meet the parts and production goals, not follow international laws that protect our soldiers, and not go in with the force necessary to win the war. That doesn’t seem like good leadership to me.
Yes, it’s nice to have a celebrity visit, but if that person does nothing for you, what’s the point of that visit? There can only be one: to bolster confidence in policy without improving the policy itself. Perhaps he means to stall for time, perhaps he just means to perpetuate his power and/or policy.
As for the liberal media…
What evidence do you have that they’re wrong? You forget times where the media lionized Bush and Rumsfeld. The media would have kept on making heroes out of them, if they had done themselves and everybody else the favor of doing their jobs right.
Unfortunately, the Republican party has decided it will just go for the cop-outs, blaming everybody but themselves for their mistakes. I guess it’s easier than working the problem.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 27, 2004 03:35 PMStephen,
Winning the war against terrorism is a common cause. A Campaign designed to remake the political landscape of the Middle East is not.
I see no difference between the two. In fact one cannot happen without the other.
As for Rumsfeld, I think you are way off base on this. Especially considering that most of the left’s criticism has been that Rumsfeld doesn’t care about the troops and wouldn’t put himself in harms way but gladly sends troops to die in a war zone.
I submit to you that the press isn’t reporting the news here. They are skewing it. I hear the Blue column complain ALOT about context, do you ever search for it on the other side?
Posted by: ericsimonson at December 27, 2004 03:48 PMHere is the address for Novak’s 12/23 column, Rumsfeld versus the Neocons
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/23/novak.rumsfeld/index.html
In a nutshell, a number of Neocons are looking to blame Iraq on Rumsfeld, as if the invasion was a good idea, with Rumsfeld responsible for the current situation.
Posted by: phx8 at December 27, 2004 07:35 PMEric-
In an ideal world, where intentions translated directly into actions and the past never mattered to anyone, you would be correct.
But that’s not the world we live in. In the world we live in, there are people who react against violence with resistance and aggression. For example, The American people. If we don’t like being attacked, how do you think the people of the Middle East feel.
It’s foolish to believe that we can long retain the sympathies of those whose political systems we forcibly re-engineer, when we use violent means. They are going to see the bodies and the blood, and they are going to react the way we did to 9/11.
As for Rumsfeld “Risking” himself, I wonder why this had to be a surprise visit, and not widely announced to the media. What his personal feeling are, I don’t know, but I do know that he let many problem go unresolved for months at a time that could have eased the suffering of our troops and saved lives. Lives lost through negligence, control freakery, malice, or under any other motivation are still lives lost.
And the news you submit? It’s a blog, and it’s a testimonial from a couple of soldiers at best. Given the odds, I’d be surprised if you weren’t able to find this, especially with the PR folks in the Pentagon working overtime.
I want to hear more than just canned, anecdotal messages about success, I want to see the bloodshed on all sides thin out, as it’s supposed to do after a war. I want us to solidify our control. No more making excuses for equipment shortages and obsolescence. If we’re paying 400 billion dollars a year, we should get something out of it. It’s humiliating to have that kind of a budget and get these kinds of excuses from our Secretary of defense. As for the insurgents, I do not want to here from my president the obvious: that they are trying to disrupt our plans, and that’s why things are going bad.
No, I want to hear what all of them are doing to disrupt the insurgents plans, and I want to see that disruption succeed, before I start lavishing praise on anybody. Maybe you can satisfy yourself with excuses. I will satisfied with results. Real results, not an opened school or a dug well. Broad, far reaching results that inform success in the big picture. Get back to me when you have some to talk about.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 27, 2004 09:06 PMBut that’s not the world we live in. In the world we live in, there are people who react against violence with resistance and aggression. For example, The American people. If we don’t like being attacked, how do you think the people of the Middle East feel.
That’s just moral equivalence and it doesn’t wash. If we were ruled by an American Saddam Hussein, I would even welcome French troops liberating our country. Or did the elections in which Saddam received 100% of the vote convince you that he had the support of the people?
What you set up through your standard is that the good cannot use force against those who rule entirely by force. I’d rather let the dictators of the world know that we reserve the right to depose them.
And the news you submit? It’s a blog, and it’s a testimonial from a couple of soldiers at best.
Yeah, we shouldn’t listen to anyone who was actually there unless they told what to say by the media, or had an anti-bush message?
Eric-
You and I are Americans, so it takes a little imagination to appreciate what it’s like to have a war go through our own backyards. No war in living memory has been quite like that.
For the Europeans and Middle Easterners, it’s a far different story.
Personally, if I felt I was ruled by an actual tyrant, I’d be fully willing to rebel against that tyrant. But I’d be careful about the help enlisted. As a patriot, I would not want to win the battle to overthrow the tyrant, only to lose the war to keep my nation independent.
Saddam was a bastard, but that should make it imperative that we not hamstring ourselves over him if we can avoid it.
As for the media, I think you fixate on questions of politics while the facts fly by. I’d rather be well-informed, and perhaps a bit pessimist, than be a deluded optimist. I don’t give a crap about saving your president’s ego. I oppose Bush so strongly becaue of what he’s done.
More later…
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 28, 2004 12:34 AMEric,
That blog link story you provided and the images of Rumsfeld coming out of Iraq, remind me of those horrendously manipulative and pandering Halliburton TV commercials we saw a few months back.
You’re absolutely correct, the military did vote 4 to 1 for Bush’s re-election. However, for every Rummy bedside manner story, there’s the anger and anguish of a soldier learning from a reporter that their tour has been extended; and for every pro-Rumsfeld soldier’s testimony showing up on a Conservative website, there are those who refuse a refueling run without proper body armor.
Why did Rumsfeld’s press conference ‘gaffe’ take place in Kuwait? He was scheduled to go to Baghdad - but it was too dangerous.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at December 28, 2004 12:35 AMEric-
Additional thoughts: While many things justify the ouster of Saddam Hussein, nothing justifies screwing it up, or doing it on false pretexts, for either fault in the efforts to remove him can scuttle the value of the aims.
We’re not just going to war on principle, we are going to war with certain objects in mind, and if the manner we go to war interferes with those objects, we could lose the war despite our best efforts. Battles won are useless unless they bring us closer to the fulfilment of our purposes.
It pays in war to have your head on straight, your eyes open, and your heart in the right place. It also pays to attack from defense more than to attack first. First, we know the enemy. Second, we are well motivated to take on the enemy, third, its easier to unite people on the need for war. These are not inconsequential things in a war effort.
If we want to prevent attacks counterterrorism, rather than military action, should be our first choice. FBI agents, spies, and law enforcement agents in foreign lands can be much more agile, and can deprive the terrorists of the victories they need to demonstrate their strength.
In our military response, defense is a good option because it sends a strong message- leave us alone, we leave you alone. Attack us, and we annihilate you and burn you down to your group’s roots. Making invasion a consequence of state support will send a clear message.
The big problem with your theories Eric, and Neocon theories in general, is their reliance on an extraordinary degree of passivity on the part of both the American people, and the targets of their policies. You seem to believe that people just have to accept the correctness of your view, when the reality is not so much under your control and influence.
Personally, you speak of war too cheaply for my tastes, and with too little demonstrated understanding of the context. You underestimate the costs and the errors of the operation, and underestimate other people’s committment to the cause of fighting terrorism, because you are so wrapped up in your apologia for policies we disagree with.
You need to step back from the abstractions of theory, and from your own prejudices concerning what adversarial parties believe and are motivated by and take a second look.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 28, 2004 12:20 PMWe need a new Secretary of Defense. Rumsfeld isn’t doing a very good job at defending anything. All we have been doing is attacking people. The whole notion of the best defense is a good offense applies to sports such as football, but should not correlate with our foreign policy.
Posted by: LLBBL at December 28, 2004 06:26 PMRumsfeld advocates holding the Iraqi elections as scheduled. On this one, I agree with him. There seems little choice. But is the US being manuevered into an untenable position?
OBL declared al-Zarqawi his agent for Al-Qaida in Iraq. Zarqawi is violently anti-Shia. If OBL & Zarqawi turn the insurgency into a Sunni jihad against the US & Shias, the US will be in the astounding position of fighting a civil war as a proxy for the Shias. It will be the US against the Sunnis, with the Iraqi & Iranian Shias patiently waiting to assume power. Although the US could find itself doing Iran’s bidding, I doubt the Iranians will reciprocate with appreciation.
Meanwhile, a third Kurdish party is emerging. Supposedly it is agitating for secession from Iraq and an independent Kurdish state, and it is receiving considerable support. The Turks are making it clear that an independent Kurdistan is unacceptable.
How I hope someone in our government is thinking this through, and steering our country through the approaching rapids.
Posted by: phx8 at December 28, 2004 11:14 PMphx8, that’s exactly what I’ve been saying. The US Marines will be a Praetorian Guard for the ruling faction. Is that what the Bush administration wants?
There is no way we should have turned over government until the country was pacified and functioning - which would have been so much easier if Bush hadn’t turned down UN offers of assistance and troops.
