Rumsfeld undone

Rumsfeld undone

H.D.S. Greenway. Copyright by The Boston Globe

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 19, 2006

BOSTON The cascade of generals pouring out of retirement to denounce their former boss, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, has caught national attention. Both Rumsfeld and the White House have made statements and issued damage-control memos to stem a tide for which there are no precedents in modern times - at least not in the American armed forces.
Rumsfeld tried to dismiss it all by saying that if every retired admiral and general seeking to oust the secretary of defense were listened to, it would be a "merry-go-round." But such outspokenness on the part of retired American military men cannot be so easily brushed aside - especially since the generals are not challenging civilian control of the military, nor, for the most part, the Iraq war itself. The complaint is that Rumsfeld didn't want to listen to advice and botched the war.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice tried to sidestep criticism of the war by admitting to "tactical errors." But the generals know that the errors were strategic and operational and at the highest level.

Respect for the military institution itself is deeply ingrained in the American military. Publicly criticizing the civilian leadership is not done, even in retirement, and some military men are offended by the forthright generals and their public statements. On the other hand, Colonel H.R. McMaster's book "Dereliction of Duty," which criticizes the top brass for not speaking out against the Vietnam War, has been making the rounds, making a powerful case for speaking out.

Military loyalty to the civilian political leadership is one of America's strengths. American soldiers have never indulged in coups or political intrigues as have the militaries of so many other nations. I have been told that there was astonishment in some countries that President Truman did not think it necessary to move a single battalion to the capital when the cashiered General Douglas MacArthur came back from Korea to address a joint session of Congress.

But the provocation that brought these American generals to go public was intense. To my mind, none of the generals put it better than Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold when he told Time magazine that "the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and a swagger that are the special provinces of those who have never had to execute these missions - or bury the results."

The contrast between George W. Bush's safe National Guard service during the Vietnam War to that of his father, George H.W. Bush, who risked his life in the Pacific War in an exceedingly dangerous torpedo plane, could not be more stark.
Arch-hawk Dick Cheney famously said he had other priorities than to serve his country in Vietnam. And the other furious hawks, whose messianic vision for a transformed Middle East so casually committed young Americans to war, had no grounding in what war really means.

Unlike the theocratic zealots in the Bush administration, Rumsfeld wasn't so interested in the transformative power of democracy in the Middle East as he was proving his theories of a new, streamlined military. In his arrogance he ignored all warnings to the contrary, and planned only for a quick in - and out - war. Now that his forces are stuck in a quagmire, he clings to unreality. Rumsfeld must have been the last person in the United States to admit that there was an insurgency going on in Iraq. And today one has the impression that Shiites and Sunnis would have to dress up in the blue and the grey and have at each other with cannons and muskets over stone walls for Rumsfeld to admit there is a civil war.

President George W. Bush's loyalty to Rumsfeld may seem admirable, but it is politically foolish and dishonorable. After the spectacular failure of Iraq - not to mention the horrors of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo - it's time for the old Republican virtues of personal responsibility and accountability. The continued presence of Rumsfeld in the administration decreases the chances that Bush can keep public support for the war. For the American people have lost faith in Bush's judgment, and Rumsfeld is a prime example of the president's lack of judgment.

After the Bay of Pigs fiasco, President Kennedy is said to have told the CIA's Richard Bissell that if America had a parliamentary system, it would be he, Kennedy, who would have to go. But since it did not, Bissell would have to resign.
In the Bush administration, even spectacular failure seems only to result in a Medal of Freedom.
H.D.S. Greenway's column appears regularly in the Globe.