Why Rumsfeld should go
Because the s.o.b. is psychologically incapable of saying, "Okay, I admit it, I was wrong."
It does not bother me terribly that Dubya, due largely to the influence of Rumsfeld, made mistakes in the planning and execution of the Iraq war. Every war begins with mistakes in planning and proceeds with mistakes in execution. But for God's sake, you have to be willing to learn from your mistakes.
How long has it been obvious that it takes more troops to defeat an insurgency than it does to defeat an army? How long has it been obvious that we had plenty of troops on hand to conquer Iraq but not nearly enough to make it peaceful? Do we really need the eloquent First Lieutenant Hegseth to explain to us that "[v]iolence persists not because American troops are present, but because our presence is futile," and that "we have just enough troops in Iraq not to lose"? Can there be anybody in America who at this point doesn't recognize that Bush is refusing to increase America's troop presence in Iraq simply and solely because, despite all his rhetoric, this administration cares more about avoiding having to admit that Rumsfeld was wrong and the Democrats were right, than it cares about winning in Iraq?
You know, if Rumsfeld were just willing to stand up like a man and say, "Look, we've been wrong about this, and I congratulate my critics on their perspicacity. We are changing course right now" -- if he were willing to do that, I'd say there's no reason for him to resign. He's done a lot that I agree with, and I don't think in matters military you fire a guy just because he's wrong occasionally. I don't think Rumsfeld needs to be gone because he was wrong. I think he needs to be gone because he's not man enough to admit it.
(Ghost Dansing, if you're reading this, then I'm happy to have warmed the cockles of your heart.)
posted by Ken Pierce @ 8:04 AM
3 comments
3 Comments:
Almost missed it Kenny :)
Hegseth is correct. It is really a zero-sum game at this point... damage is done in the larger "war on terror"... it matters not whether we stay or go... unless, as you say, and I've said before, the alternative would be to surge conquer and sustain.
I'm suspecting we can't do that.
Of course Lieutenant Hegseth is correct. He's been there (Iraq). Anyone from the 'Nam would understand instantly. Wouldn't even have to peruse the WSJ, except for the particulars of this particular doozy in the ME. Hegseth (thank God or the gods, whichever you prefer) is not another insufferable Boomer smarty-assy.(He's another example of what I could have blogged hot stuff on if Rumsfeld's up-tight ones had permitted it.) Not being a chicken hawk OR a chicken chicken,or another Washington wuss or Pentagon desk jockey, he actually knows what he's talking about. An Ivy Leaguer, an authentic elite, but with common sense! (See? It can happen, it can.) He truly rates a gringo medal of honor.In other words, I could not imagine him saying "it matters not whether we stay or go"---even if he could decipher the meaning of the 'unless,' which I cannot.
I remember hearing the first Governor-General talk about the realities in Iraq (right before he was replaced by Bremer). He very frankly stated what had been accomplished, what hadn't and where the mistakes were--and what they were going to try to do about it, where the uncertainties were in their plan. I felt reassured. When you make a mistake, you admit it, apologize, say what you are going to do to fix it. They can't even say what they are going to do to fix it, because they can't admit it. And that scares the hell out of me.
Post a Comment
<< Home