| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Victor Davis Hanson on Rumsfeld |
| 2004-05-14 |
| Have we any memory of a man in a suit and tie, nearly three years ago wading through the din and panic amid the morning rubble, assuring millions of stunned Americans that the national headquarters of their armed forces was still intact and capable of defending us after the mass murder of 3,000? And have we no shame in recognizing that should some congressional critics and Washington harpies get their way, Americans will accomplish what bin Laden’s suicide bombers could not on September 11: remove America’s finest Secretary of Defense in a half century. The idea that anyone would suggest that Donald Rumsfeld — and now Richard Meyers! — should step down, in the midst of a global war, for the excesses and criminality of a handful of miscreant guards and their lax immediate superiors in the cauldron of Iraq is absurd and depressing all at once. . . . One final jarring scene from the televised spectacles was the image of the lone, beleaguered Joe Lieberman calling for patience and sobriety, and worried about our troops in the field and the pulse of the war. This decent and honest man reminds us of what the present party of Ted Kennedy and Terry McAuliff used to be. The confidence of a Truman, JFK, and Scoop Jackson — caricatured now for dropping the bomb, a fiery "pay-any-price" speech, and heating up the Cold War — is now nowhere to be found. This is a vital point, because either this year or sometime in the next decade a Democratic administration may well take the reins of power and in matters of national security it will be far to the left of the Liebermans of the world. And the disturbing events that we saw in the 1990s — constant appeasement of Middle East terrorists and their national sponsors, the emergence of a nuclear Pakistan and North Korea, sudden withdrawal from messy places like Mogadishu, a jetting special envoy Jimmy Carter — will return, though made worse through the prism of the present fury over Iraq. If it were not so tragic it would be ironic to see what the present prescient critics are going to say — much less do — when they confront the hideous reality that Iran and perhaps Syria will have acquired nuclear weapons and with them the ability, without a neighboring nuclear India staring them down, to blackmail most of the Middle East and the oil-hungry world at large. We will soon learn what Middle Eastern nuclear honor, atomic loss of face, or radioactive jihad really means. Most who now damn unilateralism and preemption won’t find their beloved but shaken U.N., EU, or NATO at their side. More likely there will come a day when in exasperation they will call up someone like Don Rumsfeld for advice — albeit in silence and off the record. Go read it all, for it is a VDH article, and VDH is always good. I do think he’s a little pessimistic, though--outside of the Beltway, the Democrat establisment, and the media (but I repeat myeself), there’s no American body of opinion that wants him gone. More important, President Bush doesn’t want him gone. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #14 And just who, pray tell, would replace Mr.Rumsfeld? Les Aspin, McCainiac, Cohen? Anybody? Beumiller? |
| Posted by: Annie Moose 2004-05-14 5:23:09 PM |
| #13 Re: #8 It will be a long time and probably never again when we'll see large scale "force on force" wars of the kind the old school Army officers were trained for and are comfortable with. The reason we'll won't see it again in any likely recognizable way is that technology has fundamentally changed the possibilities - and the risks - of war. One word. China. -AR |
| Posted by: Analog Roam 2004-05-14 2:57:50 PM |
| #12 I predict a big witch hunt after this. It's only a witch hunt when you are hunting something that doesn't exist. In this case people will "decide" not to re-up. |
| Posted by: Steve 2004-05-14 2:36:33 PM |
| #11 Peters is the mouthpiece for the Army old guard. So whether Peters is right or wrong, his editorial will only reinforce Rumsfeld's opinion that the Army brass is personally disloyal to him and his vision. I predict a big witch hunt after this. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2004-05-14 2:20:34 PM |
| #10 True, true. I thought that myself regarding the end of large scale military formations ever being used again ala Euro defense models. But if a Syria is going to be engaged it will be by the old way, me thinks. |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-05-14 1:56:39 PM |
| #9 He and Meyers were treated like stars by the troops. Peters is starting to believe his own bilge |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-05-14 12:34:46 PM |
| #8 Well, THAT last comment was mangled ... I meant to say, that I think Peters speaks for some old-school Army types. They are very comfortable with old distinctions, old ways of doing things. The trouble is, the world has changed. And while not all of what Rumsfeld has been able to accomplish has worked, in general I think Rummy's right and Peters and his gang are wrong on the basics. It will be a long time and probably never again when we'll see large scale "force on force" wars of the kind the old school Army officers were trained for and are comfortable with. The reason we'll won't see it again in any likely recognizable way is that technology has fundamentally changed the possibilities - and the risks - of war. Rumsfeld gets that. It's not just about asymmetric warfare against this particular enemy, violent Islamacist fundamentalism. In an age of precision guided weapons, robotic reconnaisance equipment etc. etc. the Army Peters served admirably in is a relic. Certainly it's possible to overtrust technology. I suspect, however, that in Iraq Rumsfeld wasn't making that particular mistake. Instead, he was determined IMO to meet our objectives without so controlling the situation that no Iraqi leadership would ever effectively evolve. The Iraqis HAVE to take responsibility for stability in their country. Rumsfeld knows that. Peters thinks if we had more boots on the ground we could do the job ourselves. I know and respect a lot of Army officers. But I think Rumsfeld is right & a few of them who think like Peters are wrong. Peters' article today is payback for the fact that that old-guard Army cadre has been drug kicking and screaming into a new, uncertain and (for them) uncomfortable age. We have a lot of experimenting to do before we find the right model for the next 20 yrs or so ... but the old model clearly is not and never was going to be adequate anymore. Give it up, Ralph. And you too, Hackworth. |
| Posted by: True, true 2004-05-14 12:29:13 PM |
| #7 #4, I think Peters probably speaks for a certain segment of the Army, in particular. That segment dislikes the changes Rumsfeld has brought and fundamentally distrusts the transformation to a high-tech, joint-ops model where the old front line / rear echelon distinction was clear and the goals were simple: attrition of the enemy and control of territory. Now we have Army officers negotiating relationships with tribal leaders and rebuilding schools. Some aren't happy about that. |
| Posted by: True, true 2004-05-14 12:18:26 PM |
| #6 I heard he was being treated like a rock-star in Iraq by the troops. He's a great SecDef. |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-05-14 12:04:24 PM |
| #5 Just checked the link, and it works fine. Anyways, he doesn't say Rummy should resign over the prison stuff. Even if you don't agree with his conclusion, the things he cites that make him think that way do bear some consideration. |
| Posted by: growler 2004-05-14 11:43:42 AM |
| #4 Peters is speaking for the Cold War holdovers and politically correct Clinton Generals whose ox Rumsfeld is goring. Let's not kid ourselves that there is a battle going on internally for control of the military and its future. How we could allow the military to fall into the hands of the Karpinskis is beyond me. |
| Posted by: Mr. Davis 2004-05-14 11:11:23 AM |
| #3 If someone wants to call for Rummy to step down for reasons of lack of leadership or whatever, fine..to each his own. But to call for Rumsfeld to step down over the actions of AG is silly - for the reasons VDH stated above. And who designated Ralp Peters to be the spokesperson for "the troops"? I didn't know they had a spokesperson who could speak for each and everyone of them. Amazing. And...your link is bad. |
| Posted by: B 2004-05-14 10:54:23 AM |
| #2 I dunno. I usually like what Ralph Peters has to say. And I think he's trustworthy. But, today he's calling for Rummy to step down, saying the troops don't respect him. |
| Posted by: growler 2004-05-14 10:45:35 AM |
| #1 I don't think that the public does understand. I don't think that 50% of America DOES get what we are up against. The Nick Berg video, like 911 went a long way to opening America's eyes. But many will want to close them again. The propagandists have declared all out war against us. Like the Boston Globe fake rape photos or the calls for Rumsfeld's head coming from Navy/Army Times's (civilian run and owned by Gannett) and military.com (recently purchased by monster.com), they and the usual suspects are now willing to expose the fact that their owners truly ARE anti-American. They don't have time to be subtle. They have to brainwash the public before November. Those who play cards know what it means to go for broke. "They" are going for broke over this next election and "they" will give it every last measure of strength they can muster. Like the Boston Globe GI rape photos, you will see them stop making any effort to pretend that they are unbiased. Why bother to pretend anymore? This election is their last great fight...they know it and we should too. All stops will be pulled for the November election. Don't assume GW will win, they are good at what they do....repeating lies until they become the truth. And other than the internet which is not influential enough yet to counter their force, they control what information is given. If we can't counter that somehow, Kerry will indeed win. Those of us who grasp the precipice that we stand on better get down on our knees and pray that we can somehow counter this force, because our civilization as we know it today hangs in the balance. Think I'm overreacting. Do a little research and see how long it took Hilter to fire up the Germans to hate the Jews. If we can't counter this force, we are screwed. |
| Posted by: B 2004-05-14 9:53:07 AM |