Via Belgravia Dispatch, a simply brilliant article on what Donald Rumsfeld has done to the Pentagon.
I want to be clear about this: Rumsfeld has done a tremendous amount in five years (as the article notes, the third longest serving DecDef); some of it good, some of it bad. In particular, he gets high marks from me for attempting (success is still unclear) to rid the Pentagon of a mountain of Cold War-era policies, bases, weapons, and ideas. This isn't the Cold War, nor will it be ever again. Good on Rumsfeld for trying to force the Pentagon to accept that.
However (and it's a massive "however"), the article makes reasonably clear that he's not really interested in Iraq. He's interested in modernizing/changing the Pentagon. Thus, he has never really committed himself all out to do what needs to be done to win; he has saved some amount of resources (intellecual, physical, military) to do what he sees as the most important job: reorganization.
I've argued before that Rumsfeld needs to go; this article did nothing to convince me otherwise. I'm not saying he's incompetent - far from it - he's just fixated on one goal, and won't be moved away from that goal.
Meanwhile, 2000+ dead in Iraq, and no end in sight.
If Sept. 11th hadn't happened (or had been prevented), Rumsfeld might have gone down as the greatest SecDef ever - his "trasformation" ideas are that important. However, it did. Nothing left to do but call Sam Nunn (who else would serve as SecDef?).
Posted by baltar at November 14, 2005 07:04 PM | TrackBack | Posted to PoliticsI've argued before that Rumsfeld needs to go
Yes, as I recall, it started in May 2004, six days after our relatively inauspicious beginning.
Aaaaand, aren't you glad I told you about Belgravia Dispatch?
Posted by: binky at November 14, 2005 07:18 PM | PERMALINKWell, at least I'm consistent. I didn't know I came out against him that long ago. Thanks.
Posted by: baltar at November 14, 2005 07:27 PM | PERMALINKSam Nunn? That's a horrible idea.
But yeah, I've also long thought Rumsfeld needs to go - even though I was pleased when he got the gig in the first place. It's interesting to think though that all the "reforming" he's actually be able to accomplish wouldn't have been possible without 9/11 since I think his reformist inclincations would have led to his dismissal in 2002.
But no matter his good traits and his good start, he should have been fired ages ago - after Abu Ghraib at the VERY latest.
I don't think he would have been dismissed in 2002: Bush is very loyal, and would have let Rumsfeld have his lead. We won't know if Rumsfeld's "Revolution in Military Affairs" (RMA as its called) will be a success or failure for many years (it takes a long time to move the Pentagon culture).
If you don't like Sam Nunn, thats fine, but you tell me who would accept the job at this point? It would have to be someone the Pres could work with, someone the Dems in Congress could accept, and someone who would be willing to take the job. Who meets these three criteria?
Posted by: baltar at November 15, 2005 11:38 AM | PERMALINKAs to alternative 2002s - well, remember that 1) Bush's numbers were sliding prior to 9/11 and 2) Congress was up in arms with what Rumsfeld was doing and 3) there were forced retirement rumors swirling around him for months prior to 9/11. Maybe he wouldn't have been fired - but it was certainly possible.
As to a Rummy replacement. Why does it need to be someone that the Dems could accept? Do you think a filibuster of the Defense Secretary is really all that likely during a war? As to names - I don't run in the right circles to know. But Gordon England (Acting Deputy Secretray of Defense, former Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security and former Secretary of the Navy) might be a possibility. Or he could always pull a Clinton and go the senator from Maine route - Olympia Snowe!
Posted by: Armand at November 15, 2005 01:45 PM | PERMALINKYou said that just because I linked to her site today, didn't you.
Posted by: binky at November 15, 2005 01:53 PM | PERMALINKNo, not entirely. She's served on the Senate Armed Services Committee I believe, though she shifted off to join Finance. Between that and her long service on the House Foreign Affairs Committee she should know a reasonable amount about how the DOD works (both domestically and internationally). I don't think that this job should always go to a politician, but as politicians go, she'd seem a reasonable choice (though, sure, an unlikely one).
Posted by: Armand at November 15, 2005 02:27 PM | PERMALINKIf it wasn't for the weather, I'm telling you, Maine has a lot to recommend it. Sensible, mind their own business kind of people up in Maine.
Posted by: binky at November 15, 2005 02:31 PM | PERMALINK