PDA

View Full Version : Rumsfeld revisionism



Norman Bernstein
06-09-2015, 08:00 AM
Does he actually think he can restore his reputation and secure a 'legacy' with this kind of two-faced crap?


Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told the Times of London (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/americas/article4462278.ece) “that efforts to oust Saddam Hussein and replace his tyrannical regime with democracy were unworkable, and that he had concerns about the plan from the beginning.”

Said Rumsfeld: “I’m not one who thinks that our particular template of democracy is appropriate for other countries at every moment of their histories. The idea that we could fashion a democracy in Iraq seemed to me unrealistic. I was concerned about it when I first heard those words.”

LeeG
06-09-2015, 08:32 AM
Folks must be out enjoying summer Norman. I thought this would have spun up multiple threads.

If you connect some of the major actors rhetoric and actions it paints a disturbing picture of the U.S. recklessly out of control spreading chaos while self-confidently declaring it freedom.

Rumsfeld preferred a quick invasion and withdrawal leaving Iraq and the region to figure out what happened. Not his fault if his boss didn't think it through, I mean he did gag his joint chiefs from talking about post invasion planning but that was necessary for folks to not get a sense of the task and possible outcomes. Pity Rumsfeld and the WhieHouse were unclear who Bremers superior was or the disposition of the political and military leaders of Iraq.

You'd think a two time SecDef would be a tad concerned about the consequences of invasion without a follow up force for security or a VicePrez who used to be a SecDef during Desert Storm would have some idea what would happen cutting loose the entire military.
Darn that Obama!

Norman Bernstein
06-09-2015, 08:38 AM
Folks must be out enjoying summer Norman. I thought this would have spun up multiple threads.

*shrugs* It's just as likely that the usual subjects have grown tired of defending the indefensible :)

LeeG
06-09-2015, 08:51 AM
Here's an old article from Andrew Bacevich describing Rumsfelds dysfunction by design.
There's no other way Iraq could have happened, it's like rolling a truck tire down a hill into a neighborhood expecting something good to happen.

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-oe-bacevich3oct03-story.html

The debacle that is Iraq today has many sources. Among them, civil-military dysfunction may well deserve pride of place. At the pinnacle of the U.S. national security establishment, mistrust and mutual manipulation rather than candor and mutual respect form the basis of interaction between civilian and military chiefs.
...
Rumsfeld took office in 2001, he was intent on shoring up the principle of civilian control. He has done that — although Rumsfeld's idea of control amounts to emasculation. He has bludgeoned generals into submission, marginalized or gotten rid of those inclined to be obstreperous and selected pliable replacements such as Pace.

Assuming — not without reason — that professional military advice frequently comes tainted with extraneous considerations, he has treated that advice with disdain. Flawed decisions have resulted, adversely affecting everything from war planning to dealing with the Iraq insurgency. Perhaps worse still, Rumsfeld's de facto silencing of the most senior generals has induced a strategic paralysis. Because the secretary of Defense is not inclined to entertain fundamental questions about Iraq, no one else dares even to pose such questions.

skuthorp
06-09-2015, 08:55 AM
The US may be sorry they didn't send the whole pres. Cheney admin to the Hague before the countries reputation and the limits of it's actual power was completely exposed. It tottered after Vietnam, but Iraq may have pushed it over the line.

LeeG
06-09-2015, 09:31 AM
Maybe expecting something good to happen wasn't the hope.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174974

On September 30, 2001, President Bush received from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld a memorandum outlining U.S. objectives in the War on Terror. Drafted by Rumsfeld's chief strategist Douglas Feith, the memo declared expansively: "If the war does not significantly change the world's political map, the U.S. will not achieve its aim." That aim, as Feith explained in a subsequent missive to his boss, was to "transform the Middle East and the broader world of Islam generally."
....
Iraq merely offered a convenient place from which to launch a much larger and infinitely more ambitious project. "After Hussein is removed," enthused Hudson Institute analyst Max Singer, "there will be an earthquake through the region." Success in Iraq promised to endow the United States with hitherto unprecedented leverage. Once the United States had made an example of Saddam Hussein, as the influential neoconservative Richard Perle put it, dealing with other ne'er-do-wells would become simple: "We could deliver a short message, a two-word message: 'You're next.'" Faced with the prospect of sharing Saddam's fate, Syrians, Iranians, Sudanese, and other recalcitrant regimes would see submission as the wiser course -- so Perle and others believed.

skuthorp
06-09-2015, 09:35 AM
They really were full of it weren't they.

John Smith
06-09-2015, 09:40 AM
To answer the thread question: why not? We've witnessed the history of how and why we invaded Iraq be re-written before our eyes. I'll not post again the quotes, but the fact is WMD's, as a reason to invade, became moot as of November 27, 2002, when Saddam caved and complied with weapons inspectors. They could then go wherever, whenever, and without notice.

When we actually invaded, WMD's had been replaced as the reason. The mission became "Freeing the Iraqi people" and "regime change". That is when the UN withdrew its support. We got mad and had "freedom fries". I've posted where Hillary stated her first reason for voting for that resolution was it might force Saddam to comply with the inspectors and war/invasion could be avoided. IT DID THAT.

If this history can be so thoroughly re-written, anything can.

Gerarddm
06-09-2015, 09:49 AM
#6: Pie in the sky delusionalism. Wow.

How I loathe them all. Bah. :-(

Jim Bow
06-09-2015, 10:40 AM
In my mind
this photo and article sum up the cluster FUBAR of the century. (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1) And the century wasn't yet 5 years old.

Reynard38
06-09-2015, 10:50 AM
Rummy needs to take some lessons in backpedaling from this guy.


http://youtu.be/VQ-1q1dNoAE

LeeG
06-09-2015, 11:29 AM
In my mind
this photo and article sum up the cluster FUBAR of the century. (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1) And the century wasn't yet 5 years old.

What better way to pay for all that than with tax cuts.

Osborne Russell
06-09-2015, 11:30 AM
If you connect some of the major actors rhetoric and actions it paints a disturbing picture of the U.S. recklessly out of control spreading chaos while self-confidently declaring it freedom.

Reminds me of how the end of the Vietnam war was "managed". Great towers of hubris and delusion collapsing on the heads of the stunned underlings. Takes a while for them to accept that they've simply been abandoned. They felt that the hugeness of the investment was a measure of the leaders' moral commitment. But chicken hawks don't fight, they arrange that others shall fight.

John of Phoenix
06-09-2015, 11:31 AM
Perhaps worse still, Rumsfeld's de facto silencing of the most senior generals has induced a strategic paralysis.This is a catastrophic failure of military leadership. The oath is, "...I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;"

They also have an obligation to place the welfare the troops they lead before their career ambitions. More than a few times, I've swallowed hard, stood up and said, "Sir, you're wrong."

A general officer ESPECIALLY should have the courage to do the same.

John of Phoenix
06-09-2015, 11:34 AM
"We could deliver a short message, a two-word message: 'You're next.'" Faced with the prospect of sharing Saddam's fate, Syrians, Iranians, Sudanese, and other recalcitrant regimes would see submission as the wiser course -- so Perle and others believed."We create our own reality."

Makes me wish there really is a hell for them to rot in.

LeeG
06-09-2015, 11:44 AM
"We create our own reality."

Makes me wish there really is a hell for them to rot in.

And this is where the lessons of Vietnam stuck, if the majority of Americans felt no immediate consequence to the invasion pretty much anything could be believed without consequence. We're gettin' terrists, WMD, AlQaeda, do badders, bringing freedom, pissing off hippies, Hollywood and liberals, doing Vietnam right but in Iraq. And the biggest issue for the 2004 election is what Kerry did in the 60's.

Osborne Russell
06-09-2015, 11:47 AM
And this is where the lessons of Vietnam stuck, if the majority of Americans felt no immediate consequence to the invasion pretty much anything could be believed without consequence. We're gettin' terrists, WMD, AlQaeda, do badders, bringing freedom, pissing off hippies, Hollywood and liberals, doing Vietnam right but in Iraq. And the biggest issue for the 2004 election is what Kerry did in the 60's.

The Chimp was down with the idea that Reds need war. It's the meaning of life for them.