Victor Davis Hanson’s defense of Donald Rumsfeld is, as usual, full of his usual insights and perspective. But he ducks the main complaints. The most important is that the war immediately after the fall of Baghdad was seriously under-manned, and that this was obvious from the beginning. Hanson’s defense is that the humber of troops is not as important as their successful deployment. But surely, the lack of troops did a couple of terribly damaging things: it prevented the occupying forces from getting a monopoly of violence across the country, emboldened the Baathist/Jihadist resistance, and alienated many Iraqis who could not understand why the greatest super-power’s main achievement in Iraq was the initiation of chaos and insecurity. Both these undermined our objectives, were pointed out in time, and could have been rectified. Rummy refused to do anything, and, indeed, minimized with criminal glibness the disaster brewing. Secondly, Hanson suggests that there’s no evidence that it was Rumsfeld’s dcision to disband the Iraqi army. But that’s irrelevant. Rumsfeld is ultimately responsible for the war. If Bremer called for the disbandment of the Baathist army and Rumsfeld objected, that army would still be intact. Bremer, remember, worked for Rumsfeld. If Rumsfeld had been over-ruled on such a critical matter, he should have quit. He didn’t. He remains responsible. The Bush people can look the word “responsible” up in the dictionary if they need to.
HANSON ON TROOPS: Then Hanson seems to withdraw the too-few-troops argument, and complains that we don’t have enough! Of course, the reason we don’t have enough is … Bill Clinton! Four years after this president took office in a campaign against a man, Al Gore, who urged troop increases, and three years after 9/11, Bush remains adamant that our military is big enough. But Hanson won’t brook any criticism of this administration in this respect:
In truth, the real troop problem transcends Iraq. Our shortages are caused by a military that was slashed after the Cold War and still hasn’t properly recouped to meet the global demands of the war against Islamic fascism – resulting in rotation nightmares, National Guard emergencies, and stop-order controversies… In reality, [Rumsfeld] has carefully allotted troops in Iraq because he has few to spare elsewhere – and all for reasons beyond his control. If Senator Lott or kindred pundits first show us exactly where the money is to come from to enlarge the military (tax hikes, cuts in new Medicare entitlements, or budgetary freezes?), and, second, that Mr. Rumsfeld opposes expanding our defense budget – “No, President Bush, I don’t need any more money, since the Clinton formula was about right for our present responsibilities” – then he should be held responsible. So far that has not happened.
Well, we do know that this president has ruled out any increase in troop levels globally. That was one reason I supported Kerry over Bush in the last election. If Rumsfeld wanted more, and believes more are essential, why is he still serving a president who rules that out? In Hanson’s universe, no one in the administration is responsible for this. Why? How on earth are we supposed to effect a generational democratic shift in Iraq with barely any troops? The more you read the defenders of the conduct of this war, the more you realize they have perfected the art of the Bush people: always shift the blame elsewhere, always attack your critics, never take responsibility.
OH, AND … : No mention of the fact that Rumsfeld has presided over a military that has been found guilty of umpteen violations of basic ethical procedures observed by the U.S. military for generations. He has presided over the de facto suspension of the Geneva Conventions, the torturing-to-death of at least five prisoners, and possibly close to 30. The scale and scope of the abuse – hundreds of incidents of the most appalling torture across all theaters and all services – is unprecedented. Isn’t this the Sec Def’s responsibility? Or do we have to endure another sickening right-wing attack on the International Red Cross as some kind of excuse?
NOVAK ON RUMSFELD: But Rummy’s own self-defense is just as revealing as Hanson’s. If you read Bob Novak’s column today, it’s hard not to see Rumsfeld’s flunkies or Rummy himself doing some energetic spinning. Here’s the key paragraph:
Rumsfeld is often bracketed with the neocons, but that is incorrect. In a long political career that dates back to his election to Congress in 1962, he has not even been associated with the traditional conservative movement. In the run-up to the attack on Iraq, he was not aggressively pressing intervention by force of arms, but instead was shaping a military response to fit President Bush’s command.
Translation from Rummy: “This is Bush’s war, not mine. I never really wanted it. I don’t believe in the democratic transformation of the Middle East. I don’t want to shift gears from my lean, mean fighting machine concept to one of a military that has to be big enough to impose a new order on societies where liberty has never had deep roots. I’m just taking orders.” You can either see this as true (my view) – in which case, Rumsfeld really is the wrong man for the president’s Wilsonian agenda. Or you can see this as disloyal spin: in which case, Rummy has lost confidence in the war he was obliged to run. In either case, he should resign. This war is too important to have the wrong man in the job or someone who disagrees with its basic rationale.
— Andrew
The Dish 