Defense memo: A grim outlook

USA Today | 10/22/03 | Moniz and Squireri

[pabianice]

WASHINGTON — The United States has no yardstick for measuring progress in the war on terrorism, has not "yet made truly bold moves" in fighting al-Qaeda and other terror groups, and is in for a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a memo that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sent to top-ranking Defense officials last week.

Rumsfeld discussed various topics including the situation in Iraq and troop morale during a news conference at the Pentagon Thursday.

Despite upbeat statements by the Bush administration, the memo to Rumsfeld's top staff reveals significant doubts about progress in the struggle against terrorists. Rumsfeld says that "it is not possible" to transform the Pentagon quickly enough to effectively fight the anti-terror war and that a "new institution" might be necessary to do that. (Related item: Rumsfeld's memo)

The memo, which diverges sharply from Rumsfeld's mostly positive public comments, offers one of the most candid and sobering assessments to date of how top administration officials view the 2-year-old war on terrorism. It suggests that significant work remains and raises a number of probing questions but few detailed proposals.

"Are we winning or losing the Global War on Terror?" Rumsfeld asks in the Oct. 16 memo, which goes on to cite "mixed results" against al-Qaeda, "reasonable progress" tracking down top Iraqis and "somewhat slower progress" in apprehending Taliban leaders. "Is our current situation such that 'the harder we work, the behinder we get'? " he wrote.

Pentagon spokesman Lawrence DiRita declined to comment specifically on the memo, but he said Rumsfeld's style is to "ask penetrating questions" to provoke candid discussion. "He's trying to keep a sense of urgency alive."

Among Rumsfeld's observations in the two-page memo:

• The United States is "just getting started" in fighting the Iraq-based terror group Ansar Al-Islam.

• The war is hugely expensive. "The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' cost of millions."

• Postwar stabilization efforts are very difficult. "It is pretty clear the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog."

The memo was sent to Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Marine Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs; and Douglas Feith, undersecretary of Defense for policy.

Rumsfeld asks whether the Defense Department is moving fast enough to adapt to fighting terrorists and whether the United States should create a private foundation to entice radical Islamic schools to a "more moderate course." Rumsfeld says the schools, known as madrassas, may be churning out new terrorists faster than the United States can kill or capture them.

The memo is not a policy statement, but a tool for shaping internal discussion. It highlights a Rumsfeld trait that supporters say is one of his greatest strengths: a willingness to challenge subordinates to constantly reassess problems. The memo prods Rumsfeld's most senior advisers to think in new ways about the war on terrorism at a time when many are preoccupied with the 7-month-old war in Iraq.

In public, the Bush administration has been upbeat in describing the war on terrorism. Attorney General John Ashcroft has noted that two-thirds of al-Qaeda's leadership has been captured or killed.

Contributing: Kevin Johnson and Jim Drinkard

[pabianice]

Oy.

[Salvey]

"Are we winning or losing the Global War on Terror?" Rumsfeld asks..."

Well, if we're losing, then we're all dead meat. Methinks this is shaping up to be a fight to the finish.

[Callahan]

Leak? Innoculation? How did this memo get to USA Today? That's a relatively pro-Bush paper.

[_Jim]

The United States ... has not "yet made truly bold moves" in fighting al-Qaeda ... and is in for a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a memo ...

What about 'quagmire' - are 'quagmired' yet (again)?

[_Jim]

What about 'quagmire' - are we 'quagmired' yet (again)?

[TADSLOS]

Just an exercise in honest assessment and brainstorming, nothing more. CEOs and senior military leaders conduct them routinely, and sometimes even have them offsite where everyone gets to contribute sans the daily distractions of telephones and pagers. Of course the liberal media, being who they are, twist this "leak" into a panic mode emergency session to pull out of the "quagmire".

[Puppage]

"Are we winning or losing the Global War on Terror?"

Since 9-11, HOW many terrorist attacks have taken place on American soil?

NONE

Translation: We're winning.

[goodnesswins]

Yep...what YOU said...we ARE WINNING! More battles to come, likely......the "war" is NOT over.....but so far....we are on the winning side.

[old-ager]

It is sad that our strategy can't simply be to completely clean things up inside the US, and let the rest of the world deal (or not) with their troubles. At home, politically, about 50% of us are total fools. So we go abroad, but then the world and the domestic fools revile us. The real battle is inside the US. The real war is against pseudo-sophisticates here at home who cannot imagine ever losing the security and prosperity they enjoy on the backs of our forefathers.

[Cicero]

The greatest difficulty in the war against Muslim terrorists isn't the Muslims, it's the left. Most likely we'd have attacked Iraq a year earlier and would already be in Syria if it weren't for the need to deal with the constant carping of the left and the negative influence of the media.

It's bad enough having to deal with a billion Muslims, without constantly having to worry about how the press will twist each new move in an effort to depose the administration and put the Democrats back in.

And, if the Democrats get back in, that will be the end of any resistance to militant Islam. We would completely lose the momentum that has been gained. So Bush has to keep that possibility constantly in mind, not only for personal reasons but for the safety of the country.

[verity]

Our cost is billions against the terrorists' cost of millions."

That is understandable since each side had substantially different Rules of Engagement!

[Dead Dog]

Rumsfeld, from what I read, is a John Boyd disciple. That being said, he is probably doing this to shake up the Pentagon Brass. You can pretty much consider it a strike at what the administration sees as a weekness in the position of the "Brass".

[Paradox]

Halftime speech to a team that is up by 4 touchdowns, to keep the team from slacking off in the second half...

[sheik yerbouty]

The United States and its allies need to alter the "Rules of Engagement" to better destroy the jihadist threat to civilization. We should not be bound by "Marquis of Queensbury" rules, while the enemy uses the credo "by any means necessary". To be so bound, will be disastrous.

[Tandem]

I read the full text of the letter and agree that this is a healthy, but internal exercise. The best corporate leaders do this all the time - challenge the status quo. We are making progress on the War on Terror, but it may not be enough. Rummy is known for shaking things up and not being constrained by current approaches. This sounds like a shot across the bow of the military brass to get them striving for better solutions.
HOWEVER - the liberal press makes it sound like pessimism and indecision. Rummy is a lot of things - pessimistic and indecisive aren't among them.

[RussianConservative]

The war is hugely expensive. "The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' cost of millions."

I have suggestion Bush, shut down Saudi Arabia, instead of cuddling, to shut down even those millions.

[JoeFromSidney]

"The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' cost of millions."

I used to have a Russian textbook on Military Operations Research (lost when my house was flooded several years ago). It referred to this view as "the capitalist fallacy." I don't know that it's particularly "capitalist," but it certainly is a fallacy.

The proper cost-benefit comparison is always between what it costs you to destroy a target, or take some other action, and what it costs you not to destroy that target but to allow it to continue operating against you. What the target cost the enemy is almost irrelevant.

Having said that, it is still important to find the lowest cost way of achieving a particular objective. I hope Rumsfeld and the Joint Chiefs look at it that way, instead of falling into the capitalist fallacy.

[nathanbedford]

Yes, absence of homeland attacks is evidence that we are winning. But the happenstance of an attack does not necessarily mean we are losing.

I this asymetrical war, it might prove very, very difficult over time to prevent all attacks. The scope for mischief is simply too broad.

Ever since Viet Nam it seems that the most important battle in every war is the battle to define victory. If the writing of definitions is defaulted to the left, no victory will ever be recognized unless the CIC is a Democrat. Victory means the preservation of the enlightened western civilization without threat of unprovoked, unforseeable mass murder.

We also ought to make the matter of defeat clear so that voters will understand their options. Churchill left the world in doubt what defeat meant for the Anglo-Saxon peoples. He described defeat as introducing a new dark age made more terrible by the lights of perverted science. Defeat in the war against terrorism means a slide away from science into superstition, from liberty to dogmatism, from tolerance into bigotry. It means descent into poverty, sickness,and squalor which we see everywhere the Mullahs rule. To put it in words that all can comprehend, it means swapping flush toilets for filthy open latrines. It means that nuclear war would be almost inevitable somewhere in the chaos which would invest the world with the victory of militant Islam.

[A Simple Soldier]

Please explain this to me. You have obviously figured out the right strategy to win this one quickly. It is obvious our adherence to a moral code has pushed us to the brink of defeat.

Should we start strapping bombs to our SOF guys and have them suicide bomb the bad guys? Great use of soldiers it takes years to train.

Or maybe we should just start lobbing mortar rounds into open air markets durring prime shopping hours on the 90 plus % of the Iraqis who favor our presence or are at worst cautious about our ultimate aims after 30 years of brutality.

I know, lets stage atrocities and then blame it on the jihadis.

Read a few books on WAR and ETHICS and WESTERN CIVILIZATION and report back. Otherwise, comments like yours just waste my bandwidth.

[HateBill]

There is nothing in this memo that common sense could not have told you. It is hardly a "the sky is falling" commentary, but a measured and honest appraisal of a life-and-death struggle against an amorphous foreign enemy (aided and abetted by the American opposition party).

Whenever I hear the Democrats carp and whine, I think to myself that their motto should be "wars should be a picnic."

Does anyone with common sense and/or a brain really believe that a 3-1/2 week war would lead to an instant bucolic peace? We could have had a harder war (and possibly an easier peace), or accept the fact that the price to be paid for a rapid war with (relatively) few casualties is a nation in crisis. How could it be otherwise after decades of Saddam's rule?