Posted on 12/22/2004 10:36:58 PM PST by kattracks
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- In the bowels of the Pentagon, the colleagues and subordinates of Donald Rumsfeld were not upset by Republican senators who were sniping at him. Instead, they complained bitterly about a call for his removal by a private citizen with no political leadership position: William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard. His position was, in effect, a declaration of war by the neoconservatives against the secretary of defense.The capital's feeding frenzy over Rumsfeld's fate did not begin until Kristol's Dec. 12 op-ed column in The Washington Post. While critical senators did not get to the point of demanding Rumsfeld's removal, Kristol did. He said the troops in Iraq "deserve a better defense secretary than the one we have." A firm declaration by a prominent Republican activist turned journalist who is the clarion of neoconservatism counts for more than equivocation by U.S. senators.
Rumsfeld's civilian colleagues at the Pentagon are furious because they consider Kristol a manipulative political operative, critiquing the war in Iraq after years of promoting it. But his criticism has a broader base. Kristol long has called for big-government conservatism, which on the international sphere involves proactively pursuing democracy around the world. He and the other neocons do not want to be blamed for what has become a very unpopular venture in Iraq. Thus, it is important to get the word out now that the war in Iraq has gone awry because of the way Rumsfeld fought it.
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.
Rumsfeld did name Richard Perle, one of the foremost neocon voices calling for a change of regime in Baghdad, as chairman of the part-time Defense Policy Board. Also named to the board was Kenneth Adelman, an old friend of Rumsfeld's who is identified as a neocon. Adelman gained notoriety by promising that the conquest of Iraq would be a "cakewalk." Indeed, rejoicing over the quick rout of Saddam Hussein's army, Adelman wrote that cakewalk -- a word always rejected by Rumsfeld -- turned out to be a correct description.
With the bloody occupation of Iraq underway, Adelman's demeanor changed in his frequent appearances on CNN's "Crossfire" (where I often was a co-host). His mood became more subdued. The garish, oversized American flag necktie that Adelman wore as he urged war on Iraq was retired, as he somberly began to criticize (while never mentioning Rumsfeld by name).
On April 30 of this year, Adelman said a "miscalculation" had been made in war planning because the operation in Iraq "has gone worse than we expected a year ago." On June 28, he said "there were failures," adding that the purge of Baath Party members and "the dismissal of the army was something that we could have done a lot better." On Nov. 8, he said failure to clean insurgents out of Fallujah was "a bad decision."
Unlike Adelman, Kristol pinned defects in war-fighting tactics directly on Rumsfeld. In a Weekly Standard essay of Nov. 17, 2003 (written with his frequent collaborator, Robert Kagan), Kristol assailed Rumsfeld for sending insufficient troops to Iraq. "Rumsfeld remains dogmatically committed to a smaller force," he wrote.
Thus, the neocon message is that the war was no mistake but has been badly conducted. While Adelman does not blame his friend Rumsfeld, the accountability of the secretary of defense is implicit. Kristol's call for Rumsfeld's dismissal removes culpability for those who beat the drums to go to war.
Getting rid of Rumsfeld does not answer agonizing questions. Was the change of regime in Baghdad worth going to war? Could Saddam Hussein have been removed from power by other means? Is the use of U.S. military power to topple undemocratic regimes good policy?
There are no clear answers. To say simply that all would be well in Iraq, save for Don Rumsfeld, only begs these questions.
Did Brit use the appropriate sarcasm?
He's pretty good at it----would have loved to have seen it
I'm sorry; I just couldn't get past that one.
Go to war with a pansy? I think not.
I think Kristol is throwing in with McCain, hoping he'll finally get offered a job back at the White House.
He'll have to get it without my vote.
Near as I can tell, they're all Chickenhawk Neocons.
We're forgetting that PJB has been leading the call for a long time. The leopards are showing off their spots.
Yes .. he was aiding and abetting the terrorists
Could Saddam Hussein have been removed from power by other means?
After 12 years of fail UN policies .. my guess would be No
Is the use of U.S. military power to topple undemocratic regimes good policy?
We get control and take care of Iraq .. we have a pretty good chance of cleaning up the rest of the mess in the middle east
Take a look of a map of Iraq .. and then take a look at all the bordering countries
As for taking Iraq being a cake walk and the Iraqis thanking us??
Taking Iraq was a cake walk .. it's the terrorist coming from OTHER countries that is causing us the problems
And yes the Iraqis did wave the American Flag, throw flowers and thank our soldiers when they liberated them from a monster like Saddam ... And we have the pictures to prove it
As for Krystol ... He's just wearing in his knee pads for McCain getting Rummy's job
Yep . he want's McCain to get Rummy's job
I don't trust McCain one bit
Re: I wonder what these men have in common...
http://www.defenddemocracy.org/biographies/biographies.htm
Dr. Jonathan Adelman is a Senior Fellow not Kenneth Adelman.
He did use the appropriate sarcasm.
These guys are just a bunch of old farts hightailing it to the tall grass, not before endorsing yet another Chickenhawk, John McCain.
Wish I had seen it. The leer on Kristol's face must've been priceless.
I love Brit Hume..
I do too...He knows how to smack 'em down off their high horses.
I don't like Kristol, don't trust him (remember the "profound national humiliation " column attacking the President for negotiating the release of the spy plane crew?) and I think he is a total horse's rear.
He's not only a horse's "rear" - he's the main PIMP for McCain. Those 2 are making their move to put McCain in the White House. I heard Mark Levin sitting in for Hannity say if McCain had spent as much time on getting the military what they needed as he did on his worthless Campaign finance bill, our troops would be even more superior than they are now.
I heard this #$%^*()_ running his mouth yesterday. Rummy is getting it done and he has a lot of Old Sarge in him. He beat down the bureaucrats in the Pentagon and guy kristol can't have his way. I'll bet he has never had one of America's uniforms on so what would he he know about running our Best of the Best. God Bless President Bush, VP Cheney, Rummy, and all of the Best of the Best who get the job done for America.
Don't start with the race baiting crap. Neoconservatism is a political philosiphy held by people across the racial and religious spectrum. They support a strong foreign policy, and are more liberal than most domestically, nothing more, nothing less.
I wouldn't trust him to walk my dog -- and I don't HAVE a dog.
In short, that *%^$ turns my stomach.
That being said, I detest Kristol and Perle is one scary dude. He probably has more power than any unelected person in the world. Google 'Perle' and sit back and get ready to read about a lot of shady characters and some border line illegal dealings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.