Posted on 01/02/2005 2:58:07 PM PST by Former Military Chick
The most curious turn of the worm this season is the attack by the neoconservatives on Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld for the failures in Iraq.
It should be noted that until now Rumsfeld was the darling of that same bunch. He hired a batch of them as his most trusted aides and assistants in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Paul Wolfowitz as his undersecretary. Douglas Feith as his chief of planning. He installed the dean of the pack, Richard Perle, as chairman of the Defense Policy Board for a time.
The doyenne and room mother of the whole bunch, Midge Decter, wrote a fawning biography of Rumsfeld titled Rumsfeld: A Personal Portrait.
Now, suddenly, the voice of the neoconservative movement, William Kristol, editor of The Standard, suggests that Rumsfeld has fouled up everything in Iraq and ought to be fired for his failures. Ditto, writes Tom Donnelly of the right-thinking American Enterprise Institute.
Rumsfeld himself was never a neoconservative. He just found them useful as he took over the Pentagon for the second time. Clearly the neocons found Rumsfeld useful as well as they pushed their ideas on transforming the Middle East.
Sharpening attacks
So what happened? Why is Rumsfeld being stabbed in the back by those he trusted the most to back his play? By the very people who have argued for years in favor of taking out Saddam Hussein, installing democracy and creating a bully pulpit, and the military bases, from which the Middle East would be weaned from dictatorship and an implacable hatred of Israel and the United States.
Simple. They want someone else to be blamed besides them for fouling up their marvelous plans and schemes -- someone who is a handy lightning rod and who is not a card-carrying neoconservative. So who better than Rumsfeld?
Now those folks who cheered Rumsfeld, and the Bush administration, the loudest of all nearly two years ago are marching behind such grumpy Republicans as Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska in laying much of the blame at the feet of Rumsfeld.
The sharpening attacks on the defense secretary as the old year fades and the new year approaches prompted the one man who has a vote on Rumsfeld's survival, President Bush, to step forward and praise him. That, in turn, prompted a semi-spirited defense of the secretary by Republican congressional leaders.
Rumsfeld himself, who has basically no people skills at all, found it politic to spend the holidays with the soldiers and Marines in Iraq. He was even pictured wearing an apron and serving up turkey and dressing in an Army mess hall in the desert. How could anyone think, he asked, that he was not totally committed to providing those troops everything they need for survival in a bad place?
We do not for a minute suggest that Rumsfeld be let off the hook, be absolved of responsibility for gross miscalculations and gross lack of planning in the Iraq war and, especially, the post-war period. But neither do we absolve the neoconservatives for shooting the horse they've been riding the last four years.
They were the loudest proponents of an attack on Iraq from the beginning. It was the neoconservatives who wanted to unleash the dogs of war. It was they who championed Ahmad Chalabi and his Iraq National Congress and saw that their bogus defector tales of Saddam's nuclear-weapons program and his stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons gained attention and traction.
America's damaged standing
They believed Chalabi and the INC's predictions that American troops would be welcomed with showers of rose petals and there would be no need for an American occupation. Ergo, no need for anyone to actually plan to secure the country in the wake of victory or lay the groundwork for rebuilding a nation whose water, power and sewer services were falling apart before we bombed and shelled them.
When Rumsfeld goes, so, too, should every neoconservative who squirmed his way into a Pentagon sinecure. They must also bear responsibility for a war that so far has cost nearly $200 billion and the lives of more than 1,300 U.S. troops and has damaged America's standing in the world.
They cannot be allowed to load all the blame on Rumsfeld and scoot away to lick their wounds and dream again their large dreams of conquest and empire and preemptive strikes.
Joseph L. Galloway is the senior military correspondent for Knight Ridder Newspapers.
Hey there, upchuck! I think the mainstream press misunderstands and/or misinterprets what a neocon is, to mean (in their opinions) anyone who is conservative and for the war. Conservatives have been using "liberal" as an insult, so the left decided to take a harsh-sounding word that most people don't understand and try to use it to insult the right. But it's been so misused that it's basically lost all meaning and I believe many people think of it as being synonymous with "conservative".
However here are links to some better explanations:
Neo-cons are fervent supporters of the War on Iraq but are also very liberal on social issues.
Failures in Iraq? Is Saddam still in power? Have they cancelled the elections? Is Iraq's infrastructure and oil industry not being restored? Are terrorists in Iraq not being killed and captured?
I must be missing something!
Neocon = neo (new) con (criminal) = new criminal :^)
I'm all for NeoCons, if fighting muslims is what they want us to do.
Cuz 9/11/2001 shoulda taught us muslims want to fight.
From what I've seen, Rumsfeld and the neocons agree on the need to fight muslims.
The details come down to which ones, where and when. We've been plodding along on that.
The entire political left, and the anti-war right can bring no light, for they mistakenly believe muslims don't need fighting.
Or that they have a superior insight into the question of which ones, where, and when.
That is it for me, in a nutshell. Between Rumsfeld or Buchanan, I'll take Rumsfeld.
Kristol and Buchanan have a lot in common. They've earned livings their entire adult lives, by stirring up controversy to write and talk about.
Rumsfeld has NEVER been in that category, which elevates him immensely.
Sure, terrorists are being killed, and even more new ones are emerging who previously did not exist. Success? I don't think so.
I thought the "Muslims" you want to fight were our "allies" in Iraq (over 90 percent Muslim).
How it came to be applied to such as William Kristol is more a thing of amusement than curiosity. The term today has lost all descriptive value and is used exclusively as a pejorative. It might as well be "poopoo-head," it's just about that deep. All IMHO, naturally - anyone who prefers this sort of catchphrase is welcome to it.
And your proof of this statement is where? Show me the facts that support new terrorists cropping up. We are winning this and it is easy to see. If you don't see it then I am sorry for you . Read the real news that comes from Iraq not just the left wing defeatists specials that come out every day.
A fun drinking game is watching "Hardball" and taking a shot everytime Matthews says "neocon".
Actually that is largely BS. The idea of a monolithic Israel based group of Jews who run American policy for Israel's benefit is just old fashioned Jew baiting. It is as original as Hitler's or Stalin's Jew hating.
Somehow...I just don't think Rummy's most trusted supporters were Bill Kristol & his friends.
Rummy's base consists of the same core support that supports this President. Unlike kristol, or McCain, or Hagel or any of the other civilian Generals WE, the American people, are the strength behind the war on terrorism including the removal of Saddam Hussein. The others have been consistently critical, except when we have a really good week they want to share credit for.
And I reject the labeling of this as anybody's war. It is not "Bush's war", "Rumsfeld's war", or the "neo-cons war. It is a world wide war against terrorism being led by the United states of America at the blessing of the majority of the population with the intent to protect this nation, with establishment of freedom in oppressed nations being a positive consequence. It is not Vietnam, it is not a failure. So long as Liberals or isolationalists continue to designate it as such they were continually lose favor with the American populace.
That has got to be a .. well, stupid argument.
Surely no one expected that to occur.
Primarily because of Saddam himself. Who knew for sure that he would not (won't?) be ba-a-a-a-k,
What of our encouragement to revolt against Saddam after the Gulf War? What happened to those who took our words seriously? They're finding them a few hundred at a time where Saddam left them.
From what I've heard, "neocon" is generally used as a code word for Jewish conservative.
Egad - I'd be under the table in 10 minutes...
That's the formerly conservative National Review.
Galloway is no longer a "War Correspondent". He's not reporting anymore. Now he's just another out-of-touch fogey commentating from a cushy stateside office.
Huh? You must be listening to the alphabet channels. And a Freeper too.
Blamed? Heck, I'm still proud!
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.