Posted on 12/02/2006 1:20:05 PM PST by Sub-Driver
Rumsfeld Memo Proposed ‘Major Adjustment’ in Iraq By MICHAEL R. GORDON and DAVID S. CLOUD WASHINGTON, Dec. 2 — Two days before he resigned as defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld submitted a classified memo to the White House that acknowledged that the Bush administration’s strategy in Iraq was not working and called for a major course correction.
“In my view it is time for a major adjustment,” wrote Mr. Rumsfeld, who has been a symbol of a dogged stay-the-course policy. “Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough.”
Nor did Mr. Rumsfeld seem confident that the administration would readily develop an effective alternative. To limit the political fallout from shifting course he suggested the administration consider a campaign to lower public expectations.
“Announce that whatever new approach the U.S. decides on, the U.S. is doing so on a trial basis,” he wrote. “This will give us the ability to readjust and move to another course, if necessary, and therefore not ‘lose.’ ”
“Recast the U.S. military mission and the U.S. goals (how we talk about them) — go minimalist,” he added. Mr. Rumsfeld’s memo suggests frustration with the pace of turning over responsibility to the Iraqi authorities; in fact, the memo calls for examination of ideas that roughly parallel troop withdrawal proposals presented by some of the White House’s sharpest Democratic critics. (Text of the Memo)
The memo’s discussion of possible troop reduction options offers a counterpoint to Mr. Rumsfeld’s frequent public suggestions that discussions about force levels are driven by requests from American military commanders.
Instead, the memo puts on the table several ideas for troop redeployments or withdrawals that appear to conflict with recent public pronouncements from commanders in Iraq emphasizing the need to maintain troop levels.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I think both abizaid and casey, are doing a poor job.
the "generals" don't like Rumsfeld, they never have. Rummy wanted to transform the military - smaller, lighter forces. The establishment at the Pentagon wants the "big" military - big forces, big operations, and the big budget projects that go along with them.
what this memo highlights to me - is the lack of cohesiveness Bush faces within his own administration. there is no consensus plan to reach an endgame in iraq - DoD itself has different approaches, State has their own agenda and plans, the intel agencies are doing something else.
Fortunately the President will listen to the generals who are fighting the war.
fortunately? the same generals that tell us, every 6 months, that iraqi forces need "just 12 more months" of training.
and who set the rules of engagement our troops follow now? who continues to assign them to high risk, low value tasks like checkpoint and convoy duty, where they are cut to ribbons by car bombs and IEDs? are "the generals" you want Bush to listen to, making those decisions?
1) How long has the NYT known about this memo?
2) why are they writing an article in defense of Rummy ?
3) Murtha didn't suggest moving troops to other cities to safer areas in Iraq or Kuwait
yes, phase 1 of the war was fine.
phase 2, the post-saddam phase - has not succeeded. it hasn't failed, but it hasn't succeeded. it has left us in this "limbo" state we've seen for the last 1+ years.
Bush needs to read this memo. there are some solid ideas here, and they represent an approach that is different from the surrender of the Baker plan, and the stalemate and political implosion of "stay the course".
President Bush already read the memo, he consulted with his generals and he will follow the plan agreed upon by the generals..
Actually, I would argue that when media (e.g., embedded reporters) were there with our troops, they saw what smart, professional and hardworking folks we have fighting for our freedom.
It's when these idiot media types all sit around at Hotel Baghdad with no access to anything but the latest explosion down the street staged by terrorists for their benefit that things get bad. And if they were banned from Hotel Baghdad, they'd all be over sitting in the bar at Hotel Kuwait City, developing a gin-and-group-think fueled, shared interpretation of the war that has no bearing on reality. PJ O'Roarke has written a ton about how conventional wisdom on world conflict gets decided by a whole bunch of lemming reporters in hotel bars. It would be funnier if it weren't so dangerous.
And I'm guessing that the people currently rewarding bad behavior with reconstruction funds are all at the State Dept. This memo could almost be summarized thusly: "Stop doing things the State Dept. way in Iraq!"
The initial battle plan to depose Saddam Hussein was brilliant and brilliantly executed.
No setting the oil fields afire, no poisoned water, no bridges bombed, no stopping along the way to engage his military, which would have allowed Baghdad to be protected.
Big deal, there was looting. As if that made any difference at all in the fall of Saddam Hussein.
What followed is being dealt with, not perfectly, but no one ever expected the country to be pacified overnight.
There have been elections, large portions of Iraq are relatively safe, despite the media focus on Baghdad.
Do you really believe Shinseki, Zinni, Weasley Clark are the type of general this country needs.
Are they to be trusted with the security of the civilized world?
Are you so naive that you think every general in the Pentagon puts America first?
I agree...so why did they let him go or did he really resign?
President Bush already read the memo, he consulted with his generals and he will follow the plan agreed upon by the generals..
I just don't know the answer to that. I have never been able to bring myself to be okay with it.
Rumsfeld's memo is important because this is the weekend and there is no other news. Nothing ever happens on the weekend.
I do not know the details with the Chief of Staff and the generals plan, but the main thing is that " We are not leaving Iraq", "We are not cutting down the troops", "We are going to speed up the training of Iraqi forces".
and how do you know which "team" of generals Abizaid and Casey are on? just because they have a command, doesn't make them infallible. far from it.
and what plan is that? the plan that so hamstrings our forces with rules of engagement in Al Anbar? the plan that keeps Sadr alive, and removes cordons from Sadr City? the plan that keeps US forces in high risk/low values assignments like convoy duty?
I don't even know what the plan is anymore. all I know is, the defintion of insanity is doing the same thing day after day, and expecting different results. another 5 KIA this weekend.
Not infallible, simply not in the camp of hating Rumsfeld.
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.