FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
STOP BY A BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD (It's in the Breaking News sidebar!)
Posted on 10/10/2003 5:41:08 PM PDT by nickcarraway
"Rumsfeld: A Personal Portrait," by Midge Decter. Hardcover, 240 pages. Published by Regan Books.
Author, editor Midge Decter sits on the board of the Center for Security Policy and enjoys the input of highly placed sources for her essays and reviews in distinguished periodicals such as Harper’s, but it is her long acquaintance with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld that provides the rich texture to “Rumsfeld: A Personal Portrait.”
Given unprecedented access to Rumsfeld, his family, friends and colleagues, Decter provides the reader a look behind the scenes at the man who, after President Bush, has emerged as the most recognizable face of the global war on terrorism and a celebrity in his own right.
The reader follows Rumsfeld from his formative years in the Chicago suburb of Winnetka, through an Ivy League education at Princeton, service as a pilot in the U.S. Navy, and eventually on to the halls of power in Washington, where he serves as a congressman, director of the most powerful agency on the planet, a White House chief of staff and a diplomat, before taking a temporary breather and turning his talents loose in the private sector.
Along the way, the reader gets introduced to the champion wrestler, who cuts his competitive teeth in a solitary sport where toe-to-toe ruthlessness is the prime virtue and coming in second scores no points.
This same combative spirit follows Rumsfeld as he earns his Navy aviator wings and goes on to instructing student pilots and then instructing the instructors.
By the time President Gerald Ford brings the former congressman aboard as his chief of staff, the take-charge character has been forged in steel, and things start to happen.
In the infamous “Halloween Massacre” of October 1975, Ford fires Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger and CIA Director William Colby, relieves Henry Kissinger of his dual role as secretary of state and national security adviser, and installs Rumsfeld at the Pentagon as the youngest secretary of defense ever.
To this day Kissinger describes Rumsfeld as one of the most ambitious men he has ever known.
The pattern has been set, and when Rumsfeld leaves public service for a stint as president and chief executive officer at the worldwide Searle Pharmaceutical Co., there follows a shakeup there just as grand as that which overnight transformed the Ford administration. Employees are fired or transferred, and divisions sold.
By the time Rumsfeld has progressed from being the youngest secretary of defense to the oldest when he returns in 2001, the whirlwind is poised.
Decter devotes the lion’s share of her portrait to the developed man, who takes over at the Pentagon on the eve of the most dramatic events since Pearl Harbor.
By June 2001, Rumsfeld is on Capitol Hill warning the Senate Armed Forces Committee that a new military strategy must be developed to counteract unforeseen threats.
A new day had arrived at the Pentagon. Rumsfeld wastes no time in reminding the brass that the Constitution calls for civilian control of the military, and not just a pro forma version of that control:
“The first thing you have to do is be willing to set priorities. Once you do that, you have said that something is more important than something else, and somebody is not going to like it. And that’s life.”
That mind-set of taking control was in full force when on Sept. 11, American Airlines flight number 77 crashed into the east wall of the Pentagon, sending a shudder through the floor where the secretary was presiding over a meeting, fortunately being held on the opposite side of the building from the deadly impact.
Within minutes, Rumsfeld is outside helping to man a stretcher carrying a wounded victim from the flames.
And that, says the author, is where Rumsfeld has taken up his fortified position ever since – in the thick of things.
Sometimes that penchant has gotten him into trouble. According to the author, for example, Secretary of State Colin Powell was furious at Rumsfeld’s remark that Germany and France represented “old Europe.” This at a time when the last thing Powell wanted was a stiffening of those allies' resistance to an Iraqi war resolution.
In the meantime, even in the wake of 9/11, Rumsfeld stands fast in his grappler’s stance – still firmly committed to breeding a lighter, faster and more flexible military.
Now that Afghanistan and Iraq have settled to a slow percolation from a rapid boil, Rumsfeld’s role as chief public exponent and explainer of the Bush Doctrine has diminished somewhat from those heady days when, in the author’s words, “he conducted [his press briefings] with a candor [and humor] so uncommon to the usual demeanor of a public official.”
But all things considered, Decter concludes that Rumsfeld’s popularity with the public spawns from deeper roots than just an intriguing TV persona. Rather, she says, it springs from “the return of the ideal of the Middle American family man, with all that such an idea entails in the way of vitality, determination, humor, seriousness, and abiding self-confidence – along with protectiveness toward loved ones, neighbors, and country.”
Decter counts Rumsfeld as a unique phenomenon that has helped bring forth, as much as it reflects, this basic change in American attitudes.
“This change may well be more important to the fortunes of his country than the changes he will have wrought in its armed forces,” Decter suggests.
“Rumsfeld” stands as a vital and sometimes humorous portrait of how one Middle American family man can rise to pre-eminence on the American scene, to help remake the world into a better and safer place.
We won in Afghanistan and Iraq in spite of him and OSD, not because of him
I was so happy when Bush got elected - Finally, I'd thought. We'll get those cowardly dillitante amateurs from the Clinton Admin out of the Pentagon.
All we did was trade cowardly dillitante amateurs for..... Bellicose dillitante amateurs - one's with little training who thought they were smarter than everyone else
I'll vote for Bush again because there's no choice.
I just hope he cans Rumsfeld after the election.
All the best Qatar-6
Huh? We defeated our two enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq with surprisingly little force and loss of life. His push for special forces to lead the war in Afghanistan was correct and had a huge pay off (only 300 or so US boots on the ground overthrew the Taliban and vaunted AQ). If you read "Bush At War" you can see that, in spite of Woodward's obvious infatuation with the CIA and Tenet, it was the arrival of our USAF FACs (and Green Berets, etc.) that turned the tide.
Rumsfeld's push for a small force to overthrow Saddam was correct, too. We had surprisingly few casualties while overthrowing one of the ME's top bad boys.
To me, our military efforts since 9/11 have been amazing. Clever and unconventional. Imposing our will on others with a minimum of effort. Isn't that the way it should be?
Green Berets said "let's go get em" and Northern alliance said "Nah, close enough for government work"
We ended up fighting a lot of those guys in ANACONDA, we're still fighting them.
The Paks had a division of people waiting to link up at the border (remember this was before the later december crisis with India when the Paks took most of their forces out)
There was no Americans and Russians at the Elbe scene in the mountains because the NA guys let the Taliban go while our SOF helplessly looked on.
The SOF guys did the best they could - called in air strikes and the like but they were'nt there in enough stregnth to stop them
If we'd had one BDE of the 10th Mountain Div handy with Helo and support assets it wouldn't have happened. But no. OSD was out to prove a new theory of war.
As for Iraq. For proving that we can win with less it's sure tying up a lot of our forces. We had time to deploy more divisions prior to the initiation of hostilities but the requests were veto'd at OSD. If we'd had them we'd have won the war in half the time, no US prisoners would have been taken and fewer Iraqis would have gotten away to begin the guerilla war.
Don't sing the praises of Rumsfeld to me. The man is a gambler. He's smarter than anyone else and doesn't listen
Every prediction about the number of troops that would be required made by Gen Shinseki has pretty much been borne out
The only "armchair generals" around are Rumsfeld and his inner circle.
New way to make war - my pocked ass
We could have had 10,000 troops around Tora Bora and it wouldn't have made a difference. They would have escaped during the time it would have taken to assemble the large force. We have 100,000 troops in Iraq and haven't caught Saddam yet. We caught his sons because of an intelligence break. That's what we were missing in Afghanistan. BTW, we had quick reaction forces in Afghanistan that were ready to go if there was "actionable" intelligence. We did a snatch-and-grab in Kabul in November.
If we'd had them we'd have won the war in half the time, no US prisoners would have been taken and fewer Iraqis would have gotten away to begin the guerilla war.
What, three weeks wasn't fast enough for you??? More troops wouldn't have meant NO prisoners. Anyone could have taken a wrong turn and gotten captured. Also, how many troops would have been needed to prevent the Baathist diehards from melting away into the population? A million? Remember, we would have to seal off Baghdad and all the other towns in the Sunni Triangle and inspect each house manually.
Tora Bora was in Dec. We could have had a BDE combat team in Uzbekistan in before mid Nov. We could have had them in position to do what I described. It was physically possible
When Tora Bora went down there was a desparate effort to get the Marines at Kandahar (way out of position) and the 10th Mountain battalion at Karshni Karabad (even further away) into place.
The warfighters had asked for more troops but OSD knew better. Then it was all a panic to get any kind of forces to TB. But it was too late.
The lack of US Maneuver forces in country cost us complete victory
As for you description of Iraq. I can only offer the following
No, three weeks isn't quick enough for me when I know it could have been done in ten days.
Another heavy division would have allowed us to get into the Sunni triangle quicker.
We had plenty of time and assets available. We could have had a complete other heavy division on the ground for the fight by LD in mid March.
That we didn't is attributable directly to OSD interference. Warfighters asked for them, and Mr-Know-it all sat on the requests.
And by the way there's a hell of a lot more than 100K US troops in Iraq right now.
Rumsfeld should have stuck to reforming the Pentagon processes where he was doing some good.
His gnat's ass meddling in the operational and tactical aspects of the warfight has had a universally negative effect
If I sound a little strident it's because I've just been through two years of this and I get to go back as soon as my leave is over
Worst since McNamara. I stand by that statement
All the best
Qatar-6
What service are you in? I'm curious what you know about the snatch-and-grab raid we did in Kabul sometime in mid-Nov 2001. I believe it was shortly before we killed Atef in an airstrike. There was very little publicity about the raid. According to the WashPost and those unreliable Pakistani papers, several helicopters came in and shot up a car, then smaller helos landed and the car's occupants were removed. Obviously, we were after someone we thought was important. I guess it wasn't who we thought since there wasn't a big press conference.
If I sound a little strident it's because I've just been through two years of this and I get to go back as soon as my leave is over
Best of luck. Let everyone know how proud we are of our troops. The actions we've taken since 9/11 will have payoffs not only now but far in the future.
Only very peripheral details I can't talk about. (BS answer but the truth)
Suffice to say our Spec Ops guys did good (they always do)
Trouble is OSD thought they were the only tool necessary, which sadly wasn't the case
Warfighters told him different, but hey.... what do we know?
You make a fine armchair general. Ironically you bitch about not having our own forces in country sufficient to cordon off Tora Bora and then proceed, in a subsequent message, to complain about Iraq taking too long, without even noticing the contradictions!
What what would it have taken to effectively cordon off Tora Bora? Say 10,0000 to 30,000 troops? With logistical support, force protection, and etc, that presumes over 100,000 troops in country. In the real world, where troops have to be tasked, equiped, transported, feed and so on -- in this respect contrasting inconveniently with the divisions you push about in your mind -- there's no way any significant numbers of U.S. forces (let alone thousands) could have been anywhere near Tora Bora, even if the decisions to send them had been made at 10:00 A.M. on September 11th.
And you presume to tell us how Rumsfeld shoulda done the job? Hell, son, he had the job done and over with at least four months before the war could have even started under your recommendations.
And then our force rotation problems, severe enough as they are, would be that much worse at present, and morale and force effectiveness that much worse. Again, there's a huge difference between deploying forces from an armchair and deploying real men and women.
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.