In Defense of Rumsfeld

Wall Street Journal ^ | December 21, 2004 | Editorial

[OESY]

...During difficult times he has led one of the largest bureaucracies in the world, helped plan the successful dispatch of two terrorist regimes, and worked to speed up long-overdue reforms....

He is tough, no doubt about it. But it takes a tough man to accomplish all this, especially when bureaucrats and special-interest groups are wedded to the status quo or Cold War-era programs no longer relevant....

Much of the current criticism of Secretary Rumsfeld is centered on troop levels and armor for the troops. Sen. John McCain, for example, has long believed that the Iraq conflict required more troops.... Reasonable people can disagree....

Now, Secretary Rumsfeld is being criticized for his honest response to a soldier in a town-hall meeting in Iraq regarding the shortage of armor for our troops in the field. The secretary responded that you go to war with what you've got.... The question is whether it is fair to heap all the blame on Secretary Rumsfeld for what is, after all, a procurement responsibility of the services. Ironically, another criticism of Secretary Rumsfeld is that he micromanages too much. Critics can't have it both ways.

And consider this: How many other cabinet secretaries go out and talk to people directly and take on all questions, even the tough ones? Secretary Rumsfeld has held dozens of these town-hall meetings with troops to hear from them and to listen to their opinions unvarnished. He should be commended for that and for his follow-up on the armor issue....

[Nagilum]

"Doesn't the fact that Bush thinks Rumsfeld is doing a good job and agrees with Rumsfeld's efforts to transform the Army make you reconsider your pretty strong opinions about Rumsfeld."

No, it actually makes me very disappointed that Bush didn't replace the one person who needed replacing most, in my opinion. As for why Bush can't see what I can see, who's to say he can't. One of his traits is that he's very loyal and demands loyalty of his cabinet. Most of the time, that's a great quality to have. When you back someone who hasn't gotten the job done, however, it's dangerous.

And, up-armoring Humvees with kits does not afford the same protection as building new armored ones from the factory. They are separate issues. And action was not initiated on the second point until AFTER the soldier asked the question.

[Nagilum]

There was plenty of "Saturday evening" quarterbacking where the experts (aka - Offensive Coordinator) decided what the best way to handle the gameplan would be. Rummy decided to throw out their playbook and decided that he knew better.

Not always a bad thing, but if you take an action like that, you'd better be right. If you're not right, you should be man enough to admit it. And he should definitely be man enough to step down for the good of the Army and the soldiers that he's supposed to be protecting. And, if he's not man enough to step down, Bush should have the balls to sack him.

[vbmoneyspender]

As for why Bush can't see what I can see, who's to say he can't.

So Bush knows what you 'know' which is that Rumsfeld doesn't care '2 $hits' about the soldiers and still is nevertheless retaining Rumsfeld's services because he is loyal too him? Do you really believe that?

Secondly, you talk about the war in Iraq as if it has turned out to be some kind of disaster. Do really believe that? And if so, for you where is it that you draw the line between a disaster and a success. Would a success have only occurred if no-one had died during the invasion and subsequent occupation?

[traviskicks]

http://www.neoperspectives.com/rumsfeld.htm
Rumsfeld Quotes

[mombrown1]

What experts are you referring to?