Neocons vs. Rumsfeld

townhall.com ^ | 12/23/04 | Robert Novak

[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.

[Torie]

LOL.

[jmc813]

My guess the great majority of normal people don't include neocon in their vocabulary and wouldn't have the faintest idea what it means. It's popularity rests largely in the media and the internet.

What about the folks who consider themselves to be neocons? Are they ignorant as to what it means?

[Torie]

Thus, the neocon message is that the war was no mistake but has been badly conducted. [true to come extent]

While Adelman does not blame his friend Rumsfeld, the accountability of the secretary of defense is implicit. [the war plan was largely the creation of Tommy Franks actually, and Rumsfeld and Bush enthusiastically signed off on it]

Kristol's call for Rumsfeld's dismissal removes culpability for those who beat the drums to go to war. [BS]

Getting rid of Rumsfeld does not answer agonizing questions. [clearly]

Was the change of regime in Baghdad worth going to war? [It sure was] Could Saddam Hussein have been removed from power by other means? [almost certainly not - we tried] Is the use of U.S. military power to topple undemocratic regimes good policy? {Damn straight it is in certain situations where the stars are aligned right]

There are no clear answers. [true] To say simply that all would be well in Iraq, save for Don Rumsfeld, only begs these questions. [nobody is saying that; that is a canard and a straw man]

[SJackson]

What about the folks who consider themselves to be neocons? Are they ignorant as to what it means?

Doubt it, though I've no way of knowing.

[NYC GOP Chick]

It's a term used to smear Jews who are close to the President, but don't fall in line with certain elements of the far right.

So the Jewish people who call themselves neocons are in actuality smearing themselves?!? The logic here is escaping me.

Oh really? Name 'em -- and show where they've said that.

Name one who has come out and said that he or she is a neocon. With a direct link to that, of course.

Off the top of my head, I recall Dane and Torie claiming to be a neocon. I'm to lazy to go Googling.

If you're too lazy to back up your claims, then DON'T MAKE THEM. Proving *your* claims isn't my responsibility. But I wonder why you didn't ping Dane and/or Torie here and ask them yourself. I mean, if they're proudly calling themselves "neocons," they shouldn't have a problem being pinged over here and saying so, thus backing you up...

[jmc813]

If you're too lazy to back up your claims, then DON'T MAKE THEM. Proving *your* claims isn't my responsibility. But I wonder why you didn't ping Dane and/or Torie here and ask them yourself. I mean, if they're proudly calling themselves "neocons," they shouldn't have a problem being pinged over here and saying so, thus backing you up...

I pinged both of them and Torie responded in the affirmative in post 98.I'm sure she'd be happy to correct your idea of what neoconservatism is.

[wtc911]

I don't know of anyone who could have done the job better than Rumsfeld.

-----------------------------------

That doesn't mean that there isn't anyone who would.

[Torie]

This and the article above might help a bit. I wrote a longer piece about the neocon philosophy and sensibilities, but I can't find it. Depending on the issue, we do tend as a generality to be at once moderate and tough minded about domestic affairs, and tend to focus more on results than ideological purity.

[NYC GOP Chick]

Thank you for clarifying some things, Torie. Now, just out of curiosity, what do you think of the likes of Novak, Buchanan, etc., who use "neocon" as a derogatory term about Jews -- especially uppity Jews?

And have you ever noticed that among that ilk, the *only* leftist politicians they like are Israel's suicidal Labour Party?

[Torie]

Buchanan in my opinion is an out-of-the-closet Jew hater (always has been, but he is more blatant rather than latent about what fuels his true passion now), and Novak has a visceral dislike of Israel for reasons known only to him, since he has not fully laid his cards on the table about that one. I don't think Novak is a self hating ex-Jew, Jew hater.

[NYC GOP Chick]

Buchanan in my opinion is an out-of-the-closet Jew hater (always has been, but he is more blatant rather than latent about what fuels his true passion now),

I think Iraq brought the latent Jew-hating in him and his ilk out into the open.

and Novak has a visceral dislike of Israel for reasons known only to him, since he has not fully laid his cards on the table about that one. I don't think Novak is a self hating ex-Jew, Jew hater.

My experience is that most people who've converted out of Judaism tend to be virulently anti-Semitic, Larry Kudlow being the only exception with which I'm familiar.

Oh, and Merry Christmas to you and your family. :)