Posted on 12/22/2004 10:36:58 PM PST by 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.
Frank Gaffney was never a "NeoCon" nor is he a "Chickenhawk", whatever is implied therein.
Bump about Perle. He would sell us out to the Chinese in a Shanghai Minute. Oops. He already has.
That new deck would be a deck full of Jokers,, how would we tell them apart.? ;-)
The faces of Kristol and McAinal and the other Rinos who hate GW are easy to recognize. So we could have about a dozen jokers or maybe an entire deck of 52.
Earth to Robert Novak:
The answers are, respectively, NO (Remember the UN Oil For Fraud Program that Saddam literally 'ran' from Baghdad?) and,
YES. Maybe we should have left Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, and the Taliban in power along with the Soviet Union.
So the fact is, Mr. Novak, certain things do appear to be rather clear...
Never said he was, you only assumed I said it, which I didn't.
I only mention it because he was in the organizational chart in some capacity.
More claptrap from East Coast Elite "journalists" who believe they still make policy with gossip.
Their 30 year bubble over us is busted.
Common sense, maturity, logic and facts, will prevail if we keep our heads.
pleaseFor the author to offer it up as the first word in his article's title is to revel in his doltish nature.
speak slowly
and
use small words
Kristol is a communist in conservative drag.
Fine and dandy. I've only singled out those who've piled onto the "Get Rumsfeld's Head On A Pike" bandwagon. Maybe you don't care, but I don't care if it's Republican, Democrat, Liberal or Conservative. There's no reason to be piling on Rumsfeld, who was absolutely correct in his answer to the soldier at that town hall meetinga couple weeks ago.
Notice how Kristol doesn't seem to be going after Colin Powell or Paul Bremer who respectively kept us from using as an immediate Interim Government, the Iraqi National Congress...which Rumsfeld had all ready to go as a replacement?
Instead, by letting the Iraqi's set up their own constitution first, it took an additional year of unnecessary wrangling. And for sure we should not have lingered with the process once we had Saddam. We should have just installed the moderates with a constitution, and walked away with some treaty and basing rights. And some oil would not have hurt either.
But no, they want to lay the whole rap on Rumsfeld. We could quintuple our forces in Iraq, and probably still not drastically lower ultimate casualties. We might finish sooner, but as long as Powell was messing around with this dithering time-wasting process, that was unlikely.
William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard. His position was, in effect, a declaration of war by the neoconservatives against the secretary of defense.
>>>
Little william can suck my toes...Rummyphobia is a RINO-RAT disease...and McCain, Hagle, Collins, Vacant Lott - they can all rot in hades. Shi*birds, all of them.
Both Frank Gaffney and Ken Adelman have expressly defended Rumsfeld with columns and opinion pieces. If they are underneath "General Kristol" then they are not following orders.
If I were little william, I'd be thinking about the EU as a new home...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1307217/posts
Victor Davis Hanson: Leave Rumsfeld Be, He is not to blame for our difficulties
NRO ^ | 12/23/2004 | Victor Davis Hanson
Little william can suck my toes...Rummyphobia is a RINO-RAT disease...and McCain, Hagle, Collins, Vacant Lott - they can all rot in hades. Shi*birds, all of them.
RIN-O-RATs suffer from Rummyphobia BTTT
Has Kristol ever been gainfully employed?
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.