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.
Merry Christmas and a very, very blessed New Year FRiend...
And to Bush's credit he allowed Rumsfield to do the job!
John
Merry Christmas, and thanks for this excellent summary:
"It should remind us all how brave and selfless our all-volunteer military is. They know they're at the edge of civilization and America is purposefully limiting their force protection. And they serve anyway. They're saving our lives, they're saving Iraqi lives, and they're protecting our honor. Would Kerry have appointed a Defense Secretary who could make these tough calls and face the media? Never. We'd either abandon the Iraqi people or we'd be killing many more of them -- either way something that we'd come to regret."
"From what little I know about Rumsfeld via his press conferences and what we've learned about him here, I think he's a real keeper. Hats off to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld!"
Thanks for the ping to that article
About time someone reports it like it is
"Race baiting crap"??? Unless you are referring to the 3 of them being white, you're heading somewhere you really shouldn't.
If "neocons" are such a diverse and multiethnic group, how come Novak, Buchanan and the rest of their ilk *always* just happen to single out the Jewish ones for mention, as well as for criticism?
How so? As I just said, I find it odd that Novak and the like *always* seem to pick the Jews out of the whole "neocon" bunch. Do you find anything odd about the fact that he has *never* ripped into any non-Jewish "neocons"?
That being said, I detest Kristol and Perle is one scary dude. He probably has more power than any unelected person in the world. Google 'Perle' and sit back and get ready to read about a lot of shady characters and some border line illegal dealings.
I don't like Kristol, especially since his McCainiac days. If I Google Perle, how many kook and crackpot conspiracy sites are going to come up in the search results? No thanks.
http://www.neoperspectives.com/rumsfeld.htm
The Best of U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
I enjoyed this.
A very merry Christmas to you and yours, Grampa! Thanks for the past year of activism you gave to our country here on FR.
Fine. You seem to be under the misguided notion that I have a beef against both Gaffney and Adelman, yet I don't.
Irrelevant to the discussion. What is relevant is the fact Perle was pushing for the war in Iraq, and now is oddly off the reservation. That's not even insider information, nor is it kook conspiracy nonsense, one doesn't need to Google 'Perle' for that sort of information.
You'll have to ask them. Do you deny that neoconservatism is a political philosiphy? What about the several Gentile FReepers who consider themselves neocons?
Nope, just responding to any inadvertant inference, which you apparently never intended. No prob!
OK. But I will still ask you why you consider Jews to be a race.
Do you deny that neoconservatism is a political philosiphy?
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.
What about the several Gentile FReepers who consider themselves neocons?
Name one who has come out and said that he or she is a neocon. With a direct link to that, of course.
WHICH SIDE ARE YOU ON? [Neocon / Paleocon respones to Frum's "Unpatriotic Conservatives"]
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.
