See here.
Posted on 11/21/2006 8:30:44 AM PST by MNJohnnie
Rumsfeld
By Douglas Feit Sunday, November 19, 2006
Much of what you know about Donald Rumsfeld is wrong.
I know, because I worked intimately with him for four years, from the summer of 2001 until I left the Pentagon in August 2005.
Through countless meetings and private conversations, I came to learn his traits, frame of mind and principles -- characteristics wholly at odds with the standard public depiction of Rumsfeld, particularly now that he has stepped down after a long, turbulent tenure as defense secretary, a casualty of our toxic political climate.
I want to set the record straight: Don Rumsfeld is not an ideologue. He did not refuse to have his views challenged. He did not ignore the advice of his military advisers. And he did not push single-mindedly for war in Iraq. He was motivated to serve the national interest by transforming the military, though it irritated people throughout the Pentagon.
Rumsfeld's drive to modernize created a revealing contrast between his Pentagon and the State Department -- where Colin Powell was highly popular among the staff. After four years of Powell's tenure at State, the organization chart there would hardly tip anyone off that 9/11 had occurred -- or even that the Cold War was over.
Rumsfeld is a bundle of paradoxes, like a fascinating character in a work of epic literature. And as my high school teachers drummed into my head, the best literature reveals that humans are complex. They are not the all-good or all-bad, all-brilliant or all-dumb figures that inhabit trashy novels and news stories. Fine literature teaches us the difference between appearance and reality.
Because of his complexity, Rumsfeld often is misread. His politics are deeply conservative but he was radical in his drive to force change in every area he oversaw. He is strong-willed and hard-driving but he built his defense strategies and Quadrennial Defense Reviews on calls for intellectual humility.
Those of us in his inner circle heard him say over and over again: Our intelligence, in all senses of the term, is limited. We cannot predict the future. We must continually question our preconceptions and theories. If events contradict them, don't suppress the bad news; rather, change your preconceptions and theories.
If an ideologue is someone to whom the facts don't matter, then Rumsfeld is the opposite of an ideologue. He insists that briefings for him be full of facts, thoughtfully organized and rigorously sourced. He demands that facts at odds with his key policy assumptions be brought to his attention immediately. "Bad news never gets better with time," he says, and berates any subordinate who fails to rush forward to him with such news. He does not suppress bad news; he acts on it.
Rumsfeld's drive to overhaul the Pentagon -- to drop outdated practices, programs and ideas -- antagonized many senior military officers and civilian officials in the department. He pushed for doing more with less. He pushed for reorganizing offices and relationships to adapt to a changing world. After 9/11, he created the Northern Command (the first combatant command that included the U.S. homeland among its areas of responsibility), a new undersecretary job for intelligence and a new assistant secretary job for homeland defense.
Seeking to improve civil-military cooperation, Rumsfeld devised new institutions for the Pentagon's top civilian and military officials to work face to face on strategic matters and new venues for all of them to gather a few times a year with the combatant commanders. He also conceived and pushed through a thorough revision of how U.S. military forces are based, store equipment, move and train with partners around the world -- something that was never done before in U.S. history.
On Iraq, Rumsfeld helped President Bush analyze the dangers posed by Saddam Hussein's regime. Given Saddam's history -- starting wars; using chemical weapons against foreign and domestic enemies; and training, financing and otherwise supporting various terrorists -- Rumsfeld helped make the case that leaving him in power entailed significant risks.
But in October 2002, Rumsfeld also wrote a list of the risks involved in removing Saddam from power. (I called the list his "parade of horribles" memo.) He reviewed it in detail with the president and the National Security Council. Rumsfeld's warnings about the dangers of war -- including the perils of a post-Saddam power vacuum -- were more comprehensive than anything I saw from the CIA, State or elsewhere. Rumsfeld continually reminded the president that he had no risk-free option for dealing with the dangers Saddam posed.
Historians will sort out whether Rumsfeld was too pushy with his military, or not pushy enough; whether he micromanaged Ambassador L. Paul Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority, or gave them too much slack. I know more about these issues than most people, yet I don't have all the information for a full analysis. I do know, however, that the common view of Rumsfeld as a close-minded man, ideologically wedded to the virtues of a small force, is wrong.
Rumsfeld had to resign, I suppose, because our bitter and noxious political debate of recent years has turned him into a symbol. His effectiveness was damaged. For many in Congress and the public, the Rumsfeld caricature dominated their view of the Iraq war and the administration's ability to prosecute it successfully. Even if nominee Robert Gates pursues essentially the same strategies, he may garner more public confidence.
What Rumsfeld believed, said and did differs from the caricature. The public picture of him today is drawn from news accounts reflecting the views of people who disapproved of his policies or disliked him. Rumsfeld, after all, can be brutally demanding and tough.
But I believe history will be more appreciative of him than the first draft has been. What will last is serious history, which, like serious literature, can distinguish appearance from reality.
Douglas J. Feith, a professor at Georgetown University, served as undersecretary of defense for policy from 2001 to 2005.
Exactly. Blame President Bush and all will be forgiven.
This is such a non-issue. Do we ever hear for an apology(ies) when the left bashes Catholics? Or when Blacks bash whites? How about an apology from the hecklers "cracker" comment. It was a stupid thing to say but people need to move on.
... Singing Fillet'd, BBQ'd, Shark Hat ...
Something you might find in a Lillian Vernon catalog. LOL!
Yikes, you had to fire your contractor? How bad is the damage?
Thanksgiving will be a peaceful day with great food, great people, and lots of football. The best! Hope yours is wonderful, too.
"I hope they go for it. It would have the same bitch slapping effect on our 100%ers that the Clintonites attempt to Nationalize Health Care did in 1993 ."
ANd considering that Her Thighness wants to bring back that failed socialist plan as well...it owuld be quite interesting to see the Libtards try and shove BOTH of these plans down our collective throats at once.
Really! Then I wish he'd get a chance to sub for Rush.
It comes from "Happy Days" when an episode ran about the Fonz jumping a shark with his motorcycle.
"jump the shark" per Wikipedia...
Jumping the shark is a metaphor that was originally used to denote the tipping point at which a TV series is deemed to have passed its peak, or has introduced plot twists that are illogical in terms of everything that has preceded them. Once a show has "jumped the shark", fans sense a noticeable decline in quality or feel the show has undergone too many changes to retain its original charm. The term has also evolved to describe other areas of pop culture, including movie series, music, or acting celebrities or authors for whom a drastic change was seen as the beginning of the end. These changes are often attempts to attract their fans' waning attention with over-the-top statements or increasingly overt appeals to sex or violence. Some have broadened its use to simply describe any decline in appeal for the subject in question, without requiring a significant "jump the shark" moment as justification.
Texas managed Hurricane Rita just fine too.
Somehow the very idea that any of the harm that came to the people in New Orleans is anyone's fault but the Governor of that state is simply WRONG
I used to love "MASH". When I started watching it in
re-runs years later. I was amazed at how screamingly
lame, whiney and elitist it is. Hawkeye is a big
baby. Blech!
I can't understand it.../s
Glenn Beck isn't on CNN exactly. He's on CNN Headline News, a different channel entirely.
I like Glenn Beck, but to say he balances the anti-American not only CNN Prime, but CNN International (which is about as hateful as Al-Jazeera)...I wouldn't go that far. CNN generally is still far worse, although all the "conservatives" on PMSNBC are ersatz IMHO.
It's the name that Rush has used for members of his staff for as long as I can remember.
There have been several Snerdly's.
If memory serves it's a joke that goes back to his days in radio in (I think) Pittsburgh.
Thanks very much for that explanation of "jump the shark", nhoward! I never did understand it until now. And thanks for asking the question, StoneWall.
That's right. I forgot that. Thanks!
I see now thanks
Kane West is still out there bashing all things white. No one cares. He just goes on his merry way.
Stick a fork in me... I'm done
His real name is James Goldin, isn't it? I never heard him myself, but I heard he had a good show. I never knew why he didn't make it...
That describes my experience with it exactly!
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.