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.
Thank you! *huge grin*
Yep, congratulations indeed!
I heard an hispanic guy speaking from the comedy club where richards did his rant make the remark..........we thought we were getting Kramer and we got Mark Furman. What a disgusting despicable comment.
There will be an increase in the minimum wage. No amount of logic is going to change that. It's a done deal.
Fat Teddy wants to rise it and rise it.
Great picture of R.R.
Sidra: They're real ........... and they're spectacular.
They act like raising the Minimum Wage is some kind of cure all...IMHO it just encourages people to remain in mediocre jobs and not try and look for something better.
Not to mention that it will do nothing but increase costs tot he consumers and an increase in unemployment as employers compensate for an increase in wage expenditures.
I remember working for minimum wage back when it was 3.25/hr...talk about motivation to move upward and onward!
That was Paul Rodriguez...racism disguised as comedy doesn't work no matter who is saying it.
That would be wonderful for the country.
Raise the minimum wage for the few LOWERS everyone else's wages.
Never heard of the guy. That said, I thought what Kramer did ws disgusting. And to joke about dragging people behind trucks. I don't find any of that schtick funny, or even slightly acceptable.
It's axiomatic that raising the minimum wage will raise unemployment.
It makes you wonder sometimes if the Democrats want to raise the minimum wage so that the unemployment rate will go up and they can find something with which to criticize the President about the economy.
Me too
you have freepmail
More people unemployed = more people relying on a government check (unemployment benefits...welfare...etc)...more people succumbing to the Libs "womb to tomb" philosophy of life.
LOL
****
"The word 'genius' isn't applicable in football. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein." -- Joe Theisman (NFL football QB)
aw YES...you are very right...when he went into that "story" about how some guy in Chicago told him that he voted for a Dem for the first time since 1980...
WHY? Oh, Newts said...because of Katrina and to teach Washington a lesson.
THAT is where the MEDIA just totally (and I include Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham) have screwed President Bush...from the minute the hurricane hit...all fingers were pointed at President Bush..and NO ONE points fingers to Louisiana politicians.
When I hear Newt say that last night...I decided from now on...when he is on TV or radio..I do NOT listen.
Raising the Minimum Wage is actually the dims' clever way of taking money from your hip pocket and mine to pay off their buddies in the Labor Unions, when they take those increases as justification to increase THEIR demands.
I'm not an economist, but I'd guess that every dollar of minimum wage increase winds up costing three times that amount in taxes and labor costs.
Then, if you factor in the long term costs in terms of chronically unemployed, underemployed or welfare cases that result from their lousy shell game, it makes Johnson's so-called War on Poverty look like a piker.
Did I mention that they're also trying to buy some more voter base for the next few elections as well?
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.