Comments on: Pressure On Rumsfeld Growing Daily

By: dmac

dmac — Sat, 15 Apr 2006 16:16:32 +0000

I’m not sure why Bush didn’t follow Reagan’s 2nd – term blueprint for re – energizing his administration (and base). Replacing Rumsfeld should have been one of his first priorities, followed by the usual suspects (although Rice was a good step in this direction). Reagan essentially salvaged his second term in doing so, but Bush is quite late in making any changes that would make a significant difference for the rest of his term.

By: too many steves

too many steves — Sat, 15 Apr 2006 10:59:50 +0000

If Bush decides to swap out Rumsfeld, it won’t be to admit mistakes or failure, or to change course – as those in opposition argue and hope. Replacing Rumsfeld will be done to improve the politics for Bush so that he can reassert and affirm the goals and objectives of being in Iraq.

Be careful what you wish for.

By: Colin

Colin — Sat, 15 Apr 2006 00:48:40 +0000

Truthfully, I don’t really care if Rumsfeld is the SecDef or not. One thing is more important than Rumsfeld, though. Whatever you call it (Net-Centric warfare, the Revolution in Military Affairs, Military Transformation), Transformation has been the stated goal of three concurrent administrations (Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43). Reorganizing the entire military is a tough and painful process. Its also necessary. Most of the criticisms of Rumsfeld, when you boil it all down and strain the politics out of those criticisms, are a negative reaction to Transformation.

Transformation is tough, and it sucks that it has to go on during a war, but in order to make our military as quick and responsive as our enemies, we need to go forward. Whoever the SecDef is, it is absolutely essential that they realize this.

By: peter

peter — Fri, 14 Apr 2006 23:17:03 +0000

While there are lots of retired generals, their stature (especially Zinni) and the fact that they are speaking out in time of war is significant. I think that in addition to Iraq, one of the reasons that they are speaking out is that they are seeing the steady erosion of human resources in the armed forces. For example, the Times had a story earlier this week which said that junior officers (i.e., recent West Point graduates) are leaving as soon as their commitment is up at an alarming rate. There is also a recruitment problem and the reserves are stretched thin. My guess is that this is as alarming to the retired generals as Rumsfeld’s inability to strategize and execute.

If Bush fired Rumsfeld, it would be a tacit admission that their policies and strategies have failed. The best thing for Bush would be for Rumsfeld to find a fig leaf and resign (e.g., “health reasons”) and then convince Joe Lieberman to take the job.