Kean Adopts The Decision ’08 Position
With respect to Donald Rumsfeld, at least:
State Senator Thomas H. Kean Jr., the Republican nominee for United States Senate in New Jersey, says he is so frustrated with the Bush administration’s handling of the war in Iraq that he is pushing for something that few Republicans have supported: the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
In an interview at his campaign headquarters here, just shy of midnight on Friday, Mr. Kean said that he had become dissatisfied over the summer with what he said was Mr. Rumsfeld’s refusal to consider “competing points of view.”
But what compelled him to advocate publicly for a “fresh face” leading the troops, Mr. Kean said, were Mr. Rumsfeld’s recent remarks chiding critics of the war for “moral and intellectual confusion,” and comparing them to those who advocated appeasing Nazi Germany in the 1930’s.
“By engaging in that kind of rhetoric, this secretary has stepped over the line,” Mr. Kean said.
Mr. Kean stopped short of criticizing President Bush, other than saying he had not been “well served” by Mr. Rumsfeld. He says he does not support a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops, because he thinks that could lead to a humanitarian crisis and destabilize the region.
Here’s why I think the ‘new blood’ argument is not only a political winner, but perhaps even a necessity. From the Pentagon’s latest quarterly report to Congress on Iraq:
Sectarian violence is spreading in Iraq and the security problems have become more complex than at any time since the U.S. invasion in 2003, the Pentagon said Friday.
In a notably gloomy report to Congress, the Pentagon said illegal militias have become more entrenched, especially in Baghdad neighborhoods where they are seen as providers of both security and basic social services.
The report described a rising tide of sectarian violence, fed in part by interference from neighboring Iran and Syria and driven by a “vocal minority” of religious extremists who oppose the idea of a democratic Iraq.
Death squads targeting mainly Iraqi civilians are a growing problem, heightening the risk of civil war, it said.
“Death squads and terrorists are locked in mutually reinforcing cycles of sectarian strife,” the report said, adding that the Sunni-led insurgency “remains potent and viable” even as it is overshadowed by the sect-on-sect killing.
“Conditions that could lead to civil war exist in Iraq, specifically in and around Baghdad, and concern about civil war within the Iraqi civilian population has increased in recent months,” the report said. It is the latest in a series of quarterly reports required by Congress to assess economic, political and security progress.
A growing number of members of Congress are calling for either a shift in the Bush administration’s Iraq strategy or a timetable for beginning a substantial withdrawal of American forces. Although administration officials say progress is being made in Iraq, U.S. commanders have increased U.S. troop levels by about 13,000 over the past five weeks, to 140,000, mainly due to increased violence in the Baghdad area.
Many of you have suggested Rumsfeld is still the best man for the job, and that, even if there was a better one, he wouldn’t accept under these conditions. You may be right (for example, I don’t think Christopher Hitchens will accept, and Joe Lieberman won’t go anywhere until after November).
And it can also be said that if Rumsfeld is the best guy for the job, the situation in Iraq matters far more, long term, than the 2006 midterms. That is also correct.
I maintain, however, that Rumsfeld’s resignation, if voluntarily submitted, would provide a spark to both our efforts in Iraq, and our prospects at home in November.
It’s ludicrous to suggest that “Rumsfeld is still the best man for the job.” He insisted on a small force invading Iraq and demoted officers like Shinseiki who were correct. The Pentagon did not adequately plan for a post-invasion Iraq and horribly mismanaged the occupation. These factors have led us to the worst foreign policy fiasco in generations. How could he possibly be the best man for the job?
I still have no idea why Bush didn’t make the necessary changes here after he was re – elected. He needed a new regime immediately, but now he seems to be content with going down with Rumsfeld’s ship at this point.
“These factors have led us to the worst foreign policy fiasco in generations.”
Well, you may be overstepping here with that one, Peter. Vietnam, the Iran hostage crisis – the list is indeed endless on that front. It doesn’t look good right now, but it’s hardly catastrophic, by any measure.
I think the effects of Iraq will, over time, be far worse than VietNam. The rationale for sending troops to VietNam — the domino theory — was discredited as the dominos didn’t fall after Saigon fell. Quite the opposite: all of the countries in Southeast Asia (except Burma) are (more or less) capitalist democracies.
I think the short- and long-term effects of Iraq include an increase in terrorism and terrorists; the inability to effectively challenge much more serious threats like Iran and North Korea; the inability to wage pre-emptive war, now that we have cried wolf; and a long-term diminution of our ability to affect world events. Not to mention the lives lost on both sides of the conflict.
As for the Iranian hostage crisis: everyone came back alive. Needless to say, that is far from the case with Iraq.
Not everyone who tried to rescue the Iranian hostages came back alive, though.
As for the Iranian hostage crisis: everyone came back alive.
444 days later. Which was 444 days far too long. Also…
The rationale for sending troops to VietNam — the domino theory — was discredited as the dominos didn’t fall after Saigon fell.
Laos and Cambodia fell to communist governments, with particularly poor results in Cambodia, after the fall of Saigon. Khmer Rouge, anyone?
I agree that 444 days is 444 days too long. However, I don’t think you want to make the case that having Americans held in and then released from captivity is somehow tantamount to the losses we, the Iraqis, and others have suffered since the invasion.
As for Cambodia, you could make the case that the weakening of Norodom Sihanouk and the destabilization of the government which led to the Khmer Rouge were results of American involvement in VietNam. Also, Sihanouk was cozy with China before and during the VietNam war, so it’s inaccurate to suggest that it “fell” to a communist government. However — without excusing the horrors of Pol Pot — if you were to look at Laos and Cambodia today, they refute the domino theory.
But Peter, we’ve discussed this before – the primary reason that Pot was able to embark on his mass annihilation was precisely because the Americans left Vietnam. This contention has been backed up by former loyalists of Pot, as well as former Generals within the Khmer Rouge. It was indeed the Domino theory, but in reverse…
Have we discussed this before? Not that I can recall — however I have enough trouble remembering where I park my car at the mall, so I will take your word for it.
I don’t know enough about Cambodia to challenge your assertion, so I will concede the point. However, considering that a) Sihanouk was possibly the flakiest national leader of the 20th century, b) he played the US against China for years, and c) we were using Cambodian terrority to prosecute the war, I don’t see how Cambodia fell into Communist domination because we left. Seems to me that Cambodia would have gone to a strongman like Pol Pot regardless of whether we stayed in VietNam or left.
This Rummy thing:
I have a feeling it is part of a a much larger rovian push.
The people who are going to vote based on the wish to the firing of rummy are already decided. Rummy staying isn’t going to make them vote any ‘harder’.
There is a group of independents who still have strong support for Rummy, but dislike the WH’s softness.
Rummy made a speech specifically designed to inflame dems, got their response, and followed the next day with the same vein of attack.
My gut tells me that rove has decided to make 06 a referendum about Rummy. Even Limbaugh offerred up a few days ago, that the dems might seek to have a ‘no confidence vote’ for Rummy.
Going after rumsfeld does not bring any new democratic voters, but let’s pretend that he has a strong core of 20% of the US who support him, but are less than impressed with the WH-these people, like myself, who will not support the gop this fall, cannot help but be drawn by the potential that 06 is made into a referendum on Rummy.
Rove is finding the individual arguments that make people vote gop and exploiting them.
06 is currently a local matter, but making rummy a flashpoint, turns it into a referendum on a much larger issue. I point to the unpredicted support than Bush recieved in 04, a 20% boost, as dems tried to have a referendum on Iraq. Rove has been straightfoward in his attempts to make security a key topic.
Rummy is portrayed as devious, manipulative, and sinister-
some of the more desirable traits I would hope for, from the guy running the military. I saw Newt make a point about troop retention rates in spite of Iraq. IT may be the best gauge of how the people fighting there believe that they have a goal they are working towards…something many seem to miss.