Daddy-O à Go-Go (rpkrajewski) wrote,
Daddy-O à Go-Go

  • Music:

Sympathy For the Devil

I was pretty surprised when this leaked memo from Donald Rumsfeld popped up. Ever since the war in Afghanistan, the administration's rationale how it conducts in the war on terror (if there really can be such a thing in the first place) has been a jumble, never articulated, with no clear, honest, or respectful explanation of why the US is throwing its military might around in the way that it is. The relative clarity of late 2001 is long gone. The invasion of Iraq was driven more by the opportunism of neo-conservatives in the administration than the execution of any coherent anti-terrorist strategy, as nearly all cited links with threats to the security of the United States, and even of the Gulf region, rather tenuous. The neo-conservatives hope for a “democratic domino effect,” but hope is no substitute for planning. I am ecstatic that Saddam is gone, and the situation is quite salvageable, but the apparent discounting of negative scenarios by ideologues in the administration has cost us goodwill among our allies and over $150 billion to the taxpayers of the United States.

For us non-ditto heads, we wonder how the hell can the various talking heads of this administration (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell) say what they can say with a straight face. (And Cheney's desperate, divisive, rhetoric ? Don't get me started…) They can't even present a coherent front, since Bush is incapable of putting across both the broad sweep and specific strategies for the goals he wants to accomplish.

And now this memo. It's got something we don't expect from the usual gung-ho Bush II conservatives – introspection:

"Are we winning or losing the global war on terrorism? Does the U.S. need to fashion a broad, integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists?
And what about this:
He challenged Pentagon leaders to consider and discuss troubling issues, including whether or not the United States was capturing or killing terrorists at a faster rate than they were being created by extremists.
I'll grant that there's probably a little more soul-searching in the right in private, but liberals do it in public. (And that's pounced upon as weakness, but that is not the story for today.)

Rumsfeld would be the guy to do this. No matter where he is, he never quite fits in. I probably won't even be writing about this, but a few weeks ago I'd read about his days in the Nixon administration, when he headed one of the anti-poverty programs. (It's in the November Atlantic magazine; not online but a related interview with the author is available.) Nixon thought he was putting Rumsfeld in right field, politically, but instead Rumsfeld threw himself into the job and became an advocate for what the government could do to fight poverty. Rumsfeld was more of a liberal Republican back then, and advocated withdrawing the troops from Vietnam. But Nixon tolerated him because he provided the liberal view that could prove to be politically useful.

It would have been a little more, err, err prudent, if such soul-searching had been in effect two years ago, but since we're stuck with this bunch until 2005, I'll take what shreds of hope I can find. [If you want more jabber about this, Tacitus has a good discussion.</a>.]

Tags: dick, iraq, politics, rummy, w
  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded