BCT Editorial – 11/13/06

This page was last updated on November 13, 2006.

Fitting farewell; Editorial; Beaver County Times; November 13, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Rumsfeld couldn’t leave office without hurling a final insult at us

“Donald Rumsfeld still doesn’t get it.

“Even as he was being ushered out as Secretary of Defense after being made the first and most visible scapegoat for Tuesday’s GOP election debacle, Rumsfeld refused to acknowledge his role in the post-invasion quagmire in Iraq.

“Standing next to President Bush in a brief White House appearance announcing his departure, Rumsfeld said the war ‘is not well known. It was not well understood. It is complex for people to comprehend.’”

[RWC] Here’s the full statement by Sec. Rumsfeld. When you read it, you’ll understand why the editorial cherry picked only a small portion.

“Bob Gates, my congratulations to you on this nomination. My very best wishes. Look forward to working with you in the transition.

“Mr. President, thank you for your kind words, and the wholly unexpected opportunity you provided me to serve in the Department of Defense again these past years -- six years. It’s been quite a time. It recalls to mind the statement by Winston Churchill, something to the effect that ‘I have benefited greatly from criticism, and at no time have I suffered a lack thereof.’ (Laughter.)

“The great respect that I have for your leadership, Mr. President, in this little understood, unfamiliar war, the first war of the 21st century -- it is not well-known, it was not well-understood, it is complex for people to comprehend. And I know, with certainty, that over time the contributions you’ve made will be recorded by history.

“I must say that it’s been the highest honor of my life to serve with the talented men and women of the Department of Defense, the amazing men and women -- young men and women in uniform. It’s a privilege. And their patriotism, their professionalism, their dedication is truly an inspiration. They have my respect; they will remain in my prayers always.”

“Arrogant to the end. Donald Rumsfeld is right, and you’re wrong.”

[RWC] I’ll be kind and just say this is a creative interpretation. As I’ve noted before, with reading comprehension skills like these, Times editorial authors are well qualified to be liberal nominees for judgeships.

“It was that hubris that got the United States into the mess it is in today. It is that disdain for others that has led to more than 2,800 men and women in the U.S. military needlessly losing their lives in Iraq. It is that tunnel vision that has seen thousands of men and women in our military wounded and maimed.”

[RWC] What is it with liberals that they are so quick to dismiss the sacrifices of those who volunteer to defend us?

“When the history of the invasion and occupation of Iraq is written, Rumsfeld, his Pentagon and the Bush White House will be judged harshly for their absolute and total failure to plan adequately for the post-Saddam Hussein era.

“Actually, ‘plan’ is too complimentary a word to use to describe the way in which Rumsfeld’s Pentagon approached the problem. Basically, they were winging it, making things up as they went along.”

[RWC] The saying, “no plan survives contact with the enemy” exists for a reason. Sadly, wars don’t go like episodes of “Mission: Impossible.”

“It didn’t need to be that way. However, the evidence is overwhelming that the war party in the Bush administration refused to listen to those who warned that pacifying Iraq after the invasion would be more difficult than the war itself.

“The pro-war faction didn’t stop there. Internally and externally, they consistently ridiculed and undermined those who opposed them.”

[RWC] Who claimed anyone was “pro-war?” As far as “undermining” opponents, isn’t that what everyone does when they present their side? When I present facts disputing the content of this editorial, I’m undermining the authors.

“The best and most public example of this came after Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki broke from the company line and had the honesty to tell a congressional committee at a pre-war hearing that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to occupy and pacify Iraq. Testifying later before the same panel, Rumsfeld’s chief deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, ridiculed Shinseki and rejected his estimate.”

[RWC] Just before he made the “several hundred thousand troops” statement, Gen. Shinseki also said, “In specific numbers, I would have to rely on combatant commander’ exact requirements.” You can understand why the editorial omitted that tidbit.

While Messrs. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz rejected Gen. Shinseki’s estimate, they were going on the advice of Gen. Tommy Franks, commander of U.S. Central Command. According to Gen. Franks’ memoir, “As I concluded my summary of the existing 1003 plan, I noted that we’d trimmed planned force levels from 500,000 troops to around 400,000. But even that was still way too large, I told the secretary.” Gen. Franks was the “combatant commander” Gen. Shinseki referred to.

Further, neither Sec. Rumsfeld nor Mr. Wolfowitz “ridiculed Shinseki.” This is more of the crap that you can’t disagree with a position supported by liberals without being accused of character assassination. For example, if you disagree with a liberal’s military assessment of anything, you’re accused of questioning the liberal’s patriotism.

“We know who history has shown to be right.”

[RWC] Let me get this right. Somehow the Times knows that everything would have been fine with “several hundred thousand troops?” Remember, the people who claim we needed “more boots on the ground” are the same people claiming our presence is the problem and we need to reduce our “footprint.”

Here’s a list of other things the experts claimed would happen.

· The oil fields would be set afire à la Kuwait in 1991.

· There would be a mass exodus of Iraqi refugees to surrounding countries causing a humanitarian and political crisis.

· Israel would get drawn in, resulting in a Middle East meltdown.

· We didn’t have enough military manpower in-theater.

· When we launched air and ground assaults simultaneously, we were doomed because we weren’t “softening up” the Iraqi military as we did in 1991.

· Without a thrust from the north, we were doomed.

· When we started without the 4th Infantry Division, we were doomed.

· When we encountered sandstorms, we were doomed.

· When the temperatures climbed, our soldiers would be doomed because their chemical and biological warfare suits would “cook” them.

· Marines and soldiers were going without ammunition and food.

· When we advanced with incredible speed, our supply lines were too long.

· When we advanced with incredible speed, it was “too easy.”

· At every step of the way, the battle plan was failing and being re-evaluated.

· As we approached Baghdad, the “elite” Republican Guard would really put up a fight.

You get the idea.

One last point on the “several hundred thousand troops” statement. Not once does the editorial question whether “several hundred thousand troops” was even feasible. I don’t know if that level was feasible or not, but it’s a question that needs to be considered.

I was wrong, here’s my last point. Now that we have North Korea with a nuke, will we see an editorial telling us President Truman was wrong for firing Gen. Douglas MacArthur because the general publicly disagreed with Truman’s approach to fighting the Korean War? I won’t hold my breath waiting. It’s different for Democrats.

“But Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz didn’t stop there. They know how to hold a grudge. Rumsfeld named the general’s successor while Shinseki had more than a year to serve out his term as chief of staff. Then, to drive home their personal disdain for Shinseki, the top two Pentagon officials insulted him by declining to attend the 2003 ceremony marking his retirement after a 38-year career.”

[RWC] This is what I call the Shinseki myth, though “lie” may be a more accurate description. Gen. Shinseki didn’t make his comments to the Senate committee until February 2003, nearly 10 months after his successor had allegedly been named. (See more about that just below.) Though I didn’t get my information there, FactCheck.org also debunked this myth back in 2004. Since Times editorials routinely refer to FactCheck.org, I can only assume the editorial author intentionally tried to mislead us.

On a side note, I don’t know when Gen. Shinseki’s successor was selected. As close as I can figure out, Sec. Rumsfeld didn’t send his recommendation to President Bush until the day before Gen. Shinseki retired. Though it was “leaked” during April 2002 a replacement had been chosen, the person named in the leak turned out not to be the guy.

Regarding the retirement ceremony, I understand Sec. Rumsfeld said he and other civilians were not invited. Who knows? For what it’s worth, Gen. Shinseki didn’t attend the retirement of his second in command. Does that mean Gen. Shinseki had “personal disdain” for Gen. Keane?

“What the American people understand about this war is that Rumsfeld is responsible for the failed policies that have led to too many needless combat deaths. What is well known by them is that far too many men and women in the U.S. military have been maimed and wounded because of Rumsfeld’s blunders. What is not too complex for them to grasp is that a first-class military organization is being ground down because of Rumsfeld’s failures.”

[RWC] Once again the editorial demeans the sacrifice of military lives by referring to them as “needless combat deaths.”

Note the editorial wants us to believe Sec. Rumsfeld is responsible for developing strategy, tactics, et cetera, and that he ignores everything his generals tell him. In truth, from all the testimony I’ve heard, President Bush and Sec. Rumsfeld come up with high-level objectives and leave it up to the generals/admirals to tell them what is needed.

Ah, it’s not a real Iraq editorial without the obligatory “ground down” or something similar. This is at least the 10^th time a Times editorial has referred to our military as being “ground up,” “ground down,” et cetera. These claims go back at least to April 2004, after only about a year in Iraq.

“It was exemplified by his final official insult, in which he basically said that the American people are stupid. In its own way, it was a fitting farewell for a man who is blind to his own frailties.”

[RWC] Gee, I need to work on my reading comprehension. I read Sec. Rumsfeld’s comments and didn’t come away with anything close to the Times interpretation.