Oh, I think a great deal more is going on here than a Hersh reporting event. And I suspect you do so as well. It's certain portions of the Army versus Rumsfeld. How this will all turn out is, obviously, impossible to know and depends, for the most part, on how the invasion goes. Which we really can't tell yet. Much too early.
However, it's clear from most of this stuff that Rumsfeld made one very large mistake, one in which he could not have done otherwise, which was to run roughshod over his opponents. I say he could not do otherwise because that appears to be an integral part of his personality. So when you get Rumsfeld, you get this personality for good and ill.
I disagree with Bill's good-evil analysis on this one: traditional Army generals versus innovative civilian appointees. From the stuff I've read, when Rumsfeld was appointed, there was already in place an intensive debate within the army on precisely these issues of lighter, more mobile forces, which relied more heavily on superior technology and air power. It's not completely impossible that he could have taken the side of these latter folk without so deeply offending the former. Best I can read Shisenski (hope I spelled that right) was one of these. Rumsfeld unnecessarily offended him. But he did that to a great many military folk. Unnecessarily. |
