Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GST who wrote (112646)	8/24/2003 7:54:39 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It's time to fire Rumsfeld ___________________________________________ SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD Sunday, August 24, 2003 The United States has more serious problems in Iraq than President Bush could have imagined when he declared major combat at an end. Before he faces more surprises, the nation's first MBA president should take management action. Relieve Donald Rumsfeld as defense secretary. The president needs a Defense Department in which professional views about what military force levels hold sway, change can occur without perpetual turmoil and military planning avoids undermining diplomacy. None of that is likely under the domineering Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld is brilliant, dedicated and hard-working. It's said he gets results and has won two wars, right? It certainly didn't look that way last week when Americans watched scenes from the bombed U.N. headquarters in Baghdad. Continuing U.S. casualties, sabotage and insecurity plague Iraq. In Afghanistan, we now have more troops than ever and the Taliban have been on the offensive, leading to 90 deaths in a seven-day period. So much for driving them into caves. Afghanistan needs additional resources to become a stable nation. Every day, Iraq's troubles make it more certain that Rumsfeld was wrong in his assessment of troop needs. His rapid action plan brought quick victories. But just as Gen. Eric Shinseki warned, security requires several hundred thousand military. News accounts raise questions about whether Rumsfeld is simply a demanding boss or one who may inadvertently limit what he hears from aides. When pressed on troop-level questions months ago, Rumsfeld repeatedly ducked behind the planning of his generals. He now says that his generals haven't requested additional troops. Such talk has enough suggestion of buck-passing to be a management concern. If Rumsfeld brings some genius to hiring decisions, it hasn't been apparent. He's surrounded himself with neo-conservatives bent on war, including Paul Wolfowitz, who wanted Bush to attack Iraq immediately after the Sept. 11 massacres, and such Defense Policy Board members as Richard Perle and Newt Gingrich. Somehow, Iran-Contra figure John Poindexter was picked to head the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, where he suggested creating a massive personal data program and a terrorism futures trading market. Rumsfeld also has proven to be an impediment to diplomacy. Numerous accounts show how Secretary of State Colin Powell has been undercut within the administration. During the Iraqi war preparations, Rumsfeld insulted allies with such phrases as "the old Europe." In Germany, he followed up with public praise for Romania and Albania's help in Afghanistan, but none for Germany's leading role. Powell needs to be in charge of diplomacy, untroubled by an out-of-control defense secretary. Rumsfeld is the bright, abrasive boss whose usefulness expires quickly. If the president has any thought of a more international approach to security threats, he must remove Rumsfeld from his leadership team. seattlepi.nwsource.com