29Oct03-Bill Berkowitz-Rumsfeld's sticky wicket: Secretary of Defense declines from 'matinee idol' to administration liability
WorkingForChange
10.29.03 Printer-friendly version
Email this item to a friend
Most e-mailed stories
Rumsfeld's sticky wicket
Secretary of Defense declines from 'matinee idol' to administration liability
"We are in a war of ideas, as well as a global war on terror. And the ideas are important and they need to be marshaled, and they need to be communicated in ways that are persuasive to the listeners."-Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, the Washington Times
As the smoke clears from nearly two weeks of intense speculation over what Rumsfeld might or might not have meant in his mid-October bombshell of a memo leaked to USA Today, we are left with a fresh batch of dissembling and yet another pitch from the Pentagon to crank up the propaganda mill. Out of the war-on-terrorism-is-not-going-as-well-as-we-hoped brouhaha has come a call for yet another government agency -- funded by ye old faithful taxpayer -- to spread the good news about the United States, the occupation of Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan, and maybe they'll even throw in a few good words for the beleaguered Secretary himself.
As if the leaked memo wasn't enough to make Rummy squirm, he has also come under fire from Republican and Democratic senators alike over his failure to take action over Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin. Boykin is the faith-filled fundamentalist Christian general who had been speaking at fundamentalist Christian churches around the country claiming that terrorism is a product of Islamic militants acting on behalf of Satan, attacking the U.S. because it is a Christian nation.
According to a Washington Post report, Rumsfeld "declined to criticize the remarks made by the officer, who is the deputy under secretary of defense for intelligence, and he has portrayed an internal Pentagon review of the matter as being undertaken at the general's request." (For more on Lt. Gen. Boykin see "Boykin's Satanic convergence: 'The enemy is a guy named Satan' says administration terrorist hunter".)
In the aftermath of the bombing of Afghanistan, Rumsfeld became the one Administration official of whom television just couldn't get enough: The president called him a "matinee idol"; Wall Street Journal editorial board member Claudia Rosett called Rumsfeld's press briefings "the best new show on television"; CNN's called him a "virtual rock star"; Fox News swooned that he was "a babe magnet for the 70-year old set"; and the National Review had a cover story called "The Stud: Donald Rumsfeld, America's New Pinup."
These days, his cute little cutisms have become tiresome; his bending of the truth an embarrassment; and his scolding of the press has lost its panache. The president has dissed the Secretary by appointing National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to head up a new National Security Council oversight group focused on cleaning up the mess in Iraq. And Newsday recently reported that even Bill Kristol's conservative magazine, the Weekly Standard, headlined a piece in its September 15th issue "Secretary of Stubbornness," "warning that Rumsfeld's 'mulish opposition' to adding more U.S. troops ultimately could lead to defeat." (For an early take on Rumsfeld's fact-twisting, see "Donald Rumsfeld: Matinee Idol or Prevaricator-in-Chief?" by William D. Hartung.)
'Revenge of the toes'
We probably will never know whether the memo was leaked because he "has stepped on many toes and this was the revenge of the toes," as someone told the New York Daily News, or whether it was a calculated effort to regain the spotlight for Rummy, because the Secretary has said that he has no plans to investigate who might have done the leaking.
"I think that up until the memo was leaked they were giving too rosy a scenario," Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, told the Washington Post. "After I came back from Iraq, I thought things were not as good as the administration was painting but not as bad as some were alleging. The leaked memo, I think, puts things in a better perspective than the briefings that we've had from them."
After months of lies, misinformation and disinformation campaigns, and dissembling by White House officials, Rumsfeld's leaked memo confirms that the war on terrorism is in danger of crashing and burning.
Here is the full text of Rumsfeld's October 16, 2003 memo on the war on terror:
TO: Gen. Dick Myers, Paul Wolfowitz, Gen. Pete Pace, Doug Feith FROM: Donald Rumsfeld SUBJECT: Global War on Terrorism
The questions I posed to combatant commanders this week were: Are we winning or losing the Global War on Terror? Is DoD changing fast enough to deal with the new 21st century security environment? Can a big institution change fast enough? Is the USG changing fast enough?
DoD has been organized, trained and equipped to fight big armies, navies and air forces. It is not possible to change DoD fast enough to successfully fight the global war on terror; an alternative might be to try to fashion a new institution, either within DoD or elsewhere -- one that seamlessly focuses the capabilities of several departments and agencies on this key problem.
With respect to global terrorism, the record since September 11th seems to be:
We are having mixed results with Al Qaida, although we have put considerable pressure on them -- nonetheless, a great many remain at large.
USG has made reasonable progress in capturing or killing the top 55 Iraqis.
USG has made somewhat slower progress tracking down the Taliban -- Omar, Hekmatyar, etc.
With respect to the Ansar Al-Islam, we are just getting started.
Have we fashioned the right mix of rewards, amnesty, protection and confidence in the US?
Does DoD need to think through new ways to organize, train, equip and focus to deal with the global war on terror?
Are the changes we have and are making too modest and incremental? My impression is that we have not yet made truly bold moves, although we have made many sensible, logical moves in the right direction, but are they enough?
Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?
Does the US need to fashion a broad, integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists? The US is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists. The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' costs of millions.
Do we need a new organization?
How do we stop those who are financing the radical madrassa schools?
Is our current situation such that "the harder we work, the behinder we get"?
It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog.
Does CIA need a new finding?
Should we create a private foundation to entice radical madrassas to a more moderate course?
What else should we be considering?
Please be prepared to discuss this at our meeting on Saturday or Monday.
The public needs more propaganda
Faster than the Florida Marlins' Juan Pierre going from home to first, we've now moved on from the screeching headlines: "Rumsfeld 'livid' over memo leak," (Fox News Channel Web site); "Rumsfeld Doubts War on Terror" (Special Broadcasting Service, Australia); "Rumsfeld Questions Terror War Progress," (Associated Press); "Leaked Rumsfeld memo offers stark view," (Australian Financial Review); "Rumsfeld Downplays Fallout Over Terror War Memo: Memo To Pentagon Brass Cites 'Mixed Results' But Forecasts Victory" (WFTV.com, Florida), to a call for a new Pentagon-based propaganda outfit.
In a wide-ranging interview with the Unification Church-owned Washington Times, Rumsfeld "suggested a '21st-century information agency in the government' to help in the international battle of ideas, to limit the teaching of terrorism and extremism, and to provide better education."
"We are in a war of ideas, as well as a global war on terror," Rumsfeld told editors and reporters at the Washington Times. "And the ideas are important, and they need to be marshaled, and they need to be communicated in ways that are persuasive to the listeners."
Rumsfeld pointed out that "In many instances, we're not the best messengers. The overwhelming majority of the people of all religions don't believe in terrorism," he said. "They don't believe in running around killing innocent men, women and children. And we need more people standing up and saying that in the world, not just us."
I'm wondering if Rumsfeld didn't provide a sneak peek as to how the new propaganda effort will work. During a recent interview with Paul Moyer, of KNBC, Los Angeles, Rumsfeld was asked whether the deadly attacks on the Red Cross Center and the Al Rashid Hotel in Baghdad were indicative of the U.S. "misjudge[ing] the tenacity of the resistance in Iraq."
Rumsfeld: What it [these attacks] reflects, interestingly, is they tend to be attacking successes that are taking place in Iraq... . The terrorists, the remnants of the Saddam Hussein regime clearly are disturbed that progress is being made in that country and they're attempting to dissuade the Iraqi people from cooperating with the Coalition."
Moyer: "How do you expect the American people to vibrate to the positive spin that you're trying to put on this and the President's trying to put on this when Americans are being killed, there are attacks each and every day, and this latest attack at the Al Rashid, they penetrated a defense area, a secure defense area. How can the American people see it your way when these things are happening every day and Americans are being killed?"
Rumsfeld: "First of all, I'm not putting a positive spin on it. I just have said that this is a tough business, it's a dangerous business, it's always a tragedy when Americans get killed or Iraqis get killed, and it's a war, a low intensity conflict that's taking place. So you're suggesting that that's a rosy picture I think is a misunderstanding of the situation.
"Second, I would say you asked about the American people. My experience with the American people over 71 years of my lifetime is that they've got a pretty good center of gravity. They are thoughtful, and they weigh things and they listen and they make judgments, and they tend not to rush to judgment simply because people say things that may or may not be true."
These days Rummy is getting headlines such as: "A hawk with ruffled feathers: U.S. defense chief suffers a huge come-down" (Financial Times); "Rumsfeld Image Takes Some Hits" (Newsday); and "Is Rumsfeld Losing His Mojo?: The Defense Secretary Finds Himself Fighting Battles at Home" (Time).
If Donald Rumsfeld were interviewing himself, the conversation might run something like this:
"Is the Secretary in trouble?"
"You bet."
"Does he like seeing headlines disparaging his efforts?"
"It's not a question of liking or dislike."
"Was it inevitable that his popularity would take a dive?"
"We're a free people. And that's the wonderful thing about our country."
"Will he be able to extricate himself from the mess?"
"He will if he does and will not if he doesn't."
"Finally, should Don Rumsfeld resign?"
"He should resign if he should!"
workingforchange.com |
