The Rumsfeld memo

posted at 5:51 pm on December 3, 2006 by Allahpundit

I don’t have much to say about it but it’s everywhere so I’m obliged to blog. Re: the substance, he tosses everything out there except the one thing that would have the most appreciable impact: more troops, more troops, more troops. Maybe that’s because we don’t have them, maybe it’s because he knows America wouldn’t stand for it at this point even if we did, maybe he still believes we have enough to win (unlikely, given what he says about going “minimalist” with our goals), or maybe he just doesn’t want to lose face by admitting that his critics were right all along.

But never mind that. Was this really written by the Secretary of Defense for White House consumption? Come on:

¶ Begin modest withdrawals of U.S. and Coalition forces (start “taking our hand off the bicycle seat”), so Iraqis know they have to pull up their socks, step up and take responsibility for their country.

¶ Provide money to key political and religious leaders (as Saddam Hussein did), to get them to help us get through this difficult period.

¶ Initiate a massive program for unemployed youth. It would have to be run by U.S. forces, since no other organization could do it.

It’s so dumbed down (“taking our hand off the bicycle seat”) and bereft of detail that it’s practically useless. And note the gratuitous reference to Saddam. If Rumsfeld thinks we should appropriate some of his tactics, why not just say what those tactics are instead of tainting them by noting their Baathist pedigree? To me, it reads like something that was prepared with an eye to wider consumption. Could Rummy himself have leaked it? Consider three possibilities.

1. Bush or his supporters leaked it to embarrass Rumsfeld and/or boost Gates. Nearly everyone thinks Rumsfeld’s strategy in Iraq has failed except for the hardest core of Bush’s base, which lionizes Rummy for his steely demeanor and unwillingness to compromise. Putting this out there shows the diehards that even their hero thinks it’s time for a new approach. In fact, when asked this morning by Stephanopoulos about a change of course in Iraq, what did Hadley do? He pointed to Rumsfeld’s memo! See, neocons? It’s what Don would have wanted. The question then becomes, does the memo really represent Rumsfeld’s thinking or was it written at Bush’s behest to give him some cover from hawks in maneuvering towards a cut and run posture? And if Bush did ask him to write it, did he do so as part of a false promise that Rumsfeld would remain on as SecDef if he did? Why else would Rummy have written it, then? Intrigue!

2. Rumsfeld or his supporters leaked it to embarrass Bush. Captain Ed and Seixon both think this is what happened. It makes the most sense. Note that the memo was drafted the day before the election, with Republicans headed for a beating and Rumsfeld perhaps aware that the axe was about to fall. (Bob Novak says he didn’t find out until the day he was canned but the Times reported previously that Bush had been talking to him for weeks about leaving.) If Rummy suspected he was on his way out, he could have dashed this off as a last-ditch attempt to save his job — or, if he knew his fate was sealed, to confound his critics and undermine Bush’s assertions that replacing him was necessary to chart a “new course.” Says Captain Ed:

[I]t will be interesting after this memo to see how the press and the Democrats approach Rumsfeld. They have made him the Devil incarnate for the last three years for his prosecution of the war. Now that he has endorsed a lighter approach to Iraq, similar to what the media and the opposition have demanded, will they rehabilitate Rumsfeld as a “wise man” on the war? I suspect they will if the Bush administration continues to remain unwilling to adopt whatever recommendations the ISG provides in their report this week. We will see Rumsfeld interviewed on major talk shows in a much more respectful manner, asked to expand on the thoughts in this memo and his evaluation of why we need a “major adjustment”.

It’s hard for me to believe Bush won’t substantially endorse the ISG recommendations — otherwise why bring in Gates, who’s famous for advocating dialogue with Iran? — but if he doesn’t then this is what’ll happen. The memo thus becomes a type of insurance policy for Rumsfeld, giving him the credibility he needs to criticize/embarrass Bush later.

3. Quid pro quo. A combo of the first two. Bush and Rumsfeld conceived the memo in tandem. Bush gets cover to pull out, Rumsfeld gets eleventh-hour credibility.

So much for Rummy. Skip the memo and instead read the Times of London, which has two stories out today about the depravity of the Shiite death squads. Nothing is sacred:

In the war for Baghdad, mosques serve as garrisons. Sunnis use religious sanctuaries as strongholds to fight for mixed neighbourhoods. Shia extremists convert their mosques and prayer rooms, called husseiniyas, into execution chambers

“The guy begged them and screamed for God to save him. But the man started to cut and shrieked ya Allah, ya Allah. Then there was a cracking sound like a sheep being slaughtered. The man pulled off the Amariyah guy’s head. His eyes were still open.

That’s not the worst of it. Here’s where we go from barbarism to Nazi-esque extermination of undesirables:

There is said to be mounting evidence that Shi’ite death squads are being encouraged to roam hospitals in search of fresh Sunni victims, allegedly at the behest of officials in the Shi’ite-dominated health ministry

Last month, an anxious paramedic approached Jawad. “What he told me,” Jawad said, “was like opening the gates of hell.”

The paramedic took a phial from the pocket of his white coat and showed it to him. “It was a drug called Neostigmine used by anaesthetists. The only place to find this drug is in operating theatres,” he said. Injected in high doses, it will cause cardiac arrest.

“Who gave you this drug?” Jawad asked. “The ministry of health security gave it to me and asked me to give it to one of the patients,” the paramedic said. “But I can’t go through with it.”

“How did they know about the patient?” Jawad asked. The answer confirmed what the porter he called Ali had told him. “If you call them and tell them about patients from Anbar, Diyala or Adhamiyah, you get $300. If you help to get rid of one, you get another $300.”

Remember, the conventional wisdom is that only a “political solution” between the Sunnis and Shiites in government will improve the security situation. Meanwhile, the Shiites in charge of the health ministry are operating einsatzgruppen in the country’s hospitals.

But hey, look on the bright side. At least the occupation will be over soon.

time.jpg

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Actually, he does suggest more troops:

¶Move a large fraction of all U.S. Forces into Baghdad to attempt to control it.

¶Increase Brigade Combat Teams and U.S. forces in Iraq substantially.

Granted, he does that as among those “under the table” options that are less desireable, but they are there.

As for the vagueness charge. Dude, it’s a memo to POTUS. How detailed do you think it needs to be? You list the options, the big man picks those he likes, you then come back with the details.

armylawyer on December 3, 2006 at 5:56 PM

But shouldn’t the big man be given some sense first of which options are more practicable than others? What’s the point of handing him a menu without the prices on it?

Allahpundit on December 3, 2006 at 5:59 PM

The prices come later. Bullet points, then discussion, then more discussion, then the plan that exposes the least amount of political loss is implemented. The memo is not indicative of anything.

Rummy is in the position of scapegoat from the beginning. What does he do when the Generals ask for and need X but are ordered to procede with Y? Bush was as loyal as he could be for a long as he could be. In the end Rummy was expendable. No conspiracys here, just normal business spun to make news.

Theworldisnotenough on December 3, 2006 at 6:26 PM

“The guy begged them and screamed for God to save him. But the man started to cut and shrieked ya Allah, ya Allah. Then there was a cracking sound like a sheep being slaughtered. The man pulled off the Amariyah guy’s head. His eyes were still open.”

“How did they know about the patient?” Jawad asked. The answer confirmed what the porter he called Ali had told him. “If you call them and tell them about patients from Anbar, Diyala or Adhamiyah, you get $300. If you help to get rid of one, you get another $300.”

I wonder why the old Testament commanded the Jews to put all of the enemy to the sword?
Is there any difference in barbarity between then and now?

The question has to be asked, who commands the respect of the Iraqis?
Anyone?

Speakup on December 3, 2006 at 6:27 PM

With every leak I email the DOJ the same question: When are you going to invetigate and prosecute the leakers? And I get back the same response. Chirp. Chirp. Chirp.

JustTruth101 on December 3, 2006 at 6:28 PM

That’s where the distinction b/w “above” and “below the table” is important. The options below the table are there for a reason as are those above it. Included in that “analysis” (such as it is) are things like practicability.

And I misspoke when I said the big man “picks” those he likes. He picks them in the sense of saying “tell me more” rather than a firm commitment.

As for practicability (or rather, practicality)–you can’t very well expect every memo to the WH to be a full briefing or operational plan. You have to KISS and then elaborate when required. But placing some options below or above the table is a shorthand version of that analysis. The big man is free to say “I know you think X is a bad idea, but tell me why.”

armylawyer on December 3, 2006 at 6:28 PM

I have read this earlier. It sounded weird to me.

3. Quid pro quo.

I take this to be the acceptable explanation. He has begun his legacy building.

We will see Rumsfeld interviewed on major talk shows in a much more respectful manner, asked to expand on the thoughts in this memo and his evaluation of why we need a “major adjustment”.

I don’t see this happening at any time. I personally like rumsfeld appraoch–do it the hard way. This memo might be his last words to relieve the administration from the burden of reexplaining why he is not office. I just hate all this leaked stuff.

Ouabam on December 3, 2006 at 6:31 PM

It’s so dumbed down

Was thinking the same thing. It’s like a lib wrote it trying to think like a conservative; hence, as you noted, a lack of a detailed plan.

On a side note, has anyone floated the idea of moving the Capitol? I mean, this is the historical thing to do when completely changing the political/social/governmental structure of a nation. Seriously, why have the country’s capitol in the heart of the opposition to reconstruction?

MirCat on December 3, 2006 at 6:32 PM

Rumsfeld’s failure was twofold: imagination and history.

He read too little of the latter (from Herodotus to Mao, Caesar to Black Hawk Down), and showed a growing dearth of the former. Faced with classical tricks of guerrilla attack, he frowned.

War is a contest of imagery as well as of militaries.

He kept the war on an absurd “liberational” mode beyond that initial-misconception’s “rallying” usefulness -which turned out to be immmediately, -when the (number of?) troops failed to secure the country during so-called “looting” (which, in reality, was: strategic weapons theft, critical records destruction, the setting up of caches of money and equipment for any future insurgency, probing the confusion of the advanced guard and penetrating the evident uncertainty of the inflowing “Coalition” troops in order to position moles and insert spies).

Abu Ghraib was his psy-ops disaster and sword to fall on. Remaining at the helm after it broke, and simply saying “the President wouldn’t let him resign” is just odd.

He became a mass of flaws, disruptively ineffectual, and he ended defending himself more than the country.

Rumsfled may be a decent guy, but he should have handed in his desk plaque and left the job after the pictures of “prisoner humiliation” showed that his command was such slipshod condition that it allowed these outrageously self-defeating/enemy propaganda gold mine, and easily-avoided bit of “technical” stupidity to be able to be recorded (allowing unrestricted cameras in secure areas is imbecilic when fighting a p.r. as well as military campaign), and then, equally incompetant, for letting the images get out.

He can do a lot of good and clear up his mixed record to a great extent by devoting the rest of his llfe to post-9/11 veterans affairs.

As one of his old wrestling buddies said:

You broke it, you own it.”

Let him own to getting vets better health care, stronger education/job assistence, and give them a way to make the meaning of their sacrifice
transcend the current national schizophrenia about the issue of why we fight.

profitsbeard on December 3, 2006 at 6:44 PM

I’m sorry I have to repeat this on every thread:

If Charlie Rangel got his stupid draft when he first wanted it, the first draftees would be coming out of training now.

However, even if there literally a million new troops available to go to Iraq, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference (other than to provide more targets and increase anti-American feelings everywhere.)

As long as the rules of engagement remain as they are, As long as the JAGoffs get to second guess the combat leaders on every action, no matter how insignificant; As long as the NYT, WaPo, CBS and CNN get to effect strategy and tactics, things are only going to get worse.

I’d hate to be an Iraqui; The coming blood bath is going to make the ‘killing fields’ of Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam after the weenies made us leave S.E.A. look like a walk in the park.

And once the radical islamists slaughter every moderate in Iraq, they will have an oil rich state to facilitate widespread terrorism throughout the civilized world.

LegendHasIt on December 3, 2006 at 6:53 PM

Abu Ghraib was his psy-ops disaster and sword to fall on. Remaining at the helm after it broke, and simply saying “the President wouldn’t let him resign” is just odd.

The history of Abu Ghraid is interesting. The result from it were amazing. The tactic used in Abu Ghraid was suggested by a soldier who suggested that making fun of Arab men masculinity breaks their will. They would do anything to avoid being portrayed in such a light. The commanders in charge gave the soldiers a go-ahead. The commanders were not expecting such madness. This is the reason why no commanders were indicted. Rumsfeld was made aware of the tactic; but he was not shown the procedures. He accepted it because it yeilded intelligence.

easily-avoided bit of “technical” stupidity to be able to be recorded (allowing unrestricted cameras in secure areas is imbecilic when fighting a p.r. as well as military campaign)

It would have been worse if such cameras were not there. The public would have charged him of knowingly performing the act. As for controlling leaks, he cannot effectively do that. Take a look at history.

Ouabam on December 3, 2006 at 7:03 PM

I wonder if we are not seeing the fruits of a leak hunting expedition. One of the best ways to find a leak is to throw out a little meat and see who host the BBQ.

Gwillie on December 3, 2006 at 10:26 PM

Now you guys are involved in conspiracy theories. Every Rumsfeld action and Bush action has to have 12 different angles to it. You sound like Dhimmicrats.

This stuff just happens. Rumsfeld has been making memos to the WH like this the whole time. Dozens of pieces of correspondence go over every day for review. There is a diarrhea of paper. Armylawyer has it correct. You guys need to get a grip. Your government doesn’t work any better than your management team at work. Shit happens and newspapers just pick and choose what they report.

There is nothing nefarious about this memo, the timing, or anything else. Someone was looking for it for a story, found something they could twist and you guys feel you must make a story about it as well. As far as leaks, now you should find the guy and cut his balls off. That’s an action I can agree with.

Next question.

Subsunk

Subsunk on December 3, 2006 at 11:15 PM

That’s not the worst of it. Here’s where we go from barbarism to Nazi-esque extermination of undesirables:

Rest assured that if we pull out of this mess and just become spectators, we will have no choice but to go back in when it goes from bad to worse.

Rick on December 4, 2006 at 12:41 AM

With every leak I email the DOJ the same question: When are you going to invetigate and prosecute the leakers? And I get back the same response. Chirp. Chirp. Chirp. — JustTruth101

…the DOJ? Same as the DOS. Same as the Atreides taking over Arrakis. The Harkonnen left embedded assasins behind. The difference is that they aren’t sliding about between walls. They’ve all got nice gigs, wear nice suits, have clearances, and are trusted to do their jobs. The similarity is that they’re blood-sucking Clintonite stooges.

I hate to use a popular-culture reference, especially based on the movies (I never read the books)…but, honestly, since the reports of hooligans gluing down keyboard keys and trashing offices — exaggerated or not (and I suspect not) — this has been the mental image that Clinton-era holdovers and career DOJ and DOS “loyal-to-none” ideologes have given rise to.

Puritan1648 on December 4, 2006 at 12:45 AM

I am thinking Rumsfeld wrote this to show that he would welcome his new left-wing overlords with open arms. When he went before Congress he could pull out this memo and say, “See, I am an advocate for change. I’ve already been trying to change the strategy.” I’m sorry, but Rumsfeld sould have been open to new strategies about 12 months ago. He a smart man, but the smartest man in the room doesn’t always have the best plan.

BohicaTwentyTwo on December 4, 2006 at 9:04 AM

So. Even Rumsfeld is bailing on his own strategy. I mean “strategy”. I agree with AP, this is a laundry list of tactics, what a frightening glimpse into the mind of the man in charge of our military.

honora on December 4, 2006 at 11:32 AM

However, even if there literally a million new troops available to go to Iraq, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference (other than to provide more targets and increase anti-American feelings everywhere.)

As long as the rules of engagement remain as they are, As long as the JAGoffs get to second guess the combat leaders on every action, no matter how insignificant; As long as the NYT, WaPo, CBS and CNN get to effect strategy and tactics, things are only going to get worse.

….

LegendHasIt on December 3, 2006 at 6:53 PM

I was going to say something about this topic, but LegendHasIt has already said it.

thirteen28 on December 4, 2006 at 11:33 AM

Based on the excerpt, I’m amazed anyone’s treating the memo as anything other than an obvious fraud.

Kralizec on December 4, 2006 at 11:34 AM

It’s so dumbed down
Was thinking the same thing. It’s like a lib wrote it trying to think like a conservative; hence, as you noted, a lack of a detailed plan.

I was thinking it sounded just like a conservative who has had his ass handed to him and has realized he is bereft of ideas.

On a side note, has anyone floated the idea of moving the Capitol? I mean, this is the historical thing to do when completely changing the political/social/governmental structure of a nation. Seriously, why have the country’s capitol in the heart of the opposition to reconstruction?

MirCat on December 3, 2006 at 6:32 PM

Now this sounds like a conservative!! Bravo!!! That pesky reconstruction thing, that’s the core of all of problems!

honora on December 4, 2006 at 11:34 AM

There is nothing nefarious about this memo, the timing, or anything else. Someone was looking for it for a story, found something they could twist and you guys feel you must make a story about it as well. As far as leaks, now you should find the guy and cut his balls off. That’s an action I can agree with.

Next question.

Subsunk on December 3, 2006 at 11:15 PM

Thank you. Close this thread and let’s move on.

right2bright on December 4, 2006 at 1:40 PM

As long as the rules of engagement remain as they are, As long as the JAGoffs get to second guess the combat leaders on every action, no matter how insignificant; As long as the NYT, WaPo, CBS and CNN get to effect strategy and tactics, things are only going to get worse.

Exactly

PRCalDude on December 4, 2006 at 3:49 PM

Rummy, along with many others overlooked four things:

1)Invasions have to be followed by occupations
2) The Army of occupation needs to be (more or less) separate from the rest of the Armed Forces.
3) A federal system of government is the only thing that will work, a unitary system is doomed from the get-go.
4) The one overhwelming reason to stay in Iraq is to avoid a caliphate.

The sins were sins of ommission, not commission. And in that viewpoint, armylawyer got it right. The rest is routine give and take. If you want a pathological SecDef, research what “Strange” fed to a chemically-dependent JFK and an eager-to-be-deluded LBJ. In cleaning up that mess, success was defined as getting the dead down from 300 a week to a mere 100 weekly while retreating and NOT being routed. (See: Abrams, Creighton W. God Bless Him and Rest His Soul!)

Oilpatcher on December 4, 2006 at 7:54 PM

I hope you on the list have not bought into the “more troops” BS. They would only serve one purpose…more targets for terrorists. Troop level is not now and has not at any time been a legit issue. It’s way too easy to throw that phrase around and sound smart. The reality is far different. At this point it’s not about troop-levels it’s about how those troops are deployed and what ops they’re performing. We won the war, now the Iraqi’s mut win their freedom…with our help…

ritethinker on December 4, 2006 at 9:07 PM