The Rumsfeld Stain

Bob Herbert editorialized in NYT How does Donald Rumsfeld survive as defense secretary?

By doing a very good job

Much of what has happened to the military on his watch has been catastrophic.

Only if you like a military structured to fight Russia in Europe. Under Donald Rumsfield the Taliban are no longer in control in Afganistan, Al Quida no longer has that country to set up training camps, and the Afganistanies have now had national elections and have written a Constitution. Saddam Hussain is no longer in charge in Iraq, the Kurds are no longer being gassed, the Shia are no longer being oppressed by a small minority, the country has had a national election and is working on a constitution.

In Iraq, more than 1,600 American troops have died and many thousands have been maimed in a war that Mr. Rumsfeld mishandled from the beginning and still has no idea how to win.

That followed 3,000 American civilians dying in attacks on New York and Washington by people who would prefer to attack us again here, but instead their attacks have been limited to Iraq and Afganistan.

The generals are telling us now that the U.S. is likely to be bogged down in Iraq for years,

We may have troops there for years, but we still have troops in Germany and Japan, and how long ago was WWII?

and there are whispers circulating about the possibility of "defeat."

Only by Liberals hoping for such results; the same people that said we were "bogged down" and in a quagmire when a sandstorm delayed the move up to Baghdad for a day or two.

Potential recruits are staying away from the armed forces in droves.

The economy has improved because of the Bush tax cuts.

Most Americans want no part of the administration's hapless venture in Iraq. A woman in Connecticut with two college-age sons said to me recently: "My boys should die in Baghdad? For what?"

Would she prefer they die fighting Islamic Extremists in Boston, MA or Bangor, ME or Bismarck, ND or Broken Arrow, OK?

Jon Henke blogged I don't use the word often, but in his latest column Bob Herbert is just dishonest. The crux of his argument is this:

The insurgency in Iraq appeared to take Mr. Rumsfeld completely by surprise. He expected to win the war in a walk. Or, perhaps, a strut. [...] A senior American officer, quoted last week in The Times, said that while he still believed the effort in Iraq would succeed, it could take "many years."

Apparently, Mr Herbert doesn't read his own newspaper...

"It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another," he said, "but it will be a long, hard slog."

I mean, c'mon. Herbert knows about this. It was in all the papers and everything. Rumsfeld once indicated that the initial battle to topple the Hussein regime and defeat the Iraqi Army might take "six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." That was correct. I know of no Rumsfeld speculation about the length of the occupation beyond the "long, hard slog" description of the memo...and that's exactly at odds with Mr Herbert's description of Rumsfelds stance.