�As you know, you go to war with the army you have.
They�re not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.� --Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
Name one part of
the occupation of Iraq that has succeeded?
From the shortage
of soldiers, to de-Ba�athification, to disbanding the Iraqi military, to the
lack of body-armor, to leaving the ammo-dumps unprotected, to Falluja, to Abu
Ghraib, to Haditha, to the stage-managed, public relations Jessica
Lynch gambit (which was later exposed as a sham), every facet of Iraqi war
and occupation has been a complete and utter failure.
And whose name is
on that failure? Whose name features most prominently on the greatest strategic
disaster in American history?
Don Rumsfeld.
Major General Paul
Eaton summarized Rumsfeld�s dismal performance this way: �Rumsfeld has shown
himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically, and is far
more than anyone else responsible for what has happened to our important
mission in Iraq.�
Keep in mind that
Eaton is a conservative Republican and a firm believer in America�s preemptive
war in Iraq. His comments simply reflect his ability to objectively judge
performance and to assign blame where blame belongs. In this case, the person
who is most responsible for the bungled policy in Iraq is Don Rumsfeld.
Fellow Lt. General
Gregory Newbold was equally critical of Rumsfeld and said, �The decision to
invade Iraq was done with a casualness and a swagger that are the special
province of those who have never had to execute these missions -- or bury the
results.�
Newbold is right;
they don�t �bury the results� at the American Enterprise Institute, or at the
Pentagon, or at the many smoke-filled, bastions where American plutocrats like
Rumsfeld lurk about, but in small-town America; Bakersfield, Winooski, Devils
Lake, where parents and young widows choke back the tears for the men who lost
their lives in Rumsfeld�s folly. That�s who pays the bill for Rumsfeld�s
arrogance.
Rumsfeld�s failures
are legion, but they do not compare to the disgrace he has heaped on the United
States through his authorization of the cruel and inhuman treatment of
prisoners in American custody. There is a clear record of official memoranda,
which lead straight to the office of the secretary of defense, connecting
Rumsfeld to a regime of torture and abuse directed at men who have never been
charged with a crime and who are the unwitting victims of a terrorist witch-hunt.
Rumsfeld�s
involvement in these crimes puts him well outside our fundamental traditions
and beliefs as Americans. His conduct is an assault on the basic principles
which we hold most dear and which are written into our founding documents.
�We hold these
truths to be self evident . . ."
It is impossible to
grasp how someone can be raised in America, matriculate at American
universities, participate in the American political system, and spend the bulk
of his life breathing in the same American customs and mores as the rest of us
and, yet, be so completely divorced from the most essential values of the
culture.
Rumsfeld is like a
man who has passed through his entire life impervious to his surroundings and
to the nations� prevailing ethos. He is, quite simply, the most un-American
character to ever serve in high office.
So, it is
surprising, then, that Rumsfeld, whose litany of failures in Iraq and
Afghanistan follow him like the plumage on a peacock, would decide to take aim
at his many critics in a speech delivered to the American Legion last Thursday.
It just shows that there are really no limits to the obtuseness of the men who
currently hold power in America.
�Once again, we
face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type
of fascism,� Rumsfeld opined. �But some seem not to have learned history�s
lessons. Can we truly afford to believe that, somehow or someway, vicious
extremists could be appeased?�
Rumsfeld�s words
are aimed at the 61 percent of Americans who no longer believe that the war in
Iraq is �worth it.� He dismisses them as �appeasers.� Of course, at one time
many of these people supported the war and didn�t care about the moral or legal
implications as long as America won. What ultimately changed their
minds was the staggering incompetence of the civilian leadership. The
Sec-Def must examine his own performance to truly understand why public support
has eroded so dramatically.
Tom Friedman
summarized Rumsfeld�s strategy as the �Rumsfeld Doctrine�; deploying �just
enough troops to lose.� The secretary's disregard for the advice of his
subordinates has triggered massive civil unrest and mayhem across Iraq.
Rumsfeld claims
that his critics are �appeasers� or �fascist� sympathizers, but
that's just a silly attempt to set up a straw man and then knock him down.
He is a master at shifting attention from his own wretched performance
and then blaming it someone else. In this case, he zeros in
on everyone who has lost faith in America's ability to win the war as
well as his old nemesis �the media.�
The media have
played a central role in sustaining support for the war; keeping anti-war
critics out of their studios and off the air. They�ve limited their Iraq
coverage to scenes of Arabs killing Arabs rather than the daily digest of
American bombing raids, decimated Iraqi cities and the ruination of an entire
country. Still, in Rumsfeld�s mind, any information that leaches through
the fissures in the media fa�ade and doesn�t promote the blinkered goal of
American corporate hegemony, is tantamount to treason.
�Those who know the
truth need to speak out against these kinds of (media) myths and distortions
that are being told about our country and our troops,� Rumsfeld moaned. �The
struggle we are in is too important to have the luxury of returning to that old
mentality of �Blame America First.��
Rumsfeld�s words
were immediately followed by an announcement from the Pentagon that they would
tender a �$20 million public relations contract that calls for extensive
monitoring of US and Middle Eastern media in an effort to promote more positive
coverage from Iraq.� (Washington Post)
This shows us how
utterly disconnected from reality Rumsfeld truly is. Rather than try to grasp
the real issues and make the necessary policy changes, he attacks the messenger
and sets up another agency for silencing dissent. He doesn't even see the war
as a problem; it's merely a challenge for his �perception management� team
at the Pentagon. These are the signs of someone who is incapable of personal
reflection or accountability and who seriously believes that everyone else
is to blame for his own failures.
No one is
�manipulating the media� to oppose the war, quite the contrary. The corporate
media have been a vital cog in the Pentagon�s information stratagem and is
probably the most successful part of the war effort. They have maintained
an astonishing level of public support for a war that has yet to produce any
moral justification or any recognizable �metric� for achieving victory. It simply drags
on day by day, grinding out more carnage while reducing the �cradle of
civilization� into a pile of smoldering wreckage.
The Pentagon�s own
report provided the most scathing account of America�s failed crusade. The
report admitted, �Sectarian violence is spreading in Iraq and the security
problems have become more complex than anytime since the invasion in 2003 . . .
The illegal militias have become more entrenched, especially in Baghdad
neighborhoods where they are seen as providers of both security and basic
social services.� (New York Times)
In other words,
everything has gone from bad to worse and there are no tangible
signs of improvement.
Is the Pentagon
part of the �Blame America First� crowd too? Is the Big Brass trying
to �manipulate the media and demoralize public opinion� as Rumsfeld claims?
Opposition to the
war is now emerging from all sectors of society and it continues to
grow despite the optimistic accounts in the media. America was defeated in Iraq
when the first bomb was dropped on Baghdad in March 2003. It's
been downhill ever since. After four years of the most pitiless warfare against
a civilian population, the magnitude of that defeat has only increased.
Rumsfeld is
mistaken when he says that antiwar Americans suffer from �moral confusion.�
Moral confusion is a condition of men who deliberately inflict pain
on other human beings in violation of the most fundamental standards of human
decency. In fact, those activities far exceed mere confusion; they indicate a
state of total moral decay. Such people are not fit to make even the
most elementary ethical judgments, let alone to decide on the
important issues of war and peace.
Support for the war
is on a steady downward trajectory. That won't change because of the
delusional accusations of a man who, more than any other, is responsible for
the shame and degradation the conflict has brought on our country.
That man is Don
Rumsfeld.
Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at: fergiewhitney@msn.com.