The Rumsfeld memo

[Ghoulish Delight]

Ugh, I have too many thoughts on this to produce anything coherent. But I think the overriding thing that disturbs me most is that this is yet another example of Bush and those who are close to him privately thinking/acting one way, and publicly saying something completely different. It goes right along there with Bush's "I'm sticking with Rumsfeld until the end of my term" (which begs the question, does that mean Bush's term is now over?) crap.

What's with that? What's the goal? Is it purely face-saving? Is it partisan political? Is it fear that we'll all find out that you really have no idea what you're doing (this latest memo really makes Rumsfeld sound like he had zero clear picture of where to go next)?

I think I lean towards the last one. It seems that the strategy is, "If something's not working, don't you dare admit it isn't until you have an alternate plan." Nevermind if part of what's holding you back from coming up with a viable alternate is the fact that you refuse to publicly admit that the current choices aren't working.

And what really irks is that he writes this memo as if he's come up with something brilliant. "In my view it is time for a major adjustment. Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough." Really? Your view? My gosh, how did you ever come to such a conclusion? Good thing no one figured that out a year ago and told you!

It leaves me wondering again, pure obstinance/arrogance? Or does the public denial begin to actually make one blind to what's going on around you?

[Alex]

Is the full memo somewhere? I've only heard paraphrases on the radio.

That said, internally I am part of teams all the time where various options are discussed and evaluated and then when a final decision is made it is a group decision and everybody supports it, even if it isn't what they supported in the earlier conversations.

So, I would need more of the context on this particular memo. But, in general, if a bureaucrat says "I support policy A" to the president and the president says "that's fine, but B will be our policy" I then expect the bureaucrat to go out and talk about how great Policy B is. Again, that's in general and there are obvious and myriad exceptions and I don't have enough detail yet.

Stupid actual job and not keeping current on the news.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Here's a link (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/03/world/middleeast/03mtext.html) to the full text.

[wendybeth]

I think it's probably a bit of everything you addressed, GD. Obstinance, denial and blindness. I really think there are those who thought that the Vietnam War would have been won if only we'd shown more resolve and unity, never minding the reasons why they broke down to begin with. I wasn't at all surprised to hear Rummy break away from Bush on this one, and I look forward to all the tell-all books about Bush that are sure to start creeping out of the sewers.:rolleyes:

[wendybeth]

Thanks for the link, GD- I had to laugh at this, though:

"¶Stop rewarding bad behavior, as was done in Fallujah when they pushed in reconstruction funds, and start rewarding good behavior. Put our reconstruction efforts in those parts of Iraq that are behaving, and invest and create havens of opportunity to reward them for their good behavior. As the old saying goes, “If you want more of something, reward it; if you want less of something, penalize it.” No more reconstruction assistance in areas where there is violence."


Next, it's time-outs and the naughty chair!

(I agree with withholding funds in dodgy areas, but am wondering why they are getting them now....):rolleyes:

[Alex]

Oh, perhaps because of the obvious backlash response if the U.S. stopped building hospitals and schools in an area because an insurgent blew up a car there? Also, at it implies they were probably trying to bribe areas into behaving well (you get $5 if you bring your grades up from a C to an A, but the kid who always gets A's gets nothing).

Having read the memo it sounds to me like Rumsfeld was trying to get out in front of Mr. James Baker and his report later this week.

[wendybeth]

Rummy's note is filled with allusions to the bribery scenario; indeed, it seems his primary solution. It's shocking how little vision he seems to have, although he does make reference to cultural sensitivity or awareness. Kind of shutting the ol' barn door, etc, but better late than never. I'm not going to pretend to have any answers myself, but his memo is just dismayingly elementary and hardly offers up any real and viable ideas.

[Alex]

Yeah, that's why it implies to me he was just trying to say what would be coming in the Baker report before it became official. So far, all the leaked stuff from that seems to be similarly high level empty platitudes.

Both that and this memo ultimately have the detail of "Our plan to make things better is to cause better things to be."

Of course, quite a few things in that list are things that seem amazingly obvious if they aren't already being (embedding Iraqis in American units, etc.).

[Motorboat Cruiser]

One thing (of many) that I've never understood is why Iraqi troops weren't trained somewhere else, where there would be little outside influence. Hell, we could have flown them to a military base in the US, trained them sans the distraction of death threats and bombs, then returned them to the country. It would have greatly reduced the defections and made them better trained soldiers who stood a far better chance of doing their job effectively and enthusiastically.

Maybe someone could explain to me why this wouldn't be helpful?

I saw today that the new defense secretary has admitted that we are losing in Iraq. Seriously, I think that Bush and Cheney are the last two on the planet that hold any optimism towards having a positive outcome over there.

[Nephythys]

He did not say we are losing.

Asked point-blank by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., whether the U.S. is winning in Iraq, Gates replied, "No, sir." He later said he believes the United States is neither winning nor losing, "at this point."



Stalemate- not losing.

[€uroMeinke]

we could have flown them to a military base in the US, trained them sans the distraction of death threats and bombs, then returned them to the country. It would have greatly reduced the defections and made them better trained soldiers who stood a far better chance of doing their job effectively and enthusiastically.

That would have also required them to leave thier families, who certainly would have also been exposed to the same sort death threat, bombings, and kidknappings they currently are experienceing, so I'm not so sure you'd have as willing a set of recruits.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Where is your quote from, Nephy?

This is from the Washington Post:

Asked by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), the ranking Democrat on the committee, whether "you believe we're currently winning in Iraq," Gates answered, "No, sir." He repeated the assessment when asked the same question by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

[Motorboat Cruiser]

That would have also required them to leave thier families, who certainly would have also been exposed to the same sort death threat, bombings, and kidknappings they currently are experienceing, so I'm not so sure you'd have as willing a set of recruits.

All good points that I hadn't thought of. I'm not sure those are insurmountable issues but they would be difficult to overcome.

[Nephythys]

Where is your quote from, Nephy?

This is from the Washington Post:


Apologies-

Link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16036036/)

Appears the other source edited the quote.

[Not Afraid]

Appears the other source edited the quote.

I'm shocked and appalled!;)

[Scrooge McSam]

Appears the other source edited the quote.

That could be true, of course, but there may be another explanation.

The 2 times Gates was asked if the US was winning and answered "no" were in the morning session before they broke for lunch.

After lunch, Gates came back and said he wanted to extend his comments on that subject so as not to give the troops the impression he thought they were failing in their mission.

Could be the WashingtonPost wrote their story before the panel reconvened for lunch.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061205/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/gates_pentagon)

[Nephythys]

Plausible.

Bottom line- he did not say we were losing. So to use him as some kind of proof that we are losing- or that no one believes we can or will or are succeeding in Iraq is inaccurate.

[wendybeth]

Could also be that he was spanked for saying what he believed, and later revised his position. Just a thought.

[Nephythys]

Funny- I was waiting for someone to say that :rolleyes:

[CoasterMatt]

Could also be that he was spanked for saying what he believed, and later revised his position. Just a thought.
WOW! That lady on the bus gets around! :D

[Ghoulish Delight]

Plausible.

Bottom line- he did not say we were losing. So to use him as some kind of proof that we are losing- or that no one believes we can or will or are succeeding in Iraq is inaccurate.Well, I have a little bit of a different take.

He was asked, twice whether we were winning. He emphatically and unhesitatingly said no. Later, he was asked, do you agree with the general who said that while we are not winning, neither are we losing. THAT was what he answered not "at this point" (and with a bit of a hesitation, to my ear).

So, what's with the qualification? What could that have indicated? To my mind, considering there was absolutely no qualification in his answering no to whether we were winning, then he must be qualifying the losing part of the equation. Basically, "We aren't winning, we aren't losing, but we're probably closer to losing than we are to winning and WILL be losing if we don't fix something." Which is a far cry from the Bush and Rumsfeld doctrine of plugging their ears and going "lalalalalalala" anytime someone suggests that our strategies MIGHT lead to losing.

[wendybeth]

Lots of boys behaving badly these days, eh?;)

Oh, and it's an obvious observation, Neph- one you apparently already made for yourself.

[Nephythys]

No- I just knew I could count on someone here to make that claim. It was a matter of understanding my fellows on LoT- not an observation of my own.

Just as I know that people will interpret words as they want to see them-

[Not Afraid]

Well, when given the sort of precise information we are given in most news sources, it is prudent to make interpretations based on past observations.