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 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.

[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....)

[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.