LA Times Obsessed - With Rumsfeld

To the casual observer this hit piece on Donald Rumsfeld might seem like so much news. However, if you've followed the transition from Rumsfeld to Gates and all that it has entailed, it becomes clear that the LA Times is either making it up as they go along to dump on Rumsfeld and Bush, or they have no clue of what actually took place.

Putting aside the silliness which is nothing more than the LA Times noting stylistic differences in handling press conferences between the two, the heart of the matter is this:

Substantively, there were some sharp differences. Indeed, Gates came close to blaming Rumsfeld for many of the problems in Iraq.

The new Defense chief offered strong words of support for the nomination of Gen. George W. Casey Jr. to become the next Army chief of staff and said Casey was not to blame for the problems of Iraq. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has criticized Casey's leadership of the war and said he would vote against the general's nomination. Asked if commanders should be held accountable for Iraq, Gates seemed — almost — to throw Rumsfeld under the bus.

"I think that one has to look at this in the context of the decisions made by the civilian superiors of officers and how the battlefield they face was shaped by those decisions," Gates said.

Rumsfeld always insisted in his news conferences that his commanders were free to ask for more forces. But military planners had said privately that Rumsfeld created an atmosphere where such requests were unwelcome. On Friday, Gates took pains to demonstrate that he was listening to his military commanders. Although he would not say whether he might send more than 21,500 additional troops to Iraq, he said military commanders could ask for more.

"What we have done, I hope, is create an environment in which the commanders feel open to requesting what they think they need," Gates said.

If there's a culprit, not that that's the correct term, one need look no further than right here: General John Abizaid. Turning to the Opinion Journal for January 8:

On that score, it is appropriate that Mr. Bush is replacing his Iraq military team. Centcom Commander John Abizaid, who is retiring, can point to successful campaigns to topple the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. His oft-derided "light footprint" strategy for securing Iraq

It was General Abizaid who favored a light foot print strategy and as OJ goes on to rightfully point out:

One rap on Mr. Bush as a war leader is that he is supposedly too willful and stubborn. But if anything, in Iraq it now appears he has been too deferential. He was telling the truth when he said his generals, and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, told him they had enough troops to do the job. Especially as Army and Marine tours lengthened, General Casey seemed focused more on training Iraqis with an eye to drawing down U.S. forces, rather than on improving security. Whatever chance of success this approach had probably vanished with last year's terrorist attack on the Golden Shrine that ended Shiite forbearance.

Yes, many retired Generals voiced their wrath at Rumsfeld, but the fact is, the Iraq War was very much Abizaid's to run. And Generals, planners, lower-level commanders, being what they are, are more reluctant to openly criticize one of their own.

Certainly Rumsfeld is not without fault, he was after all the civilian leader of the war. But if the LA Times wants to blame him for something, they could at least blame him for the right thing. He signed onto a General who developed a plan which did not work. And now that that's been changed, of course we are seeing changes, ones that according to the LA Times are only about Rumsfeld being gone.

Laying everything on Rumsfeld is convenient for the Times as it doesn't require them to directly fault a military commander - and when you blame Rumsfeld, by default you are blaming Bush. Unfortunately, their story entitled Defense chief shows he's no Rumsfeld
No scoffing or lectures? Is this the right room for the news conference? reads more like the silly and uninformed whining we've come to associate with David Gregory at the White House, than it does informed reportage of what was really going on.

It's right to hold both Bush and Rumsfeld accountable for the difficulties in Iraq. However, it is not accurate to mischaracterize it as though they did not take advantage of the military planning being offered by the uniformed individual in command.

Comments

[Purple Avenger]

The only real issue was not firing the faulty generals earlier. You gotta trust them, but at some point you fire'em when they screw up or do dumb shit. Lincoln had to go through a series of them before he found the right guy.

War is different than peacetime. You just can't tell how a peacetime general is going to cut it ahead of time. All the things that get you promoted during peacetime don't necessarily mean anything during a war.

[Bill Adkins]

"It's right to hold both Bush and Rumsfeld accountable for the difficulties in Iraq. However, it is not accurate to mischaracterize it as though they did not take advantage of the military planning being offered by the uniformed individual in command"

Bush in the Bunker: "My generals have betrayed me!!! Shoot them!! They are all incompetents and cowards! Eva!! Bring me my tea and sit with me, liebchen. I have a rug to chew."

[Bill Adkins]

Wow - what a way to support our troops, PA!! Calling real military men "faulty generals earlier. You gotta trust them, but at some point you fire'em when they screw up or do dumb shit." Generals are soldiers, too. And you really want to compare Bush to Lincoln? It's like comparing Jimmy Carter to Teddy Roosevelt - just doesn't work.