Donald Rumsfeld Has Past His Use-By-Date as Defense Secretary
Read here full Editorial of Times-Herald " Rumsfeld is not the man for the job, and it is past time the president end his stubborn support for failed leadership. It would open the way to honest dialogue among military advisers and their civilian leaders for improved war strategy."
Quote:
Seven retired generals have come forward in recent weeks to denounce Donald Rumsfeld's ability to manage the war in Iraq.
This newspaper (Times-Herald) called for Rumsfeld's firing in May 2004, as a way to ease the damage to the country's global reputation following the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.
Replacing Rumsfeld would give the nation a collective sigh of relief.
-Times-Herald Editorial
While other retired generals, including Gen. Tommy Franks, former commander of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, are supporting Rumsfeld, the importance of this latest outcry against Rumsfeld's failed leadership cannot be overstated.
It is unprecedented, and is bound to have serious effects on Rumsfeld's ability to lead the military.
It is time the president heeded their collective wisdom.
The generals say they are speaking on behalf of the active-duty military people who dare not voice opposition to Rumsfeld out of fear they will lose their jobs.
That claim is substantiated.
One Washington pundit, based on interviews with military officers, estimates 75 percent of the military leadership want Rumsfeld out.
His policies have failed to bring about any of the president's objectives.
A stable Iraq has not been achieved, military experts blame this on Rumsfeld's underestimating the insurgency and going into Iraq with too few troops despite their insistence they were undermanned.
This has allowed a small insurgency to breed and grow to unmanageable levels.
We don't buy it.
It is one thing to encourage questions; it is another to really want them.
Rumsfeld has long been known to be condescending toward those who disagree with him, and in military settings such an approach will tend to lead to silence, or at least to grudging agreement where all options aren't fully explored.
Such an approach is dangerous.
It can lead to the type of disastrous micro-management Lyndon Johnson used during the Vietnam conflict. It can also lead to similar results in Iraq.
Rumsfeld is not the man for the job, and it is past time the president end his stubborn support for failed leadership.
This newspaper called for Rumsfeld's firing in May 2004, as a way to ease the damage to the country's global reputation following the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.
It was Rumsfeld's policies that courted disaster: Inadequate prison guards, overcrowded prisons, ignoring the International Red Cross's complaints of abuse.
At the time, Rumsfeld admitted his policies caused the problem, that the buck stops with him, and he offered his resignation to the president.
But President Bush prides himself on standing by his people, vowing loyalty first.
This can be commendable, but in the face of stark reality - that his defense secretary is a severe liability to success - it is reckless.
The type of decision-making that will help democracy in Iraq, and bring American troops home, rests with the president.
This week has seen a slight shake-up in the president's staff - a way to begin a fresh start to his foundering presidency. Replacing Rumsfeld would give the nation a collective sigh of relief.
It would open the way to honest dialogue among military advisers and their civilian leaders for improved war strategy.
A new approach without the Rumsfeld obstacle could achieve what seems improbable under the current leadership - victory in Iraq.
The president needs to get back to work and make a decision centered on U.S. and international interests, not on some misguided loyalty: Dump Rumsfeld.
Bush should listen to the experts, not just administration hawks such as Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney.
YOUR VIEWS ?
Send This Post to a Friend ->
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Go to Latest Posting