Contrary to what the partisan defeatists on the Left say, Iraq is not a quagmire. Nor do I believe it is a 'Civil War' as Michael Kraig asserts in yesterday's Des Moines Register. However, that is not to say that things have gone splendidly there either. Things are getting better on the ground in Iraq. But in admitting that things are getting better, we also must realize that things had gone badly. I believe we are heading in the right direction in Iraq, but in hindsight we could have saved ourselves a lot of agony had things gone right in the first place.

So, who is to blame for the long lapse between what should have been done in Iraq to what is actually being done today? Donald Rumsfeld.

It saddens me to come to this conclusion--I love Rumsfeld on so many levels for so many reasons. I love Rumsfeld for being blunt, taking no crap from reporters, his uncanny ability to deconstruct criticisms, and his grand vision of retooling the military to meet future adversaries. Nevertheless, Rumsfeld was in charge of the Iraq invasion and it was Rumsfeld who got so many things wrong.

It is time to let Rumsfeld go. No, it's long past time to let Rumsfeld go.

Paul Eaton's editorial in the NY Times yesterday is wrong on its first point but, I believe, right on its second. First, General Eaton faults Rumsfeld for not building a larger coalition in Iraq. This is just a stupid criticism. Any one who thinks that Iraq was a failure in diplomacy just does not understand why coalitions are formed. Nations aren't talked into military invasions, they join military coalitions because they believe it is in their national interests to do so. Clearly, the fall of Saddam Hussein was not in the best interests of France and Russia.

But there is a great deal of merit to the second argument: that Rumsfeld was wrong on nearly all fronts on how the war in Iraq would develop once the invasion stage was complete.

Mr. Rumsfeld has also failed in terms of operations in Iraq. He rejected the so-called Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force and sent just enough tech-enhanced troops to complete what we called Phase III of the war — ground combat against the uniformed Iraqis. He ignored competent advisers like Gen. Anthony Zinni and others who predicted that the Iraqi Army and security forces might melt away after the state apparatus self-destructed, leading to chaos.

It is all too clear that General Shinseki was right: several hundred thousand men would have made a big difference then, as we began Phase IV, or country reconstruction. There was never a question that we would make quick work of the Iraqi Army.

But as Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor document in their book Cobra II : The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq there were tons of missed opportunities after the brilliant invasion. At each turn, when it was possible to rectify these problems early on, one man seemed to stand in the way: Donald Rumsfeld. You can hear the authors discussing their book here.

It seems that one of the very reasons that I love Donald Rumsfeld is the reason why he has been such a lousy Secretary of Defense--his ability to poke holes in his critics' arguments. It is a great intellectual ability to have, but when that ability is turned on those who urge corrective action then it can become dangerous. Donald Rumsfeld did not want to hear that we needed many more troops on the ground right after the invasion. He was so convinced of the superiority of his position, that more than a few military officials were sacked.

This is no way to run any department of government--especially the military during a hot war.

Perhaps Rumsfeld has learned his lesson. Things in Iraq are going much better than they were two years ago. Month after month U.S. casualties have been on the decline. Month after month the Iraqis themselves take control of more territory and take the lead in fighting terrorist forces. But if Rumsfeld and the Pentagon have learned their lesson, then aren't we admitting that they screwed up somewhere along the road? And if someone screwed up, shouldn't they be held accountable? And if that someone turns out to be Donald Rumsfeld--as I believe it probably is--then why hasn't President Bush fired him?

There are other lessons Rumsfeld and the Pentagon have not learned. Foremeost is the way to fight the internet and information war. They have ignored the information war altogether--although paying a lot of public lip service to it. As Robert Malloy and Peter Harling remind us today, the insurgents believe they are winning. I would argue that this is largely because we allow them to create their own discourse through the internet.

Given the choice between the Bush Administration and any of the choices offered by the Democrats, I'd still vote for Bush despite the many failures along the way in Iraq. Ulysses S. Grant was probably not the greatest military strategist and was wrong on a number of occasions. By all accounts, George B. McClellan was a better strategist and perhaps the greatest military organizer of the time. But given the choice between McClellan's perfect inaction and Grant's imperfect action, Lincoln made the right choice in firing the timid McClellan. The Democrats have only offered McClellan like alternatives in the past.

Fortunately, today's alternatives are not so stark. President Bush could easily replace Donald Rumsfeld as it is too late to go back to the policy of appeasement offered by the Democratic party. And even though the short-term consequences of firing Rumsfeld might negatively affect the Republican party (if if is conceivable that they could go even lower in the polls), I'm afraid that by sticking with Rumsfeld is to convey the message that all has gone right in Iraq from the begining and will only hurt the party in the long-term

Just a thought. Sorry to piss off my many loyal Republican readers and doubly sorry if this helps the Democrats in any way.

Update: For a second there, I thought I had an original thought. Maybe not. Rob from Say Anything sends this along. Add both Rob and Fred Barnes to the list.

Fred Barnes:

The president's most spectacular move would be to anoint a presidential successor. This would require Vice President Cheney to resign. His replacement? Condoleezza Rice, whom Mr. Bush regards highly. Her replacement? Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, whose Bush-like views on Iraq and the war on terror have made him a pariah in the Democratic caucus.

Mr. Cheney would probably be happy to step down and return to Wyoming. But it would make more sense for him to move to the Pentagon to replace Donald Rumsfeld as defense secretary, a job Mr. Cheney held during the elder Bush's administration. The Senate confirmation hearing for Mr. Cheney alone would produce political fireworks and attract incredible attention. At Treasury, Mr. Bush has a perfect replacement for John Snow, someone he already knows. That's Glenn Hubbard, former chairman of Mr. Bush's council of economic advisers and currently dean of Columbia's business school. He is in sync with Mr. Bush ideologically and has the added value of being respected on Wall Street.

Rob at Say Anything has more.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:57 PM | Comments (64) | Add Comment
Post contains 1330 words, total size 9 kb.