by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright April 18, 2006
All Rights Reserved.

oing to bat for his embattled Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, President George W. Bush buried his head, as his new chief of staff Joshua Bolten promised to overhaul the White House staff. Bush rejected calls for Rumsfeld's ouster, slapping him on the back. “Secretary Rumsfeld's energetic and steady leadership is exactly what is needed at this critical period. He has my full support and deepest appreciation,” said Bush. You have to go back to Presidents' John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson's Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara to find a more gifted salesman, replete with all the bells-and-whistles to prove the U.S. was winning the war. History proved differently, when the President Gerald R. Ford mercifully pulled the plug on Vietnam following the fall of Saigon, April 30, 1975, 58,000 U.S. deaths too late.

      When Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution August 7, 1964, it gave Johnson the green light to officially begin the Vietnam War. Only insiders at the White House and Pentagon knew McNamara's testimony before Congress omitted certain details, namely, that the USS Maddox was used by the South Vietnamese navy to support military operations. McNamara convinced Congress that the attack was “unprovoked.” Thirty-Eight years later, another Congress passed the Oct. 16, 2002 Use of Force Resolution 114, giving Bush the OK to attack Saddam Hussein. Few knew then that Saddam possessed no weapons of mass destruction, used by the White House as the perfect excuse for war. Rumsfeld was just as persuasive as McNamara, convincing the Congress that Saddam presented and implacable threat to U.S. national security.

      Racked by bad news in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush has watched his approval ratings plummet below 40%, threatening to upend GOP fortunes next November. Rumsfeld has been Bush's chief cheerleader on Iraq, promising, like McNamara, a positive outcome. “Progress has been good,” Rumsfeld told Rush Limbaugh April 17, trying to silence critics who have called for his resignation. “I mean we are now up to a quarter-of-a-million Iraqi security forces,” he said, adding, “and they're, as I say, taking over more and more bases and real estate all the time,” not mentioning growing concerns that those same security forces are infiltrated by insurgents seeking to undermine U.S. efforts. Like McNamara, what makes Rumsfeld so risky is his supreme confidence in the face of undeniable bad news from Iraq, blamed on the liberal media.

      Six retired generals, including Gens. John Batiste, John Riggs, Tony Zinni, Charles Swannack, Paul Eaton and Gregory Newbold, called for Rumsfeld to step down, believing he's too hard-headed to take feedback. “And if we recognized that the same criticism that occurred in the Revolutionary War, and World War I, World War II and the Korean War, Vietnam War, it's not new,” said Rumsfeld, musing over today's hubbub. “There are always been people who have opposed wars,” either missing the point entirely or cleverly eluding the real issue over his incompetence. Pacifism or appeasement have nothing to do with today's criticism over Iraq. Both Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney insisted during the War's early days that the insurgency was in its “last throes,” despite the carnage costing nearly 2,400 lives.

      Rumsfeld has become today's scapegoat for the White House's failed Iraq policy. Fingers should be pointing at Bush and Cheney for putting the military into an untenable situation. Frustrated generals, echoing the sentiments of Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Penn.), see unforgivable miscalculations and an unwinnable situation. Blaming the criticism on “sour grapes” or “pacifism” invites more ire, failing to heed today's dire situation calling for a real fix. Stretching parallels to the Revolutionary War or World War I and II, where the nation battled to save Europe from genocide, shows Rumsfeld's insincerity, unwilling to take an honest inventory. Far more parallels exist with Vietnam, where an unstoppable insurgency and low public support resulted in a catastrophic failure. Viewing today's body count as “acceptable,” ignores the real problem.

      Calling for Rumsfeld's head represents the public's collective frustration over the Iraq War. No amount of sugar-coating changes the fact that Baghdad is the most dangerous place on the planet, except the barricaded “Green Zone.” Blaming Rumsfeld's criticism on disgruntled elements inside the Pentagon resisting change or “pacifists” and “appeasers” opposed to war insults all who think the U.S. is on the wrong track. Asking five-star generals, including former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard B. Meyers and Iraq and Afghanistan commander Tommy Franks, to vouch for Rumsfeld, makes matter worse. “They're really acting out of patriotism,” said William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, referring to criticism from retired generals. Rumsfeld has become today's lightning rod for what's gone wrong.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.