by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright May 7, 2004
All Rights Reserved.

roveling before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Secretary of Defense Donald M. Rumsfeld showed contrition, but adeptly avoided the real rationale for his resignation. Keeping the lid on egregious abuse at Abu Gharaib prison for over six months, Rumsfeld spared the White House embarrassment during a fiercely contested election year. Rumsfeld conveyed his “deepest apology” to abused Iraqi prisoners, promising to compensate them for their suffering. While he showed empathy for inmates, he failed to inform Congress, appearing before the same committee only one week earlier. Ranking Armed Services Committee member Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) expressed “dismay” over Rumsfeld's failure to inform the committee, telling the defense secretary that notifying Congress “is not suppose to be an option but a longstanding and fundamental responsibility.”

      Accepting accountability helped Rumseld soften the punitive tone in the committee. Calling for Rumsfeld's head makes good headlines but doesn't resonate with those believing that he was too far up the chain-of-command to have prevented the sordid episode. “These events occurred under my watch. As defense secretary I take full responsibility,” Rumsfeld told the committee, diverting attention away from the primary infraction of failing to inform Congress. Questions arise about just how far up the chain-of-command authorized the quirky interrogation techniques designed to extract intel from Iraqi prisoners. After prison warden Brigadier General Janice Karpinsky was relieved of her duties, she insisted private contractors working with Army intelligence took over interrogations at Abu Ghraib. Karpinsky said her guards were only following orders when they committed torture and sexual abuse.

      Despite calls for Rumsfeld's resignation, Bush signaled he would stand by his defense secretary. “Secretary Rumsfeld is a really good secretary of defense,” said Bush seeing no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Yet all the talk about feeling betrayed rings hollow when you consider Rumsfeld's actions have no consequences. Getting upbraided by Congress doesn't undo the poor judgment attached to allowing CBS' “Sixty-Minutes II” to break the story, after Rumsfeld's office pleaded with producers to keep the story under wraps. Concerned about added risks to the troops, Rumsfeld tried to delay the story as long as possible. Over one year after the International Red Cross warned U.S. authorities of egregious human rights abuses did the Pentagon finally take notice. Only after CBS outed the story did the White House take the “rumors” seriously.

      Partisan calls for Rumsfeld's ouster detract from his inexcusable blunder of keeping the story quiet. Clinton tried to keep the Monica Lewinsky scandal under wraps for as long a possible. No political operative likes managing public relations disasters. While the White House would like to see the Abu Ghraib debacle go away, it promises to cast a wider light on the entire Iraq controversy. High placed bureaucrats like Rumsfeld can't control depraved behavior inside foxholes. Yet burying his head in the sand hasn't helped Bush's quest for a second term. No one really knows when Bush first got wind of Abu Ghraib. It's highly unlikely that Rumsfeld's office kept all key players at the White House completely in the dark. More likely, not coming clean was a calculated risk that went sour. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it's difficult dealing with damage control—especially neutralizing a media feeding frenzy.

      Keeping up public support Iraq is essential to the White House winning additional funds, including the next transfusion of $25 billion. Without public support, it's just a matter of time before the White House faces a political disaster. With the economy turning around, Iraq promises to be the pivotal issue in November. Escalating casualties and anarchy increases doubts about U.S. commitment in Iraq. It's easy for Bush to insist on “finishing the job,” as long as he enjoys favorable approval ratings. But when the polls drop, shrewd political calculation requires an abrupt change of plans. For now, Bush has to defend Rumsfeld. If the defense secretary goes down, it exposes incompetence in the Oval Office, raising serious questions about Iraq policy. At least for now, Bush will have to feign his utmost confidence in Rumsfeld, despite the mounting political liability.

      Rumsfeld's public apology was a good first start in hanging onto his job. Contrition goes along way in softening up critics calling for his head. “To those Iraqis who were mistreated by the U.S. armed forces, I offer my deepest apology,” said Rumsfeld, failing to offer the same regrets to the Senate Armed Services Committee he kept in the dark. Rumsfeld should have the savvy to deal elected officials disgusted with the Pentagon.. There's no question that the Army's Defense Intelligence Agency directed guards to employ unconventional interrogation techniques. When the 372nd Military Police Company's Pfc. Lynndie England was observed dragging a nude Iraqi prisoner with a leash, it raised catastrophic images of American power. Abu Ghraib's nightmare does more than endanger U.S. troops: It robs the U.S. of the moral authority to prosecute the war. Without the moral authority, what's left?

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.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.