Military Papers: Dump Rumsfeld

Posted by Evan Derkacz at 7:42 AM on November 6, 2006.

A quiz. Three guesses where this editorial comes from:

[U]ntil recently, the "hard bruising" truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington.

One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: "mission accomplished," the insurgency is "in its last throes," and "back off," we know what we’re doing, are a few choice examples.

Military leaders generally toed the line, although a few retired generals eventually spoke out from the safety of the sidelines, inciting criticism equally from anti-war types, who thought they should have spoken out while still in uniform, and pro-war foes, who thought the generals should have kept their critiques behind closed doors.

Now, however, a new chorus of criticism is beginning to resonate.

It's a joint editorial appearing today in the Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times.

After listing the myriad indications that the war in Iraq has not been going well for quite some time (and that high-level military and DOD have been well aware of it), the editorial concludes (emphasis mine):

These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority.

And although that tradition, and the officers’ deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.

Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.

This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:

Donald Rumsfeld must go.

For its part, the DOD issued a statement that confirmed both its commitment to shameless lying on behalf of a dangerous putz, but to promoting empty politics all the while, conflating the War on Terror with Iraq.

The Department has always attempted to clearly and accurately describe the challenges our forces face in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Secretary above all has always been very measured in describing the progress U.S forces are making in what will undoubtedly be a long struggle in the War on Terror. I would challenge those who say the Secretary has ever painted a "rosy picture" to provide those quotes as well as the full context of those remarks.

Apart from the Military's most popular papers' editorial, which refutes this pretty cleanly, ThinkProgress exhumed this classic a little while ago, from Feb. 7, 2003:

"It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

Tagged as: rumsfeld, iraq, miltary

Evan Derkacz is an AlterNet editor. He writes and edits PEEK, the blog of blogs.