Should Rumsfeld go?

Donald Rumsfeld was brought in by President Bush during his first term to serve as Defense Secretary. He is still serving as one of only two secretaries to have served under Bush through his tenure. Rumsfeld’s goal as Defense Secretary was to make the military more agile for 21st century fighting. He immediately butt heads with top military commanders and members of Congress for his plans to cut the Crusader howitzer and Comanche helicopter, weapons that were great, but he believed were no longer valuable after the cold war. It was thought he would be the first member of the administration to be fired. Recently Rumsfeld has come under a lot of heat for his mistakes over the past few years.

Rumsfeld’s plan for a more agile military make sense in fighting against terrorism, but he should not forget other major threats like China, while war is probably unlikely, we would need heavy weaponry to fight such a strong military if it happened. Stryker brigades can not take on heavily armored tanks. The military should be prepared to fight both types of wars: light, fast, urban fighting and all out war with heavy weaponry. The worst possible thing we could do is not be prepared for a new enemy. That’s why programs like the F22 Raptor and future heavy tanks are still valuable, even if their price tags are high. We should not be planning for the enemy of today, but the enemy of the future.

While these are policy decisions with differing views, Rumsfeld’s planning of the Iraq war was just unacceptable. During a Senate Armed Services hearing before the war, General Shinseki was quoted:

“I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We're talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so it takes a significant ground- force presence to maintain a safe and secure environment, to ensure that people are fed, that water is distributed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this.”

General Shinseki was forced out soon after this hearing. Due to the lack proper planning and rush to war, not all troops were sent in with body armor, humvees did not have proper armor, and supply lines were threatened due to inadequate protection. Rumsfled believed he could win the war on the cheap and using light forces, I believe we were lucky our supply lines were not destroyed. Rumsfeld failed in pre-war and post-war planning. While many in the Bush cabinet claimed they did not know the post war would be this bad, I remember reading plenty of articles predicting it to be bad. General Shinseki even predicted the ethnic tensions in his quote above. Today Iraq is on the brink of civil war with all the death squads, kidnappings, and torturing. The truth is, members of the cabinet, including Rumsfeld, ignored discussions about the post war. They believed the war with Saddam would be more difficult then the post-war. After the war, the Iraqi army was disbanded leaving a large part of the population without a job and hatred for the coalition. They were trained to kill and were now pissed off at us. It also left us without a force to take over security so we could draw down our troops.

Rumsfeld also allowed the prisoner abuse scandal under his watch. I here plenty of comments saying those guys are animals and they deserve it, but lets not forget, we are not them, we are humane. That is what makes us different from them. Another point is that not all the prisoners were really terrorists or insurgents. During raids, the military would pick up large swaths of suspects since they did not know who was guilty. It was expected that they would be interrogated and released if not guilty. Instead many spent months in prison and endured abuse. When the news broke, our nation’s image of having a respected military was even more tarnished. It was known to soldiers around the world that if they surrendered to American soldiers, they would be treated according to the Geneva Conventions and were more likely to surrender in a fight. Today a soldier might think twice about surrendering to our forces. It also exposes our troops to these types of interrogation techniques on a future battlefield. I believe it may become necessary in the interest of national security to use force to get information, but their has to be evidence that the person has important information and authorization from the President or some other higher authority. This way, there is someone who is taking responsibility for his/her actions. During the recent abuse scandal, everybody wiped their hands clean and screwed the grunts. There is no way that regular prison guards decided to interrogate people with these special interrogation techniques.

Staying the course in Iraq is no longer a plan. We need a new defense secretary who has a more open mind and more ideas. All possibilities should be taken into account before going to war, which Rumsfeld did not do. I believe even if he claims the President still trusts him, he should step aside for the benefit of our country. People makes mistakes, but when they continue and people continue to die, someone needs to take responsibility. Clinton’s defense secretary resigned after Somalia, which is nothing compared to the fiasco in Iraq.

Digg Article

Reference 1

Reference 2