Ronald Dumsfeld (the malaprop courtesy of a wounded G.I., as heard my friend in the same hospital) is catching a lot of flack these days, and deservedly so: While you can argue that he was just implenting policy, the fact is this guy was one of the principle architects of Bush's Folly.
So, let's see what's out there: First, The National Review...
"As a political matter, Rumsfeld’s leaving at this moment, under this kind of fire, would play as an admission that the critics who say the Iraq war was fundamentally botched have been right all along. The White House realizes this, which is one reason President Bush made such a strong statement in support of Rumsfeld on Friday. That retired generals are criticizing a Defense secretary is not, per se, the threat to civil-military relations that some of Rumsfeld’s defenders seem to think. Retired flag officers are citizens after all, and they’re free to say whatever they want. But there is something unseemly about it, especially considering that most of them apparently kept conveniently quiet about their misgivings while in uniform."
A defense, albeit a very weak one. The base is, perhaps, cracking...
Next: The Mercury News:
"The military brass who have spoken out recently have got it right: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld should go.
His bold strategy led to a lightning victory in Iraq, but his strategic blunders since have bogged us down in a debilitating occupation. His arrogance and autocratic style have poisoned relations with commanders in the field and undermined military morale."
Also, Wes Clark, via Crooks and Liars, on the "Mutiny".
Curious.
No comments:
Post a Comment