Donald Rumsfeld Resigns

[Blackadder1916]

Military Papers: ‘Rumsfeld Must Go’
Editorial Comes Days After Bush Affirms Defense Secretary’s Job Security
MSNBC staff and news service reports  Updated: 11:28 a.m. MT Nov 4, 2006
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15552211/

Just days after President Bush publicly affirmed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's job security through the end of his term, a family of publications catering to the military will publish an editorial calling for the defense secretary's removal.

The editorial, released to NBC News on Friday ahead of its Monday publication date, stated, "It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation's current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads."

The editorial will appear just one day before the midterm election, in which GOP candidates have been losing ground, according to recent polls.

"This is not about the midterm elections," continued the editorial, which will appear in the Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times, and Marine Corps Times on Monday. "Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth: Donald Rumsfeld must go."

The newspapers are part of the Military Times Media Group, a subsidiary of the Gannett Co., Inc. The publications are sold to service members and their families.

On Wednesday, Bush had said he wants Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney to remain in his administration until the end of his presidency, extending a vote of confidence to two of the most-criticized members of his team.

In the same interview, Bush said he did not foresee a change in the immediate future in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. He said that U.S. generals have assured him that "they've got what they can live with."

Democrats and Republicans alike have called for Rumsfeld's resignation, arguing he has mishandled the war in Iraq, where more than 2,800 members of the U.S. military have died since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. Cheney has faced sharp criticism for his hard-line views and is viewed favorably by only about a third of Americans in polls. Bush said that "both those men are doing fantastic jobs and I strongly support them."

Bush credited Rumsfeld with overseeing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while overhauling the military. "I'm pleased with the progress we're making," the president said. He replied in the affirmative when asked if he wanted Rumsfeld and Cheney to stay with him until the end.

The military publications' editorial also painted a grim view of the situation in Iraq, saying, "despite the best efforts of American trainers, the problem of molding a viciously sectarian population into anything resembling a force for national unity has become a losing proposition. For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for the money, don't show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves. … And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand."

War supporters reconsider

Also Friday, several conservatives who pushed for the invasion of Iraq said they would not have supported a war if they knew how poorly the Bush administration would handle it, according to Vanity Fair magazine.

"I think now I probably would have said, 'No, let's consider other strategies for dealing with the thing that concerns us most, which is Saddam (Hussein) supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists,"' said Richard Perle, who sat on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Advisory Committee until 2004.

Kenneth Adelman, who served on the Defense Policy Board with Perle, said Bush, Defense Rumsfeld and others in the administration "turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the postwar era. Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional."

Violence in Iraq has continued to climb, with dozens of bodies reportedly found around Baghdad on Friday. Shiites and Sunnis alike fear a reprisal in violent crime when Saddam's trial verdict is announced, which could be as soon as Sunday.

In the editorial, the military papers quote Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, as saying to a Senate Armed Services Committee in September, "I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it ... and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards a civil war."

Text of the Army Times (et al) editorial is at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15552388/

I remember the Army Times and its sister publicatons from my service in Germany and Texas, thus, it has been years since I have seen a copy.  While their editorial position was not always pro administration, its usual line tended to stay within the context of more benefits for the troops.  This seems to be a big leap for them.  What's next, a similiar editorial in the Stars and Stripes?

 

[tomahawk6]

Stars and Stripes is funded by DoD. The Army Times defintely supports the democrats in their editorials and some of their stories. I thought long and hard before I renewed my subscription last month. Rumsfeld will stay in office until this administration leaves office in Jan 09.

 

[DBA]

Taken from elsewhere but I think sums it up well : "The bottom line is that the “Military Times” weekly papers are not professional publications, circulation is collapsing, and the staff is shared with USAToday."

 

[cplcaldwell]

From CBC.ca, Shared under the Fair Dealing Provisions of the Copyright Act, RSC.

Rumsfeld resigns as U.S. defence secretary
Last Updated: Wednesday, November 8, 2006 | 1:09 PM ET
CBC News

U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who has overseen the execution of the unpopular war in Iraq, is stepping down after Democrats made major gains in mid-term elections.

President George W. Bush confirmed Rumsfeld's resignation at a news conference at 1 p.m. ET Wednesday.

Rumsfeld, who held the post for six years, will be succeeded by former CIA director Robert Gates, Bush said.

Until then, Bush had said he would keep Rumsfeld, who has overseen the execution of the U.S.-led campaign in Iraq, for the next two years.

Earlier on Wednesday, a spokesman for Rumsfeld said he had given no indication that he would step down in the wake of Democratic gains in Tuesday's election.

The spokesman said Rumsfeld would work with Congress on Iraq but added that the focus on stabilizing the country will remain the same.

More to come

 

[Dare]

From CBC.ca, Shared under the Fair Dealing Provisions of the Copyright Act, RSC.

Rumsfeld resigns as U.S. defence secretary
Last Updated: Wednesday, November 8, 2006 | 1:09 PM ET
CBC News

U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who has overseen the execution of the unpopular war in Iraq, is stepping down after Democrats made major gains in mid-term elections.

President George W. Bush confirmed Rumsfeld's resignation at a news conference at 1 p.m. ET Wednesday.

Rumsfeld, who held the post for six years, will be succeeded by former CIA director Robert Gates, Bush said.

Until then, Bush had said he would keep Rumsfeld, who has overseen the execution of the U.S.-led campaign in Iraq, for the next two years.

Earlier on Wednesday, a spokesman for Rumsfeld said he had given no indication that he would step down in the wake of Democratic gains in Tuesday's election.

The spokesman said Rumsfeld would work with Congress on Iraq but added that the focus on stabilizing the country will remain the same.

More to come

Dodging the Democrat kangaroo court.
Smart play. It amuses me to see how upset it made the left that he resigned before they could get their licks in. They set up the Rumsfeld as the target and the target moved before the shots fired.

I'll miss one of the few direct and honest politicians.

 

[sigpig]

Rumsfeld will stay in office until this administration leaves office in Jan 09.

I suspect that next week after the dust has settled the republicans will have sizeable majorities which will send a powerful message to our enemies.

Forgive me, but there hasn't been much for us leftist/communist/freedom hating/terrorist loving/america hating types to be cheerful about the last few years.

Guess that's about to change.....

 

[old medic]

Keep things respectful please.

 

[Kirkhill]

Forgive me, but there hasn't been much for us leftist/communist/freedom hating/terrorist loving/america hating types to be cheerful about the last few years.

Guess that's about to change.....

You may be right, more's the pity.  What was the turnout like in Fort Lauderdale?

 

[sigpig]

You may be right, more's the pity.  What was the turnout like in Fort Lauderdale?

2006 General Election
Registered Voters: 923,647
Ballots Cast: 408,637
Voter Turnout: 44.24 %

Pretty good for around here. The county voted almost totally democratic, including 63% for the dem governor candidate vs 32% for the repub winner.

 

[sigpig]

Keep things respectful please.

Please don't tell me my post can be taken as disrespectful.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Please don't tell me my post can be taken as disrespectful.

No one was pointing fingers. The Mod is simply doing their job. Heed and leave it be.

 

[Mike Baker]

U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who has overseen the execution of the unpopular war in Iraq, is stepping down in the wake of major Democratic gains in the mid-term elections.

President George W. Bush made the announcement early Wednesday afternoon, as Democrats emerged from the previous day's ballots with a solid majority in the U.S. House of Representatives and a narrow lead in the final undecided race they must win to control the Senate.

Bush described Rumsfeld, who had held the post for six years, as "a patriot who served this country with honour and distinction," but said the pair had agreed Tuesday that the resignation was "appropriate."

"Now after a series of thoughtful conversations, we've agreed that the timing is right for new leadership at the Pentagon," the president told a news conference in Washington.

Robert Gates, who was director of the CIA from 1991 to 1993 under the presidency of George H. W. Bush, has been selected to succeed Rumsfeld.

More at http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/11/08/midterm-analysis.html

Never thought that it would happen so soon.

 

[tamouh]

Never thought that it would happen so soon.

Actually, a political analyst **I'll get you the name...** on CBC last night predicted this would happen as it happened under ** validating **. The former US Ambassador Gordon Giffin argued the Bush administration is different and even if the Dems win House+Senate, he predicted it won't happen. I guess Lessons from History still stands out!

 

[Journeyman]

Actually, a political analyst on CBC last night predicted this would happen as it happened under President Baker.

??? Who?

 

[aesop081]

??? Who?

Allow me Journeyman......

Tamouth :

James Baker was secretary of state for President Bush ( senior) ............put the revisionist history books away there  slick  :

 

[tomahawk6]

Well overdue.The best line I heard about Rumsfeld was said by General Meyer at his retirement ceremony,
"Secretary Rumsfeld has been SECDEF in two different centuries". ;D

 

[a_majoor]

A thought:

This election was pushed in the MSM as a referendum on the handling of the War in Iraq. How do the Democrats propose to win the war? Anyone..........Anyone.............Bueller?

 

[Kirkhill]

Don't know what they are going to do about Iraq - but it should make for some interesting conversations when Michael Moore steps into the room....

They wear cowboy boots, chew tobacco, love hunting, hate abortion, want less government spending — and some voted for Ronald Reagan. Now they are headed to Congress as Democrats....

Jon Tester, the Democrat’s Senate candidate in Montana.... a Democrat who is an anti-abortion, pro-gun, three-generation farmer with a buzz cut, three missing fingers on his left hand and no big fan of Hillary Clinton.....

Jim Webb, the Democrat favoured to win a probable recount in the Virginia Senate race, was Reagan’s Navy Secretary. A social conservative, he hates liberals and likes guns so much he gave one to his son  at the age of 8. He champions, as he puts it, “Southern redneck culture”. A decorated Vietnam veteran, he converted to the Democrats only over his opposition to the Iraq war.....

(Apparently his son goes by the name of Robert E. Lee and the Senator is awfully (and rightfully  ) proud of his Scots-Irish ancestors that fought for the Confederates)

Bob Casey, who soundly defeated the Republican Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania’s Senate race, is also anti-abortion. Like many of the new Democrats, he ran a profoundly populist protectionist economic message which attracted many blue-collar “Reagan Democrats” back to the party in the Midwest,.....

Heath Shuler, a former quarterback for the Washington Redskins, was once courted by the Republicans as a possible congressional candidate. He is anti-abortion, pro-gun, anti-free trade — and is now the Democrat representative for the North Carolina 11th District.....

In Indiana, a state overwhelmingly won by President Bush in 2004, three Republicans in the House of Representatives lost seats. All faced conservative Democrats. One, Brad Ellsworth, a county sheriff, is a social conservative who signed a no-tax-rise pledge during the campaign. Joe Donnelly was another cultural conservative winner in Indiana....

In Kentucky, John Yarmuth, a former Republican candidate running as a Democrat, beat Anne Northup, a five-term veteran......

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2444457,00.html

The Times November 09, 2006  Meet the Blue Dogs: pro-gun, anti-abortion - and Democrat By Tim Reid

 

[Bert]

Stratfor makes a Rumsfeld summary and suggests an affect on the American military.

Geopolitical Diary: Rumsfeld's Legacy
www.stratfor.com

U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld resigned on Wednesday after the Democrats succeeded in securing a majority hold on the U.S. House of Representatives in midterm elections.

Rumsfeld is perhaps among the most visionary defense secretaries who have served in the U.S. government, but that hardly has made him an effective one -- and it certainly has not stopped him from being a political liability.

Rumsfeld's primary goal, and the reason that U.S. President George W. Bush brought him into the government in the first place, was to bring about a seminal shift in the shape of the U.S. military. He sought to skip over an entire generation of military hardware -- such as the F-22, which is only now entering the military's toolkit -- and instead focus on the development of fundamentally new technologies, so that 20 years from now the United States would be fielding technology two generations ahead of any potential foes.

Part and parcel of this change would be a massive reduction in the size of the military, with the army suffering the largest cuts in manpower and resources. There would be a corresponding emphasis on light, highly mobile forces with high-tech capabilities such as long-range hypersonic cruise missiles, smart drones and the ability to insert small forces anywhere in the world at a moment's notice.

Rumsfeld's biggest failing was not his plan, or even his execution of it. It was that reality intervened, in the form of the 9/11 attacks and the Iraq war, and he refused to shift course in midstream. Rumsfeld was designing a military that could defeat state power by the precise applications of force while minimizing the exposure of U.S. forces; but the U.S.-jihadist war brought to the table a foe that thrived in chaotic regions where state control was weak or nonexistent. Rumsfeld's plan could overturn the Taliban or Saddam Hussein's government, but it could not muster the manpower necessary to impose order on the resulting chaos. Without sufficient "boots on the ground," the United States has proven unable to deny militants the environment in which they thrive.

The nature of the war the United States found itself fighting changed, and Rumsfeld demonstrated over and over that he lacked the ability to change with it.

His replacement, former CIA director Robert Gates, is in theory being brought in specifically to implement the very changes that Rumsfeld for the longest time refused to admit were necessary. Gates is part of the Iraq Study Group, a cadre of senior statesmen who have been out of government for over a decade -- he left government in 1993 -- recently tasked to come up with alternatives to the current Iraq strategy.

Their recommendations will be interesting to read, and Gates' efforts to implement them will be fascinating to watch. Congressional confirmation for Gates should come very easily and quickly -- he has no great political ambitions and is on the team that is supposed to come up with non-ideological recommendations for the way forward.

But what he will not be doing is prepping the United States for the next threat. Gates is a placeholder -- a competent placeholder for sure, but a placeholder nonetheless. Facing a hostile Congress, the Bush administration has sharp limitations on its actions and we will be seeing no revolutionary proposals from a defense secretary who will be in his job a maximum of two years.

The irony is that, instead of leaping ahead by a generation, U.S. forces have now been saddled with the worst of both worlds: an exhausted military that will take years to repair, and limited progress in the modernization that they will likely need a generation from now.



Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409

 

[Kirkhill]

Rumsfeld's plan could overturn the Taliban or Saddam Hussein's government, but it could not muster the manpower necessary to impose order on the resulting chaos. Without sufficient "boots on the ground," the United States has proven unable to deny militants the environment in which they thrive.

I agree entirely that the US military (not just Rumsfeld's plan) is well designed to destroy conventional forces and overturn governments. I also agree it couldn't muster sufficient boots on the ground.  That is why the Brits (with their infantry heavy army - relatively speaking) were such a necessary addition and why Canada would have been welcome in Iraq and is welcome in Afghanistan.

I disagree that the problem is entirely of Rumsfeld's making.  Clinton reduced the number of divisions - reducing boots on the ground.  The Army opted for mechanics over infanteers by deciding to eliminate light divisions and stick with Tanks, Bradley's and Helicopters.  Even light troops were only saved when Shinseki found more jobs for mechanics by getting the Stryker for them.

It's not just Rumsfeld that has been pitching technology over man-power.  That has been the battle-cry of the US military establishment (and by extension NATO) since WW2.

The west has armed forces that assume peace is normal and war is an aberration.  Your average policeman can tell you different.  Peace has to be maintained.  It requires constant effort, constant struggle, constant fighting, to keep trouble makers from disturbing the peace.  With nation-states we had large entities which if they didn't maintain the peace internally, then at least they contained the disorder within their borders.  Unfortunately, while this reduced the number of actors on the world stage making negotiations easier it also made the consequences of failed negotiations that much more potentially catastrophic.  Also unfortunately there was no guarantee that we would approve of the way the locals maintained the peace.

The one thing that has remained constant however, and this is true of policing neighbourhoods in Canada or in Kandahar - the only way to maintain the peace is to have people, on the street, on their feet, willing to impose the government's order and the rule of law.  And that requires boots - boots that weren't there in 1939 in the US but were disbanded in 1945.  In 1939 the Brits had the boots available, many of the occupied by Indians, Africans, Fijians etc, but after 1945 most of those boots were either disbanded or else were released to attack each other.