Sunday, December 03, 2006

Even Rumsfeld Thought Iraq Needed A New Approach

Rumsfeld Supported Major Changes in the Iraq Strategy, According To a Memo Leaked To The New York Times

This begs the question.... was Rumsfeld actually a detractor late in his term? Had he actually become a critic? And therefore was he forced out for not sticking to the script and staying the course? Because Bush did not want to be forced to change strategy and admit that the "stay the course" approach was a disaster all along.

I wish Rumseld would have been more skeptical of his own planning (or lack thereof) a lot earlier.... perhaps we wouldn't be in this mess. I personally thought the guy was a robot, incapable of being flexible, making adjustments, admitting mistakes, or listening. He was incapable of critical thinking and being skeptical of his own ideas and those of his neo-Conservative colleagues (All of whom were Chicken Hawks).

This lack of careful planning, flexibility, and thinking ahead....and the lack of consideration for the views of seasoned Veteran leaders in the Pentagon, was the reason why the Generals didn't like him. He allowed stubborness and loyalty to a Political Party to get in the way of good policy and what was best for the U.S. (A Defense Secretary should never be a partisan political figure).


Rumsfeld urged big changes in Iraq strategy

By Michael R. Gordon and David S. Cloud
The New York Times

WASHINGTON — Two days before he resigned as defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld submitted to the White House a classified memo that acknowledged the Bush administration's strategy in Iraq was not working and called for a major course correction.

"In my view it is time for a major adjustment," wrote Rumsfeld, a symbol of a dogged, stay-the-course policy. "Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough."

Nor did Rumsfeld seem confident that the administration would readily develop an effective alternative. To limit political fallout, he suggested a campaign to lower public expectations.

Continue Reading from The Seattle Times.

No comments: