Rumsfeld Rolls On

Is there any doubt, with the rapid collapse of Saddam Hussein’s totalitarian regime, that Donald Rumsfeld is President Bush’s most valuable ally?

Not even 15 days ago, the secretary of defense was savaged in the mainstream and left-wing press as the architect of another Vietnam and likened to Robert McNamara, his counterpart during that protracted war. He was accused by The New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh (whose April 7 article cements his reputation as a paranoid quack almost the equal of Oliver Stone) for conducting this war "on the cheap" and sabotaging the theater commanders’ request for more ground troops.

On March 30, Maureen Dowd, the noted military analyst for the New York Times, blasted Rumsfeld in her frivolous semiweekly op-ed column. She wrote: "We’re shocked that the enemy forces don’t observe the rules of war. We’re shocked that it’s hard to tell civilians from combatants and friends from foes... Golly, as our secretary of war likes to say, it’s unfair...

"Why is this all a surprise again? I know our hawks avoided serving in Vietnam, but didn’t they, like, read about it?"

For the record, Rumsfeld, 70, spent three years (1954-57) in the Navy, and remained an active reservist until becoming President Ford’s secretary of defense in 1975.

Dowd concluded her naive piece by saying that instead of responding to criticism about the alleged quagmire of a war not even two weeks old, "Rummy was too busy shaking his fist at Syria and Iran to worry about the shortage of troops in Iraq." In fact, it’s Rumsfeld’s blunt assessment of threats in the Mideast that makes him so important to Bush.

Not that Howell Raines’ Times will ever admit, as long as a Democrat is breathing, that Rumsfeld was skillful in coordinating the war strategy with Bush and Franks. An April 12 editorial demonstrated to what extent the Times’ ostriches will go to distort the comments of those they disagree with.

In reaction to the looting that overwhelmed Baghdad immediately after it became clear Saddam was either dead or holed up in a tunnel like a rat, the paper denounced Rumsfeld for his allegedly cavalier comments about the chaos in the streets. The editorial read: "The images of smiling children and cheering crowds in Iraq have been overtaken by a new, much more disturbing portrait of anarchy and fear. Looters, who began by going after the offices and homes of Saddam Hussein’s henchmen, have moved on to stores, warehouses and even hospitals...

"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was understandably defensive but stunningly off message yesterday when he claimed: ‘Freedom’s untidy. And free people are free to commit mistakes, and to commit crimes.’ That was not the vision of freedom the Bush administration was selling when it began this enterprise, and it is not necessarily one the Iraqi people would welcome."

Ignore, for the moment, the Times’ typical characterization of the Iraq invasion as an "enterprise" hardly more significant than an advertising campaign. Rumsfeld was, in reality, more expansive in his reaction to the looting. He said: "While no one condones looting, on the other hand one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression and people who’ve had members of their family killed by that regime, for them to be taking their feelings out on that regime...," acknowledging that, "We do feel an obligation to assist in providing security, and the coalition forces are doing that."

In fact, in Monday’s Times, reporter John F. Burns vindicated Rumsfeld’s statement. Burns wrote: "The chaos that turned Baghdad into a place of nightmarish lawlessness during the past five days began today to give way to tentative signs of a city determined to begin the long climb back to order...

"Almost everywhere, from the revival of some bus service in the city center to squads of Iraqi volunteers venturing out into what had been free-fire zones to recover the putrefying bodies of the dead, there were signs that the 4.5 million people of Baghdad were beginning to reclaim the edges of a normal life."

Like Bush, Rumsfeld is explicit in his opinions, doesn’t coddle reporters and has successfully implemented changes at the Pentagon that aren’t popular with the status quo. His advocacy of a military that relies on speed and fewer ground troops is as shocking to past (and some present) generals as the president’s proposals for tort, tax and Social Security reform are to Congress.

While Secretary of State Colin Powell was assuring the world that the U.S. would not invade any other countries, Rumsfeld and Bush were more truthful, stating that any interference by Syria or Iran would not be helpful and that their leaders would be held responsible. Giving Powell the benefit of the doubt–and fawning media reports of his irreparable rift with Rumsfeld are grossly exaggerated–that it’s his duty to soothe world leaders who didn’t support the U.S./UK-led coalition, he’s the glad-hander of this administration. That’s a valuable function: Powell, the darling of DC/New York pundits who believe he ought to resign on principle, isn’t going to leave his post any time soon.

Last Sunday, Bush warned Syria about the consequences of aiding refugees of Saddam’s fallen regime. While not explicitly addressing the consequences of continued aid to Hezbollah and the other Palestinian-friendly terrorist organizations that continue to threaten Israel, the president was firm. He said: "First things first. We’re here in Iraq now... [T]he Syrian government needs to cooperate with the United States and our coalition partners and not harbor any Baathists, any military officials, any people who need to be held to account for their tenure during what we are learning more and more about what was one of the most horrendous governments ever."

In other words, Syria’s leader Bashar Assad either gets with the program or he’s history.

Prior to Bush’s "Axis of Evil" State of the Union address, Rumsfeld was the toast of the Beltway press corps, mostly because of his clipped, just-the-facts answers at Pentagon briefings. It made for better copy than Press Secretary Ari Fleischer’s necessary (if irritating) evasiveness, and the veteran government official was the elite’s favorite Republican (aside from Sen. John McCain).

Rumsfeld, however, became Bush’s "cowboy" sidekick back in January when he had the temerity to criticize France and Germany for their recalcitrance in supporting the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. On Jan. 22, Mr. Rumsfeld told the media: "You’re thinking of Europe as Germany and France. I don’t. I think that’s old Europe… Germany has been a problem and France has been a problem… But you look at vast numbers of other countries in Europe, they’re not with France and Germany on this. They’re with the United States."

Rumsfeld, alluding to German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder’s reelection victory based on anti-Americanism and France’s tag-team of Jacques Chirac and Dominique de Villepin attempting to prove their country’s relevance in the United Nations, was absolutely correct.

Just last week the Nation’s lead editorial was headlined "Rumsfeld Should Go." The "progressive" weekly, aghast at Rumsfeld’s assertion that the United States, rather than the U.N., should shepherd the beginnings of a new Iraqi government, argued this proved "a failed foreign policy" and "U.S. imperial designs." The Nation, in its bizarre view of international politics, also suggested that Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Vice President Cheney and perhaps Condoleezza Rice consider resigning. Presumably Nation editor Katrina DeFarge would also cart "neocons" like Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Fred Barnes, the entire Fox News staff and pro-war presidential contenders like Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt off to the guillotine as well.

The mainstream media, while not as reckless as the Nation, has also been relentless in its criticism of Rumsfeld and his coterie of colleagues who dare to prefer Ariel Sharon to Yasir Arafat. These conniving men and women have obviously led the hapless Bush astray. The jubilation in Baghdad on April 9, as a statue of Saddam was toppled by repressed Iraqis and then paraded through the streets, isn’t likely to mollify Rumsfeld’s enemies. Fortunately, his allegiance isn’t to the media but to President Bush.

Unlike Cheney, who could barely suppress his glee at the quick fall of Saddam’s regime–chiding detractors as "retired military officers embedded in t.v. studios"–Rumsfeld was far more sober. While claiming that Saddam has now joined Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Nicolae Ceausescu "in the pantheon of failed, brutal dictators," he was careful to warn against American hubris, saying the war is not yet over.

(An aside: It’s not politically helpful that Cheney’s former employer Halliburton is involved in the reconstruction of Iraq. While it’s obvious that France, Germany and Russia deserve just a morsel or two of government contracts, Britain, Spain, Poland and Australia ought to have a major presence in the post-war Iraq.)

Rich Lowry, editor of the National Review, offered the most succinct summary of Rumsfeld in an April 8 syndicated column. "[Rumsfeld] is decisive and tough," Lowry wrote, "with no time for the touchy-feely conventions of contemporary America, an Eisenhower man preserved in the Age of Oprah.... This makes him a target for allies of the status quo at the Pentagon and anyone who doesn’t like Bush’s aggressive foreign policy, here or abroad. So be it."

Now, if Bush could find a treasury secretary with the backbone of Donald Rumsfeld, who’d actually spend some time arm-twisting congressional members to promote the president’s economic plan, the United States would be on the way to domestic recovery. Perhaps that would quell the chorus of lazy reporters who repeatedly compare the administrations of Bush and his father. Unlike the first President Bush, who had no affinity for campaigning or concentrating on problems at home, his son not only is a better politician, but is far more ideological. Saudi Arabia, for example, won’t fare well if George W. Bush is reelected next year. And while James Baker was too self-important to rescue his boss from the 1992 triple threat of Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot and ultimately Bill Clinton, Karl Rove won’t ignore the messy business of a reelection campaign.

Send comments to [MUG1988@aol.com](mailto:MUG1988@aol.com).