| |
Main
Date: 03 Dec 2006 19:09:01
From: George Orwell
Subject: OT-Rummy May Have Been Right
|
Here all along, we were thinking maybe dubya was growing a few brain
cells when it looks more and more like he was just doing the same old,
same old, of stubbornly protecting his own failed policy. Looks more like
Rummy was let go when he was finally coming around to seeing the truth.
The truth DID set him free.
Disclaimer-bush-bots-lots of words, some of them big and no pictures.
Proceed at your own risk.
December 3, 2006 NYT
Rumsfeld Memo on Iraq Proposed ‘Major’ Change
By MICHAEL R. GORDON and DAVID S. CLOUD
WASHINGTON, Dec. 2 — Two days before he resigned as defense secretary,
Donald H. Rumsfeld submitted a classified memo to the White House that
acknowledged that 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 Mr. Rumsfeld, who
has been 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 Mr. Rumsfeld seem confident that the administration would readily
develop an effective alternative. To limit the political fallout from
shifting course, he suggested the administration consider a campaign to
lower public expectations.
“Announce that whatever new approach the U.S. decides on, the U.S. is
doing so on a trial basis,” he wrote. “This will give us the ability to
readjust and move to another course, if necessary, and therefore not
‘lose.’ ”
“Recast the U.S. military mission and the U.S. goals (how we talk about
them) — go minimalist,” he added. The memo suggests frustration with the
pace of turning over responsibility to the Iraqi authorities; in fact,
the memo calls for examination of ideas that roughly parallel troop
withdrawal proposals presented by some of the White House’s sharpest
Democratic critics. (Text of the Memo)
The memo’s discussion of possible troop reduction options offers a
counterpoint to Mr. Rumsfeld’s frequent public suggestions that
discussions about force levels are driven by requests from American
military commanders.
It also puts on the table several ideas for troop redeployments or
withdrawals, even as there have been recent pronouncements from American
commanders emphasizing the need to maintain troop levels for the time
being.
The memorandum sometimes has a finger-wagging tone, as Mr. Rumsfeld says
that the Iraqis must “pull up their socks,” and suggests that
reconstruction aid should be withheld in violent areas to avoid rewarding
“bad behavior.”
Other options called for shrinking the number of bases, establishing
benchmarks that would mark the Iraqis’ progress toward political,
economic and security goals and conducting a “reverse embeds” program to
attach Iraqi soldiers to American squads.
The memo was finished one day after President Bush interviewed Robert M.
Gates, the president of Texas A&M University, as a potential successor to
Mr. Rumsfeld and one day before the midterm elections. By then it was
clear that the Republicans appeared likely to suffer a setback at the
polls and that the administration was poised to begin reconsidering its
Iraq strategy.
The memo provides no indication that Mr. Rumsfeld intended to leave his
Pentagon post. It is unclear whether he knew at that point that he was
about to be replaced, though the White House has said that Mr. Bush and
Mr. Rumsfeld had a number of conversations on the matter.
Told that The New York Times had obtained a copy of it, a Pentagon
spokesman, Eric Ruff, confirmed its authenticity. “As it became clear
that people were considering options for the way forward, the secretary
had some views on the subject, and this memo reflects those views,” he
said.
At the Pentagon, Mr. Rumsfeld has been famous for his “snowflakes” —
memos that drift down to the bureaucracy from on high and that are used
to ask questions, stimulate debate and shape policy. Mr. Rumsfeld’s Nov.
6 memorandum, circulated as part of the administration’s review of Iraq
policy, is written in that spirit and with the same blunt aphorisms that
Mr. Rumsfeld frequently uses in public.
Unlike the lawyerly memo on Iraq policy submitted Nov. 8 by Stephen J.
Hadley, the national security adviser, Mr. Rumsfeld’s listed more than a
dozen “illustrative options” that the defense secretary did not endorse,
but suggested merited serious consideration. “Many of these options
could, and in a number of cases, should be done in combination with
others,” Mr. Rumsfeld advised.
With Mr. Rumsfeld’s resignation, the options no longer have the same
weight. In recent weeks, some have been discarded as the Bush
administration tries to adjust its military and political strategy in
Iraq. But others, like increasing the number of advisers attached to
Iraqi forces, live on and have also been recommended by others.
Mr. Rumsfeld, who has presided over two wars and is one of the longest-
serving Pentagon chiefs, is scheduled to leave when his designated
successor, Mr. Gates, is confirmed by the Senate, expected later this
month.
Titled “Iraq — Illustrative New Courses of Action,” the memo reflects
mounting concern over a war that, as Mr. Rumsfeld put it, has evolved
from “major combat operations to counterterrorism, to counterinsurgency,
to dealing with death squads and sectarian violence.”
The first section of the memo contains two pages of options that Mr.
Rumsfeld describes as “above the line” ideas worthy of consideration.
Some that Mr. Rumsfeld found intriguing appear to reflect his long-held
view that the United States should use relatively modest force in
intervening in foreign countries to avoid creating a dependency on
American power. That approach, critics have charged, left the United
States unprepared to deal with the chaos that followed the ouster of
Saddam Hussein.
Mr. Rumsfeld has frequently emphasized the difficulty of stabilizing Iraq
and the need to turn over responsibility to Iraqi authorities as quickly
as possible. But he has also been a forceful, even cantankerous, defender
of American policy, often insisting his critics were unduly pessimistic.
On Oct. 31, just a week before finishing the memo, Mr. Rumsfeld told a
radio interviewer, “I feel that we are making good progress with the
piece of it the Defense Department has.”
One option Mr. Rumsfeld offered calls for modest troop withdrawals “so
Iraqis know they have to pull up their socks, step up and take
responsibility for their country.”
Another option calls for redeploying American troops from “vulnerable
positions” in Baghdad and other cities to safer areas in Iraq or Kuwait,
where they would act as a “quick reaction force.” That idea is similar to
a plan suggested by Representative John P. Murtha, a Pennsylvania
Democrat, a plan that the White House has soundly rebuffed.
Still another option calls for consolidating the number of American bases
in Iraq to 5 from 55 by July 2007, a considerable shrinking of the
American footprint. At the same time, Mr. Rumsfeld all but dismisses the
idea of setting a firm date for removing forces from Iraq, listing it as
one of the less palatable ideas.
One of the more provocative options would punish provinces that failed to
cooperate with the Americans by withdrawing economic assistance and
security. “Stop rewarding bad behavior, as was done in Falluja when they
pushed in reconstruction funds, and start rewarding good behavior,” the
option reads. “No more reconstruction assistance in areas where there is
violence.”
Some military officers have said that the idea of denying assistance in
some areas ignores the fact that many Iraqis are afraid to cooperate with
the Americans for fear of retaliation by insurgents.
Falluja has been the focus of reconstruction efforts following an
offensive by Americans that crippled city services and damaged scores of
buildings, leaving the United States few options beyond rebuilding or
evacuating the city. Now, it is considered by the Marines to be one of
the few relatively stable areas in the dangerous Anbar Province. Many of
the other towns in the region have become even more hostile because the
economic assistance has been minimal, leaving the residents feeling
neglected by the authorities in Baghdad, military officers say.
Then, too, work on infrastructure that sprawls across the country, like
the electrical grid and the oil pipelines, network, cannot be limited to
nonviolent areas.
“There is an element of throwing in the towel and effectively giving up
on at least some areas of the country,” said James Dobbins, a former
State Department official and director of the International Security and
Defense Policy Center at RAND.
In any case, administration officials indicated this week that
withholding assistance was not under serious consideration.
Reflecting exasperation with much of the American government, another
option in the memo raises the possibility of using military reservists to
“beef up” the Iraqi government’s ministries. “Give up on trying to get
other USG Departments to do it,” he writes, referring to other United
States government agencies.
Taking a leaf out of Mr. Hussein’s book, Mr. Rumsfeld seemed to see some
merit in the former dictator’s practice of paying Iraqi leaders. “Provide
money to key political and religious leaders (as Saddam Hussein did), to
get them to help us get through this difficult period,” one option reads.
The list of favored options notably does not mention the “clear, hold and
build” approach that the White House has touted as its strategy for
waging counterinsurgency. That is a troop-intensive approach that calls
for clearing contested areas with American and Iraqi troops, holding them
with American and Iraqi forces and then carrying out reconstruction
programs to win support. Nor does the list make the withdrawal of
American forces explicitly contingent on improving conditions in Iraq.
The final page of the memo is a brief list of six “less attractive”
options, which Mr. Rumsfeld describes as “below the line.” They include
an “aggressive federalism plan,” an international conference modeled on
the Dayton accords that produced an agreement on Bosnia and an idea that
is currently being seriously discussed by senior administration
officials: temporarily sending 20,000 additional American forces or more
to Baghdad to try to improve security there and regain momentum.
Moving a large fraction of American forces to Baghdad to “attempt to
control it,” Mr. Rumsfeld writes without further elaboration, would be
“below the line.”
|
|
| |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 12:15:59
From: multi
Subject: Re: OT-Rummy May Have Been Right
|
On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 19:09:01 +0100 (CET), George Orwell
<nobody@mixmaster.it > wrote:
>Looks more like
>Rummy was let go when he was finally coming around to seeing the truth.
Not Rummy. Read Cole's take on the memo.
http://www.juancole.com/
If you aren't familiar with Cole, he's a Middle East history professor
at U of M who speaks Arabic and Persian, and his blog gives the best
summary of Arabic press reports available to laymen.
|
| | |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 13:22:15
From: The World Wide Wade
Subject: Re: OT-Rummy May Have Been Right
|
In article <2pb6n21bv107msc2o3cvr6deqp6sluvbcv@4ax.com >,
multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 19:09:01 +0100 (CET), George Orwell
> <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote:
> >Looks more like
> >Rummy was let go when he was finally coming around to seeing the truth.
>
> Not Rummy. Read Cole's take on the memo.
> http://www.juancole.com/
>
> If you aren't familiar with Cole, he's a Middle East history professor
> at U of M who speaks Arabic and Persian, and his blog gives the best
> summary of Arabic press reports available to laymen.
3. Rumsfeld openly admits that he wants to run Iraq just like
Saddam did:
'Provide money to key political and religious leaders (as Saddam
Hussein did), to get them to help us get through this difficult
period. '
I mean, bribing people to be your puppets is bad enough, but
citing Saddam's policies as an example for how Iraq should be run
is absolutely outrageous.
----------
Actually Cole is outrageous here. The use of one of Saddam's
stratagems does not imply "he wants to run Iraq just like Saddam
did."
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 00:55:32
From: George Orwell
Subject: Re: OT-Rummy May Have Been Right
|
In article <waderameyxiii-8EBD00.13221503122006@comcast.dca.giganews.com >
The World Wide Wade <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net > wrote:
>
> In article <2pb6n21bv107msc2o3cvr6deqp6sluvbcv@4ax.com>,
> multi <multi@asm.org> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 19:09:01 +0100 (CET), George Orwell
> > <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote:
> > >Looks more like
> > >Rummy was let go when he was finally coming around to seeing the truth.
> >
> > Not Rummy. Read Cole's take on the memo.
> > http://www.juancole.com/
> >
> > If you aren't familiar with Cole, he's a Middle East history professor
> > at U of M who speaks Arabic and Persian, and his blog gives the best
> > summary of Arabic press reports available to laymen.
>
>
> 3. Rumsfeld openly admits that he wants to run Iraq just like
> Saddam did:
>
> 'Provide money to key political and religious leaders (as Saddam
> Hussein did), to get them to help us get through this difficult
> period. '
>
> I mean, bribing people to be your puppets is bad enough, but
> citing Saddam's policies as an example for how Iraq should be run
> is absolutely outrageous.
> ----------
>
> Actually Cole is outrageous here. The use of one of Saddam's
> stratagems does not imply "he wants to run Iraq just like Saddam
Before we went into iraq, I heard a few talking heads say that like
saddam or not, he had things under control. Of course, it was his control
or none at all and sure enough. The factions of this civil war probably
couldn't believe their own eyes when the US invaded, knowing that soon,
saddam would be gone and they could try to further their own agendas. We
have created this civil war and like most civil wars, it will have to be
settled by those inside the country. Thanks again bush and how many years
has it been since "Mission Accomplished?"
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 14:53:34
From: multi
Subject: Re: OT-Rummy May Have Been Right
|
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 13:22:15 -0800, The World Wide Wade
<waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net > wrote:
>Actually Cole is outrageous here. The use of one of Saddam's
>stratagems does not imply "he wants to run Iraq just like Saddam
>did."
Your complaint might be justified if Rumsfeld hadn't previously signed
off on kidnapping, torture, and massive reprisals (e.g., the
decimation of Fallujah for the killing of three mercenaries). Running
Iraq like Saddam did would be an improvement over the way we have run
it. I realize that some people consider a peer-reviewed Johns Hopkins
study to be less credible than Bush Administration propaganda, but we
appear to have killed far more Iraqis in three years than Saddam did
in ten, not to mention the decline in the quality of life (less water,
power, sanitation, freedom in religion, dress, and education,
employment, etc.)
|
| | | | |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 16:45:13
From: The World Wide Wade
Subject: Re: OT-Rummy May Have Been Right
|
In article <7dk6n2pjrenij7193k1fhbqm9l0oj2bnme@4ax.com >,
multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 13:22:15 -0800, The World Wide Wade
> <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net> wrote:
> >Actually Cole is outrageous here. The use of one of Saddam's
> >stratagems does not imply "he wants to run Iraq just like Saddam
> >did."
>
> Your complaint might be justified
It's justified, because it's a simple matter of logic. You can
argue that other facts might be brought to bear on the case, as
you do below (most of which I agree with), but then that would be
your argument, not Cole's, and my complaint is with Cole.
> if Rumsfeld hadn't previously signed
> off on kidnapping, torture, and massive reprisals (e.g., the
> decimation of Fallujah for the killing of three mercenaries).
> Running
> Iraq like Saddam did would be an improvement over the way we have run
> it. I realize that some people consider a peer-reviewed Johns Hopkins
> study to be less credible than Bush Administration propaganda, but we
> appear to have killed far more Iraqis in three years than Saddam did
> in ten, not to mention the decline in the quality of life (less water,
> power, sanitation, freedom in religion, dress, and education,
> employment, etc.)
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 09:12:05
From: John B.
Subject: Re: OT-Rummy May Have Been Right
|
Fairway wrote:
> George Orwell wrote:
> > Before we went into iraq, I heard a few talking heads say that like
> > saddam or not, he had things under control. Of course, it was his control
> > or none at all and sure enough.
>
> Stalin also had things firmly under control. So did Franco. Most
> dictators do.
>
> > Thanks again bush and how many years
> > has it been since "Mission Accomplished?"
>
> The mission of invading Iraq was a wonderful success. The Sunnis are
> stirring up things but that will pass. Bush did the right thing. Trust
> the great leader and shut up.
>
> F
If the mission was a wonderful success, then why are we stilll there?
And by the way, Moqtada al-Sadr is not a Sunni.
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 08:24:34
From: Fairway
Subject: Re: OT-Rummy May Have Been Right
|
George Orwell wrote:
> Before we went into iraq, I heard a few talking heads say that like
> saddam or not, he had things under control. Of course, it was his control
> or none at all and sure enough.
Stalin also had things firmly under control. So did Franco. Most
dictators do.
> Thanks again bush and how many years
> has it been since "Mission Accomplished?"
The mission of invading Iraq was a wonderful success. The Sunnis are
stirring up things but that will pass. Bush did the right thing. Trust
the great leader and shut up.
F
|
| | |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 10:03:47
From: The World Wide Wade
Subject: Re: OT-Rummy May Have Been Right
|
In article
<1165249474.136395.39440@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com >,
"Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com > wrote:
> George Orwell wrote:
> > Before we went into iraq, I heard a few talking heads say that like
> > saddam or not, he had things under control. Of course, it was his control
> > or none at all and sure enough.
>
> Stalin also had things firmly under control. So did Franco. Most
> dictators do.
Which is why the US has a long record of supporting dictators who
do business "the right way".
> > Thanks again bush and how many years
> > has it been since "Mission Accomplished?"
>
> The mission of invading Iraq was a wonderful success. The Sunnis are
> stirring up things but that will pass.
Your ignorance is apalling.
> Bush did the right thing. Trust
> the great leader and shut up.
Good one.
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 22:04:38
From: George Orwell
Subject: Re: APALLING???-OT-Rummy May Have Been Right
|
In article <waderameyxiii-5E2285.10034704122006@comcast.dca.giganews.com >
The World Wide Wade <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net > wrote:
>
> In article
> <1165249474.136395.39440@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>,
> "Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > George Orwell wrote:
> > > Before we went into iraq, I heard a few talking heads say that like
> > > saddam or not, he had things under control. Of course, it was his control
> > > or none at all and sure enough.
> >
> > Stalin also had things firmly under control. So did Franco. Most
> > dictators do.
>
> Which is why the US has a long record of supporting dictators who
> do business "the right way".
>
> > > Thanks again bush and how many years
> > > has it been since "Mission Accomplished?"
> >
> > The mission of invading Iraq was a wonderful success. The Sunnis are
> > stirring up things but that will pass.
>
> Your ignorance is apalling.
>
> > Bush did the right thing. Trust
> > the great leader and shut up.
>
> Good one.
"Your ignorance is apalling" as you misspell appalling. LOLOL
|
| | |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 21:49:35
From: George Orwell
Subject: Re: OT-Rummy May Have Been Right
|
In article <1165249474.136395.39440@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com >
"Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
>
> George Orwell wrote:
> > Before we went into iraq, I heard a few talking heads say that like
> > saddam or not, he had things under control. Of course, it was his control
> > or none at all and sure enough.
>
> Stalin also had things firmly under control. So did Franco. Most
> dictators do.
>
> > Thanks again bush and how many years
> > has it been since "Mission Accomplished?"
>
> The mission of invading Iraq was a wonderful success. The Sunnis are
> stirring up things but that will pass. Bush did the right thing. Trust
> the great leader and shut up.
>
> F
Even bush did up to a few weeks ago.
|
|
