Is Rumsfeld Really Incompetent?
Note: this started as a response to Germanicus' post on firing Rumsfeld, but grew long enough to merit its' own post.
This is a tough subject to know which side is correct. We are seeing a difference in philosophy between the view of a leaner, transformed military and the more old school approach of overwhelming force of the Weinberger doctrine. I don't think we know which side is right, and there may never be a way to know conclusively.
Rumsfeld was under attack before 9/11 by many in military leadership and on capital hill. Before 9/11 it was widely assumed that Rumsfeld would be the first cabinet secretary to resign under Bush because of all the heat he was getting.
What was his crime? Challenging the reigning orthodoxy and pushing transformation. He was trying to kill cold war legacy systems to save money and make the military lighter and more deployable. He killed the Crusader artillery system and the Comanche attack helicopter to name a couple. Generals who grew up in the cold war and had trained their whole careers to fight the Soviets in central Europe had trouble adjusting to the new world. He also angered a lot of congressman who lost jobs in their districs because of these cuts.
This is a natural human reaction on the part of the military men and I don't really blame them. There is a history of fighting change in the military. A couple of examples are the battleship admirals in the '30s downplaying the aircraft carrier. The Admirals revolt in the '48 when Truman killed the USS United States (a new 'supercarrier' in its day) to save money and concentrate more on strategic bombers armed with atomic weapons. Its very hard to recognize a seismic shift in when everything you have studied and done for 20+ yrs is challenged.
The Wienburger doctrine (or Powell doctrine) talks about using overwhelming force, having clear objectives, and having a clear exit strategy. This is great in an ideal world, but is not always possible. Gulf I is the only example I can think of where it was possible to meet all of these conditions. US troops have fought heroically and won without overwhelming force. The 1st Marine division at Guadelcanal was outmanded and at the end of a shaky logistics line and still managed to defeat the Japanese after 6 months of combat. Clear objectives are the easy part, take Berlin, take Baghdad, liberate Kuwait etc. A clear exit strategy is not so easy. We didn't have an exit strategy before WWII or Korea, and we still have troops in both places. That is the real world.
I believe the generals are sincere in what they are saying and believe they are saying what they believe the best policy is. I think there point is now being overhyped by many to use as an attack on Bush. There is another side of the story, but the critics are being presented as being correct without question. ( I find it ironic that most of the critics on the left that were against the war attack Bush and Rumsfeld for not having enough troops, not too many).
I think the evidence of who is correct based on Iraq is split.
Rumsfeld was absolutely correct in the war fighting phase. The forces deployed, even with the Turkish refusal to allow the 4th ID in from the north, were enough to crush the Iraqi forces and take Baghdad in 3 weeks. This is a crushing victory on any historical scale that has never been matched. There were 2 army divisions ( the 3 ID, 101 airborne, plus a brigade from the 82nd) and 1 marine division (the 1st, plus task force Tarawa, 2 RCT) The only close comparison is the First Gulf War, where we had about 2 1/2 times the force and did not go to Baghdad. The technology edge, the quality of our troops, the high morale were and still are unequaled in world history.
The aftermath of the war is where it gets dicey. Critics assume that more troops would have produced better results. I wonder if this is true. In order to stop the looting and keep the peace presence alone is not enough, we must be willing to use the force we have. This is a political war as much as anything. Would we have been willing to shoot looters in order to stop them? What would have been the reaction to that video on Al Jazera? Would we be in better or worse shape today if we cracked down? It's impossible to know. We could have 500,000 soldiers in country and still be fighting an insurgency, that is what happened in Vietnam. I don't think its clear cut that more troops as Gen. Shinseki said before the war would have prevented the problems we have, or they may have created different problems.
I personally think Rumsfeld is closer to correct than not in the philosophical debate from everything I have read. I don't think there is a case for saying he is incompetent. Critics of Bush, Rumsfeld and the war are using the dissenting voices in a philosophical argument within the military to beat them up.
This is a tough subject to know which side is correct. We are seeing a difference in philosophy between the view of a leaner, transformed military and the more old school approach of overwhelming force of the Weinberger doctrine. I don't think we know which side is right, and there may never be a way to know conclusively.
Rumsfeld was under attack before 9/11 by many in military leadership and on capital hill. Before 9/11 it was widely assumed that Rumsfeld would be the first cabinet secretary to resign under Bush because of all the heat he was getting.
What was his crime? Challenging the reigning orthodoxy and pushing transformation. He was trying to kill cold war legacy systems to save money and make the military lighter and more deployable. He killed the Crusader artillery system and the Comanche attack helicopter to name a couple. Generals who grew up in the cold war and had trained their whole careers to fight the Soviets in central Europe had trouble adjusting to the new world. He also angered a lot of congressman who lost jobs in their districs because of these cuts.
This is a natural human reaction on the part of the military men and I don't really blame them. There is a history of fighting change in the military. A couple of examples are the battleship admirals in the '30s downplaying the aircraft carrier. The Admirals revolt in the '48 when Truman killed the USS United States (a new 'supercarrier' in its day) to save money and concentrate more on strategic bombers armed with atomic weapons. Its very hard to recognize a seismic shift in when everything you have studied and done for 20+ yrs is challenged.
The Wienburger doctrine (or Powell doctrine) talks about using overwhelming force, having clear objectives, and having a clear exit strategy. This is great in an ideal world, but is not always possible. Gulf I is the only example I can think of where it was possible to meet all of these conditions. US troops have fought heroically and won without overwhelming force. The 1st Marine division at Guadelcanal was outmanded and at the end of a shaky logistics line and still managed to defeat the Japanese after 6 months of combat. Clear objectives are the easy part, take Berlin, take Baghdad, liberate Kuwait etc. A clear exit strategy is not so easy. We didn't have an exit strategy before WWII or Korea, and we still have troops in both places. That is the real world.
I believe the generals are sincere in what they are saying and believe they are saying what they believe the best policy is. I think there point is now being overhyped by many to use as an attack on Bush. There is another side of the story, but the critics are being presented as being correct without question. ( I find it ironic that most of the critics on the left that were against the war attack Bush and Rumsfeld for not having enough troops, not too many).
I think the evidence of who is correct based on Iraq is split.
Rumsfeld was absolutely correct in the war fighting phase. The forces deployed, even with the Turkish refusal to allow the 4th ID in from the north, were enough to crush the Iraqi forces and take Baghdad in 3 weeks. This is a crushing victory on any historical scale that has never been matched. There were 2 army divisions ( the 3 ID, 101 airborne, plus a brigade from the 82nd) and 1 marine division (the 1st, plus task force Tarawa, 2 RCT) The only close comparison is the First Gulf War, where we had about 2 1/2 times the force and did not go to Baghdad. The technology edge, the quality of our troops, the high morale were and still are unequaled in world history.
The aftermath of the war is where it gets dicey. Critics assume that more troops would have produced better results. I wonder if this is true. In order to stop the looting and keep the peace presence alone is not enough, we must be willing to use the force we have. This is a political war as much as anything. Would we have been willing to shoot looters in order to stop them? What would have been the reaction to that video on Al Jazera? Would we be in better or worse shape today if we cracked down? It's impossible to know. We could have 500,000 soldiers in country and still be fighting an insurgency, that is what happened in Vietnam. I don't think its clear cut that more troops as Gen. Shinseki said before the war would have prevented the problems we have, or they may have created different problems.
I personally think Rumsfeld is closer to correct than not in the philosophical debate from everything I have read. I don't think there is a case for saying he is incompetent. Critics of Bush, Rumsfeld and the war are using the dissenting voices in a philosophical argument within the military to beat them up.
posted by hurtleg at 2:59 PM
10 Comments:
Quote: I don't think we know which side is right, and there may never be a way to know conclusively.
Thanks for stating that you are not sure. It is refreshing. So many politicians, media representatives and individuals state that they believe that a particular position is irrefutable, when there is in all actuality, no real way to know(at least at the current time). We can have our own personal theories and beliefs let's just be realistic about them.
john: You seem to be really into knowing that you do not know, and your adherence to that rock-solid Socratic principle is commendable. However, thinking people can agree a priori on the limits of their knowledge and still debate issues. If acknowledging that there is no real way to know becomes the apogee of every debate, then there's no point in having them.
hurtleg: I have many things to say in response to your half-assed defense of the Secretary of Offense, and I'll get to them after I return from the holiday weekend. But I must say I really wish you had posted your thoughts as a comment. By creating a new post, you moved down the page that awesome kitty/Rummy pic, which ranks up there with the "Monument To Pro Life" as the best images ever posted to our blog.
Germanicu$: Thanks for your response. I was more showing my frustration with attempting to have a meaningful debate with people who claim their view is irrufatable, than contributing to this thread specifically.
In the media, in particular, it is all about presentation. Both sides are guilty of presenting a topic they know they can not prove as a foregone and irrefutable conclusion.
Hurtleg stated that he did not know for sure but then he continued and presented his reasoning. I found that refreshing.
I'll shut up now. (laugh)
It doesn't matter whether Rumsfeld is "right" or "wrong" about troop levels, the shape of a future military, or giant mutant kittens being allowed into press briefings. What matters is that the military is becoming polarized and politicized, due to the presence of one man. It's not healthy, especially for a country which has committed so many military resources to so many far-away and expensive places.
If Bush is so fired-up about putting Rummy's ideas into action (and by all indications, Bush has no idea what the fuck is going on), he could sack him and bring in a protege.
Secretaries of all the other departments get canned as a result of political pressure all the time. There are a variety of reasons, and a variety of ways they go (getting sacked, resign, retire, lateral move, etc). What makes him so special?
Wall Street clears its throat, and Treasury Secretaries are discreetly replaced. What will it take to rid our government of this widely detested man - a coup attempt?
Since Tim has broached the subject of corroboration, I'd like to see evidence that "The technology edge, the quality of our troops, the high morale were and still are unequaled in world history." They may not have had iPods and MREs, but those guys at Thermopylae had an awful lot of morale.
"It doesn't matter whether Rumsfeld is "right" or "wrong" about troop levels, the shape of a future military, or giant mutant kittens being allowed into press briefings. What matters is that the military is becoming polarized and politicized, due to the presence of one man."
Now you are making a different argument on why Rumsfeld should go. Critis all say he is incompetent and I made some arguments that he is not. You have done nothing to refute my argument, you changed it to he is unpopular.
"If Bush is so fired-up about putting Rummy's ideas into action (and by all indications, Bush has no idea what the fuck is going on), he could sack him and bring in a protege."
First, the cheap shot that Bush doesn't know what is going on is stupid on its face and there is no evidence that this is true, just a general adhominem attack.
Now, should Rumsfeld be replaced for political reasons, maybe. I can see arguments on both sides. I am skeptical that firing Rumsfeld would change much. If he were replaced by McCain or Lieberman, would anyone against the war today suddenly be for it? No. Would people uncomfortable with the execution come around, maybe, and that would be worth it.
However, we have a long tradition of civilian control over the military and letting a couple of retired generals run the SECDEF out of office would be a very dangerous precedent. Again, I think the generals are sincere in their beliefs and are doing what they think is best, but it doesn't automatically make them right.
I forgot to respond to the last part of your post.
"The technology edge, the quality of our troops, the high morale were and still are unequaled in world history." They may not have had iPods and MREs, but those guys at Thermopylae had an awful lot of morale
Yes, but they all died. It's hard to compare differnent eras, almost by definition today's military is going to be better than anything in history. An armored platoon would wipe out the Spatans at Thermopylae without slowing down.
I think the best evidence of the US military dominence are the 2 Gulf Wars. In Gulf I, most experts thought the Iraqi army was very well equiped with Soviet Weapons and was a battle hardend force that beat the Iranians after 8 long years. The US army rolled over them in 4 days with less than 300 dead, an unprecedentedly low casulty rate. Twelve years later the US had advanced another generation in technology (JDAMS, integration of communications through computer networks) while no one else in the world has advanced much. Our stealth technology allows the US to put a bomb on any spot on the planet with great accuracy within 24 hrs no matter the air defence. This may change someday (China may find a way to neutralize stealth someday if they put money into it and try), but today it is unmatched. The supiority of the M1A2 Abrams tank is such that it can destroy almost any other tank in the world on the move at night while staying out of range of enemy.
Too sum up, the proof is on the battlefield, not some link to the NY Times.
"Now you are making a different argument on why Rumsfeld should go. Critis all say he is incompetent and I made some arguments that he is not. You have done nothing to refute my argument, you changed it to he is unpopular."
I'm not making a different argument at all; I never contended Rumsfeld should go because his ideas are bunk.
The two arguments are independent of each other. One could contend that his ideas are valid and still call for his ouster. I don't happen to have any opinion on his ideas, so I'll assume that your appraisal of them is accurate. That does nothing to refute my point about the danger of dissension in the ranks.
As far as his ideas are concerned, I offered the compromise of a protege. Keep the ideas but lose the man.
Rumsfeld should go because by keeping him on, you allow this counterproductive bickering to continue. And it's not just isolated to a few disgruntled generals; the press, his foreign counterparts, many in Congress, a majority of Americans, even many in the administration think he's a wanker. Jerry Bremer talks in some detail in his book about how impossible Rummy was to work with.
Sure, a cabinet position is not a popularity contest. But at some point you have to concede that the constant barrage of criticism is so counterproductive to your mission that sacking him is the best way to go.
The "dangerous precedent" you allege is preposterous. No SECDEF has ever been sacked before? And what about Treasury - are you also concerned that we are sending a dangerous message that Wall Street can bully around the administration?
"...the high morale were and still are unequaled in world history." I still wouldn't mind if you'd back this up with numbers.
I stand by my cheap shot at Bush.
OK, I agree its fair to call for his ouster from the political point of view. Like I said, I can see the positive in it. I haven't completely bought into it, but I understand it. Most of the arguments I here (maybe I am projecting onto you) have been that he is incompetent, not that he is a political liability.
As far as numbers go, the whole point of the revolution in military affairs today is that it is not about numbers, its about speed and mobility. It's about information and knowing where the enemy is.
A saying in the military today is "if you can see it, you can hit it. If you can hit it, you can kill it." We don't need millions of men in a trench line like WWI or even the mass armies of WWII. Tehnology has made one man with some airsupport far more deadly than a battalion of infantry from WWI.
Its hard to put into numbers the quality of troops, but a good historical comparison may be the Franco Prussion War of 1870-71. In its day it was considered a shockingly quick and overwhelming victory as Germany overran France and took Paris. The Germans mobilize about 1.5 million men and it still took 6 months. The US army in Gulf II used under 200k and went a similar distance in 3 weeks.
Another example may be the battle of 73 Eastings in Gulf I. A tank troop (company sized, about 15 tanks) of the 2nd armoured cavalry regiment destroyed a brigade(200 tanks or so) of the Iraqi Republican Guard (considered the elite and a competent force)in a battle where the US suffered no casulties or losses. Remember, our army has jumped another generation since then, while no one else in the world has improved much.
hurtleg: "Now, should Rumsfeld be replaced for political reasons, maybe. I can see arguments on both sides."
How exactly does the "other" side work - that Rumsfeld is a political asset to the beleaguered Bush Administration? That he is a consensus-building visionary, respected and admired? That in order to implement the reforms he advocates, HE, PERSONALLY must be at the helm?
Here's the Wall St Journal yesterday, at the end of a long and pointless defense of him:
The anti-Rumsfeld generals have a right to their opinion. But there's a reason the Founders provided for civilian control of the military, and a danger in military men using their presumed authority to push elected Administrations around. As for Democrats and their media allies, we can only admire their sudden new deference to the senior U.S. officer corps, which follows their strange new respect for the "intelligence community" they also once despised. U.S. military recruiters might not be welcome on Ivy League campuses, but they're heroes when they trash the Bush Administration.
That gets us no closer to an understanding the "other" side, but it gives us a clear indication of what we're dealing with. Classic WSJ: After telling the generals, "It's a free country, but shut the hell up," they dress up their favorite straw men, "the Democrats and their media allies," and beat them with their imagination-sticks until they feel better about having to carry water for the most unpopular president in history.
Any readers of NRO or the right-wing blogosphere, I'd welcome links proffering a "pro" Rumsfeld position that makes a lick of sense.
How about the common sense approach of not losing your job because people find you overbearing. If Rumsfeld is carring out the President's policies and the President is happy with him the default should be to keep his job.
Post a Comment
<< Home