Commentary: Rumsfeld's less than optimistic leaked memo

[Chewbacca]

The truth will set you free, supposedly...

Link

The politics of the leaked Rumsfeld memo are fascinating. Its truthfulness is refreshing Oct. 24 — Welcome to Rumsfeld’s reality. It’s a brave new world in Washington now that Donald Rumsfeld has revealed the true nature of the conflict in Iraq. Americans didn’t sign on for a “long, hard slog,” as Rumsfeld put it so memorably in a memo to his top generals. RUMSFELD’S WORDS CONFIRM what critics of the war have been saying. The invasion of Iraq was a costly diversion from the broader war on terrorism, and not the central front as President Bush has claimed. Rumsfeld frets that the religious schools known as madrassas are turning out terrorists at a faster clip than U.S. forces can capture them. Rummy’s revelations are exquisitely timed. Just as Bush is complaining about the national press “filter,” along comes Mr. Filter himself with a sour assessment of the administration’s success in combating terrorism. This is classic Washington. You have to read the entrails. Did Rumsfeld intentionally leak this memo? Was he getting back at the White House for that little reorganization deal they pulled a few weeks ago that seemed to move him aside to make room at the top for Condoleezza Rice? It’s hard to believe that Rumsfeld would go to these lengths to strike a bureaucratic blow at the White House. “He laid a giant turd on the front doorstep of all the happy talk,” says a Senate Republican aide. If Rumsfeld didn’t intend for this memo to get out, then it was a “revenge of the toes,” the aide speculates. “He stepped on so many toes that this was somebody’s way of getting back at him.” Either way, the truths that Rumsfeld put to paper in the memo leaked to USA Today reflect the hard reality of our engagement in Iraq, and should be the public posture of the administration. The fact that Rumsfeld dares to say the administration lacks “the metrics to measure” progress in fighting terrorism is the most chilling aspect of his frosty analysis. “It seems the harder we work, the behinder we get,” he says. They can put that on the administration’s tombstone. On Capitol Hill, even the most stalwart Republicans are tired of the Bush White House’s arrogant dismissal of Congress’ legitimate role. Bush and his top guns have kept congressional leaders in the dark on Iraq, minimizing the costs and the commitment. Rumsfeld’s memo is not of the magnitude of the Pentagon Papers, but it qualifies as an eye-opener just as the Nixon-era document leaked to the New York Times peeled back all the happy talk and shared the sordid tale of Vietnam. “When you tell everybody everything is going fine and internally you have doubts, it raises questions about credibility,” says a Senate Republican. Rumsfeld has been annoying just about everybody in Washington since he joined this administration. The result is that he has few friends in high places. He treats ranking members of Congress who ask him for information with the same imperious attitude he uses with the media. “Anytime he gives us his presence, he acts like it’s a gift, like we’re getting in his way,” says a Democratic staffer on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Rumsfeld’s handling of the controversy over remarks made by one of his top generals likening Islam to Satan crystallizes much of the problem. Bush had to spend valuable time on his Asian trip convincing leaders that Lt. Gen. William Boykin was not speaking for the U.S. government. Boykin is Rumsfeld’s point person on intelligence, a job that demands clear-eyed, hard-edged thinking free of ideological or religious bias. It’s no place for simplistic comparisons between good and evil. In a speech that Boykin regularly gives, he tells the story of an aerial photo he took over Mogadishu that, when it was developed, revealed a black smudge over the city. Rather than accept the mark as a thumb print from whomever processed the film, Boykin became convinced that it was a sign of the evil hanging over the Somali city. The Defense Department Inspector General is investigating whether Boykin violated any rules in speaking out as he did while in uniform. But what many are wondering on Capitol Hill is whether Boykin has the judgment to be in the position that he holds. No one in the administration has condemned him. The closest Bush came to voicing criticism was to say that Boykin’s views are not his views. Rumsfeld and Bush are cut from the same cloth. Neither can bear to admit a mistake. That’s why Rumsfeld’s memo conceding mixed results in the war on terrorism is so remarkable. The administration is trying to pass this off as just another example of Rumsfeld’s in-your-face style. He asks the tough questions. He likes to provoke people to think outside the box. That may be accurate, but the hard truths he put out there for public consumption are prompting a reevaluation of the war, and may be the beginning of the end for Rumsfeld and for U.S. engagement in Iraq. Let’s hope Rumsfeld’s next memo is titled: Exit Strategy.

[Azred]

I'm afraid at this point it looks as if history will write Bush, Jr.'s Presidency as one that began turbulently, pulled itself together to weather the storm of a major international crisis brilliantly, then allowed itself to be ineptly mis-managed into oblivion.

[img]graemlins/erm.gif[/img] If the Washington power structure doesn't quit pulling stunts like this and they risk losing in the next election, the conspiracist in me fears that another "major international crisis" might occur just in the nick of time to bolster support for a second term. Azred looks around to see if anyone is watching....

[The Hierophant]

Is there anywhere we can get our sweaty little mits on a copy of this 'leaked' memo?

[skywalker]

Originally posted by The Hierophant: Is there anywhere we can get our sweaty little mits on a copy of this 'leaked' memo?

Raw Data: Rumsfeld Memo to Inner Circle

Wednesday, October 22, 2003
FOX News
October 16, 2003


TO: Gen. Dick Myers, Paul Wolfowitz, Gen. Pete Pace, Doug Feith

FROM: Donald Rumsfeld

SUBJECT: Global War on Terrorism

The questions I posed to combatant commanders this week were: Are we winning or losing the Global War on Terror? Is DoD changing fast enough to deal with the new 21st century security environment? Can a big institution change fast enough? Is the USG changing fast enough?

DoD has been organized, trained and equipped to fight big armies, navies and air forces. It is not possible to change DoD fast enough to successfully fight the global war on terror; an alternative might be to try to fashion a new institution, either within DoD or elsewhere - one that seamlessly focuses the capabilities of several departments and agencies on this key problem.

With respect to global terrorism, the record since Septermber 11th seems to be: We are having mixed results with Al Qaeda, although we have put considerable pressure on them - nonetheless, a great many remain at large.

USG has made reasonable progress in capturing or killing the top 55 Iraqis. USG has made somewhat slower progress tracking down the Taliban - Omar, Hekmatyar, etc. With respect to the Ansar Al-Islam, we are just getting started. Have we fashioned the right mix of rewards, amnesty, protection and confidence in the U.S.? Does DoD need to think through new ways to organize, train, equip and focus to deal with the global war on terror? Are the changes we have and are making too modest and incremental?

My impression is that we have not yet made truly bold moves, although we have have made many sensible, logical moves in the right direction, but are they enough?

Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us? Does the U.S. need to fashion a broad, integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists?

The U.S. is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists. The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' costs of millions. Do we need a new organization? How do we stop those who are financing the radical madrassa schools? Is our current situation such that "the harder we work, the behinder we get"?

It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog. Does CIA need a new finding? Should we create a private foundation to entice radical madradssas to a more moderate course? What else should we be considering?

Please be prepared to discuss this at our meeting on Saturday or Monday. Thanks

This was posted Here ( www.foxnews.com )

Mark

[The Hierophant]

Skywalker : You're a gentleman and a scholar Cheers mate [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

ps: With his weighing up of DoD expenses and the dubious effectiveness of large-scale warfare against small-scale enemies Rumsfeld shows signs of intelligent thought in this memo. So why does he not speak like this in his public addresses? I would certainly have alot more respect for him if he spoke this forthrightly in public.

Of course this could all be intentional propaganda, as has already been brought up. Hmmm...

[ 10-25-2003, 08:03 AM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

[Seraph]

I believe that

With respect to global terrorism, the record since Septermber 11th seems to be: We are having mixed results with Al Qaeda, although we have put considerable pressure on them - nonetheless, a great many remain at large. USG has made reasonable progress in capturing or killing the top 55 Iraqis. USG has made somewhat slower progress tracking down the Taliban - Omar, Hekmatyar, etc. With respect to the Ansar Al-Islam, we are just getting started. Have we fashioned the right mix of rewards, amnesty, protection and confidence in the U.S.? Does DoD need to think through new ways to organize, train, equip and focus to deal with the global war on terror? Are the changes we have and are making too modest and incremental? My impression is that we have not yet made truly bold moves, although we have have made many sensible, logical moves in the right direction, but are they enough?

Is actually supposed to be:

"With respect to global terrorism, the record since Septermber 11th seems to be:

• We are having mixed results with Al Qaeda, although we have put considerable pressure on them - nonetheless, a great many remain at large.
• USG has made reasonable progress in capturing or killing the top 55 Iraqis.
• USG has made somewhat slower progress tracking down the Taliban - Omar, Hekmatyar, etc.
• With respect to the Ansar Al-Islam, we are just getting started.

Have we fashioned the right mix of rewards, amnesty, protection and confidence in the U.S.?

Does DoD need to think through new ways to organize, train, equip and focus to deal with the global war on terror?

Are the changes we have and are making too modest and incremental? My impression is that we have not yet made truly bold moves, although we have have made many sensible, logical moves in the right direction, but are they enough?"

Fox appears to have messed with the formatting somewhat.

MSNBC
USATODAY.com
Newsday
LA Times
Some random newspaper

Fox is actually the only one who I could find that had their version of the memo format up.

[skywalker]

The Fox version was the first "version" I found when I googled. I guess I never expected the memo to be changed. Thanx for clarifying Seraph.


Mark

[Chewbacca]

Whoops, I thought I had included a link to the text of the memo in the original post, but I must have overlooked it. Thanks for the good looking out, ya'll. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by skywalker: The Fox version was the first "version" I found when I googled. I guess I never expected the memo to be changed. Thanx for clarifying Seraph. Mark

Leave it to Fox to tamper, errr I mean mess-up the formating when they posted it [img]tongue.gif[/img]