Rummy's Gotta Go --
But Will Bush Hit the Delete Button?
By Bernard Weiner
Co-Editor, "The Crisis Papers."
December 21, 2004
Bush says he won't rid his administration of Donald Rumsfeld, which tells us
all we need to know about what the next four years will be like -- IF the
election challenges in Ohio and elsewhere don't explode in Dubya's face and
he actually is sworn in a month from now for a second term.
Bush and Rumsfeld are happy to use U.S. troops and National Guard and
Reserves, but they do not take care of them on the ground, or when they are
no longer useful to the war effort. To Bush&Co., it appears, soldiers are
merely the cannon fodder necessary in order to fulfill their political
goals. Spin, fold, mutilate the troops, but don't provide them with the
protection and services they need.
Bush has never, not once, attended a funeral service for a soldier killed in
the line of duty in Iraq. Rumsfeld didn't even have the sensitivity to sign
the letters of condolence personally to the families of those killed in the
war. Prior to being outed on this issue, Rumsfeld used an automatic
signature machine to sign his letters. (But he, and apparently
Bush as well) did sign the orders authorizing "harsh" methods of
interrogation -- read: torture.)
When a soldier recently complained to Rumsfeld in public about the lack of
proper armoring of vehicles in the Iraq theater, Rumsfeld hemmed and hawed
and went all defensive, seeking to make the issue the "physics" of supply
rather than how outrageous the situation was and vowing to get the required
armor on the humvees and trucks on an emergency basis. The manufacturer of
such armor admitted that they could produce 22% more of the hard stuff if
requested to do so, but Rumsfeld's Pentagon had never made such a request --
even though it had been alerted to the armoring problem a year earlier.
EAT YOUR HOSPITAL FOOD AND LEAVE A BIG TIP
So don't tell me about how well Bush&Co. look out for our soldiers. Hundreds
of billions of dollars spent, and another $100 billion about to be
requested, to fight the war in Iraq -- much of that money winding up in the
coffers of giant corporations like Bechtel and Halliburton -- and the
Pentagon was, for a time, charging wounded soldiers for their food in
If this is compassionate conservatism, what does mean-spirited care look
Bush and Rumsfeld and Cheney refuse to admit that they're capable of
mistakes; in this case, that they went into the Iraq Occupation several
hundred thousand troops short of what was required, and couldn't even police
the huge arms dumps all over Iraq, which were and are providing the
insurgents with explosives and weapons that kill and maim U.S. troops.
The result of such incompetence and mismanagement, and fantasy-based war
strategy -- including the belief that the Iraqi defense forces will fight
valiantly on the U.S. side -- is that the small U.S. military force in Iraq
is stretched way too thin; they can't even adequately defend the oil they
were sent there to grab. Thus, as in Afghanistan, the U.S. military is
incapable of effective nation-building.
Further, the U.S. military is constantly fighting reactive battles using the
same few recycled troops. Join the National Guard and Reserves and wind up
in Iraq, and be forced back to that country, again and again and again; try
to leave Iraq after fulfilling your tour of duty and you're "stop-lossed"
back into the front lines. And that's not even mentioning the likelihood of
being sent to war elsewhere -- maybe Syria or Iran -- as the neo-cons
ratchet up the war rhetoric for more "shock&awe" campaigns.
DESERTION/ENLISTMENT RATES NO SURPRISE
No wonder the U.S. desertion rate is so high, why the re-enlistment numbers
are way down, why it's so difficult to get new recruits to sign up, and why
a soldier would get a friend to shoot him in the leg rather than to have to
return to Iraq. These young men and women are not dumb; they know they're
being sent down a rat-hole where they are vulnerable to being killed and
maimed because of the bungling war policies of a civilian leadership that
made sure they never had to fight in a war.
Those troops also realize that all the justifications for being in Iraq in
the first place are phony or non-existent: there were no stockpiles of WMDs,
no connection between Saddam and 9/11, no meaningful relationship between Al
Qaeda and Iraq. So, U.S. soldiers ask themselves: Why are we still here, and
what are we fighting for, really?
If they've tried to figure it out, they might well have come to the
conclusion that Iraq was of no danger to the U.S. or its neighbors, was
contained by U.N. sanctions, had no major weaponry and no means (or desire)
to attack the U.S. -- but it did possess the second-largest oil reserve in
the world, and the neoconservatives in charge of U.S. foreign/military
policy did/do want to use Iraq as a demonstration model for altering the
geopolitical landscape of the Middle East.
The Bush Administration, not content with its policy of "pre-emptive" war --
that is, attacking countries to prevent them from someday confronting the
U.S. -- has come up with plans for
"pre-emptive" pre-emption: moving to intervene in countries long
before there is any real future threat.
In other words, U.S. troops are being used for neo-imperialistic purposes
that have little to do with the reasons for war provided them or the
And, as in another such war forty years ago, in Vietnam, the U.S. is in a
country it does not understand, fighting a shadowy nationalist enemy that
wants to kick out its Occupiers, and whose citizens are enraged by how the
U.S. forces treat the local inhabitants: destroying villages in order to
"save" them, torturing and sexually assaulting prisoners in their care (with
only the grunts being placed on trial), shooting first and asking questions
later, giant corporations robbing the country blind, bombing from the air,
100,000 civilians dead, etc.
HERE'S YOUR HAT, WHAT'S YOUR HURRY?
As a result of such a botched Occupation, if fair and honest elections are
actually held in Iraq, the result is likely to be a theocratic Islamic
government that demands the U.S. leave ASAP. But the U.S. has other plans;
it has built the largest embassy in the Middle East, established 14 military
bases in Iraq, and wants to use its presence there to force other Arab
rulers in the area to bend to its will. What then?
And so, despite the fact that everyone realizes Rumsfeld has made, and is
continuing to make, a thorough disaster of the war in Iraq, he likely will
remain as Secretary of Defense. Even GOP heavies are calling for him to
resign, but in the name of party unity, they most likely will do nothing
more overt to make that happen. He will stay because of what he represents
Bush certainly has no intention of bowing to such removal-pressure from
within his own party or from partisan Democrats. To get rid of Rumsfeld
would be to tacitly admit that the Bush policies with regard to Iraq -- from
how he lied and misled the country into the war to how it's being waged --
were a big mistake, and that someone might have to be held accountable for
the FUBAR that is the Iraq war. And the Bush administration does not do
accountability. (Which helps explain why Bush recently gave out Medals of
Freedom to George Tenet, Paul Bremer and Tommy Franks, three key architects
of the Iraq debacle. It's called spin and CYA -- and keep your lips zipped,
So, if Rumsfeld is permitted to stay on, the American citizenry is going to
have to gird itself for hundreds and thousands more American dead and
maimed, for tens of thousands more Iraqi civilian casualties, for hundreds
of billions more tax dollars being flushed down that rat-hole (while
important social services go underfunded at home), for more isolation and
hatred abroad and more terrorist attacks coming our way, for an economy that
likely will start to decompose even more in the next several years, for more
central governmental intrusion into our private lives, for a worsening
quality of air and water, for more deterioration of our infrastructure of
bridges and roads and schools, and on and on.
But, presumably, the Red states that may have given George Bush a second
term won't mind, because men and women who love each other will have been
publicly chastised by the voters. Apparently, that's the only issue that
really counts in our society. Bash gays, and don't sweat the other stuff.
Glad the voters got their priorities straight.
Copyright 2004, by Bernard Weiner
Ernest Partridge's Internet Publications
Conscience of a Progressive:
Partridge's Scholarly Publications. (The Online Gadfly)
Dr. Ernest Partridge is a consultant, writer and lecturer in the field
of Environmental Ethics and Public Policy. He has taught Philosophy at
the University of California, and in Utah, Colorado and Wisconsin. He
publishes the website, "The Online
Gadfly" and co-edits the progressive website,
"The Crisis Papers".