Rumsfeld urged Iraq tactics shift - 2 days before resigning

seaeagle

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Rumsfeld urged Iraq tactics shift

Quote:

Former US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld proposed major changes to the Bush administration's strategy in Iraq just two days before he resigned.

He made the call in a classified memo to the White House, which has been obtained by the New York Times.

Mr Rumsfeld's memo says US strategy in Iraq "is not working well enough" and calls for "a major adjustment".

President Bush faces growing pressure to decide a new Iraq course with an advisory group due to report this week.

"In my view it is time for a major adjustment," Mr Rumsfeld wrote in the memo dated 6 November.

"Clearly, what US forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough."

US national security adviser Stephen Hadley told ABC TV that President George W Bush agreed with that assessment, describing the memo as a helpful "laundry list of ideas". (continued)

Quote:

Among other options described as "Above the Line" are:

* Significantly increase the number of US trainers and transfer more equipment to Iraqi security forces
* Reduce quickly the number of US bases, currently 55, to five by July 2007
* Position substantial US forces near the Iranian and Syrian borders to reduce infiltration and Iran's influence
* Withdraw US forces from vulnerable positions, such as patrols, and use them as a quick reaction force to help Iraqi security forces when needed

Other links:
Bush weighing leaked Rumsfeld memo | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited
Iraq not working out: Rumsfeld - World - smh.com.au
Bush Is Weighing Options for New Strategy in Iraq, Aide Says - washing...post.co

I wonder why he left it until 2 days before resigning to send this. Very strange. Maybe because it sounds a bit like "cut & run"? I would assume that closing 50 out of 55 bases would mean troop reductions, not just redeploying everyone to the remaining 5 bases.

mommabear · Joined: Feb 20, 2003 Posts: 6319

Quote:

I wonder why he left it until 2 days before resigning to send this.

No kidding! It's hard to figure any of this out. Is he doing a CYA to separate himself and his legacy from a stubborn President, if Bush rejects any of the new plans now? Paving the way for Bush to change his mind "gracefully", since they've both been joined at the hip for so long about making any changes at all?

Or is it simply...like his surprise resignation...too little too late for a thousand different reasons?

seaeagle

What I'm thinking (and I admit it could be a stretch, but you never know) is that maybe he had been for the changes for quite a while, but his boss "gagged" him & ordered him to "stay the course". So Rummy made a decision that he would write a memo calling for the changes. If his recommendations were accepted, he would stay on. If his boss said no, then he would resign immediately & leak the memo. The boss said "no, we'll keep on doing what we've been doing", so Rumsfeld resigned and, as a final act, organised for the memo to get leaked.

Maybe, just maybe, he did have a lot of respect for & loyalty to the soldiers & did want to put as few of them in harms way, and he knew that the current policy was endangering them unnecessarily. He realised that his reputation was already in tatters, and decided that his parting shot would be to put the administration in a position where they have to publicly state that they are either for or against the former Defense Secretary's strong recommendations for a change in policy.

It might be pie in the sky, but it could also be feasible. The timing just seems to be too coincidental.

mommabear · Joined: Feb 20, 2003 Posts: 6319

That was kinda also part of my CYA speculation. Although with his ego, it is hard to imagine he would have stood still for Bush gagging him all this time. But you never know. Colin Powell played the good soldier, against his better judgment, for a long time too.

ploesch · Joined: Aug 22, 2003 Posts: 4060

Somehow I just don't see Bush standing over a map of Iraq, with markers for all the troops and equipment, and Generals and the Secretary of Defense pushing them around saying, "We should move these here,a dn those there, and do this" then Bush pipes in and says "Nope, don't change a thing".

Seriously, do you really think that any President has run entire wars from behind their desk. Yes, they have to approve major strategy shifts, or at least they should want to since they will have to answer for them. However, I don't believe for a second they are the ones making all the decisions.

A more likely scenario is that Rumsfeld was left in control of Iraq, and Bush decided that he needed someone new there since it wasn't going well. Being the loyal (to a fault) guy that Bush is, he let Rumsfeld go gracefully after the election, instead of forcing him out before (which would have been the best political move, but not necessarily the best move for our troops). I agree it was likely a CYA memo, or at least one designed to make it look like Rumsfeld wasn't against sweeping changes in Iraq. In other words, it was designed to cover any perceived incompetence on Rumsfeld's part.

Sgt Schultz · Joined: Dec 07, 2002 Posts: 7378 Location: St. Louis area

I'm certainly no fan of Rumsfeld (he should have been gone long ago IMO) but I believe he was truly blindsided and his "resignation" came as a surprise to Rumsfeld himself.

xavierx · Joined: Nov 06, 2004 Posts: 5427

My biggest question in this is this line:

mommabear · Joined: Feb 20, 2003 Posts: 6319

Do you know who leaked it? There is some speculation that the WH or Rumsfeld may have leaked it.... all in preparation for the changes that will probably be coming soon regarding Iraq. It wouldn't be the first time a WH used leaks to their advantage.

xavierx · Joined: Nov 06, 2004 Posts: 5427

IF that could be proven (big if, even if it is true, proving would be hard) then they should be held accountable, too.

ploesch · Joined: Aug 22, 2003 Posts: 4060

I completely agree Xavier. Classified should be just that, but now it seems to mean "We don't want the public to knw we want the public to know this."

Of course these types of leaks have been going on for decades, maybe since the beginning. I'd still like to see them held accountable.

seaeagle

It's a fairly well known practice for those in power to "leak" documents on purpose - it's been happening for eons. One reason is that it allows them to gauge public reaction without actually announcing what might be an unpopular policy. If a memo is "leaked" & the public react negatively, they can say that it was only something under consideration along with other options & they wouldn't be proceeding with that specific one. If it is popular, then they can make the "official" announcement of the new policy without fearing a backlash.

Leaking a document on purpose can also prepare the population for what may be worse news to come (sort of a "softener").

So it is unlikely that they would be held accountable in quite a few cases, as the leaks are actually "approved".

ploesch · Joined: Aug 22, 2003 Posts: 4060

I fully understand that leaked documents are a standard in politics. There is a difference between leaked documents and leaked Classified Documents though.

Classified Documents should never be leaked.

xavierx · Joined: Nov 06, 2004 Posts: 5427

AMEN! Doing so completely defeats the purpose of having classified data!

xavierx · Joined: Nov 06, 2004 Posts: 5427

Doh! Bad clicky finger!