Rumsfeld resigns– with analysis
Jim Dunnigan and I will be discussing the resignation on the Glenn and Helen podcast for pajamas media — to be recorded later this afternoon. So stay tuned.
A few thoughts:
(1) I think the resignation wasn’t entirely contingent on the election– though the Democratic win made Rumsfeld resignation a certainty. Robert Gates (currently president of Texas A&M University) has worked with James Baker on the “War on Terror” strategy evaluation. The Baker ”bi-partisan” political fall-back position for prosecuting the war was already in the works.
(2) One of the very smart young officers I know suggests the resignation is political prep for prosecuting the war even more vociferously. I think he’s on to something.
(3) I am very skeptical of Nancy Pelosi’s “one hundred hours” promise. Her one hundred hours (that’s one hundred days on blog time) will be sound and fury and media sensation, but not much beyond that. Still, Rumsfeld is a scalp. Another one of the very smart troops says that should Pelosi-led investigations start in earnest, Rumsfeld is already two-months gone. A nice tactical political move, if the troop’s hunch is correct.
(4) The big race in 2006 was Lamont versus Lieberman. Joe Lieberman won. Joe’s core issue: VIctory in the War on Terror, which means victory in Iraq. That’s a warning to Nancy Pelosi and Co. If they go “nutsroots-Lamont Left” they will squander their victory. Ed Driscoll suggests 2006 is a race-to-the center. Lieberman has carved out one the strongest personal political position in America. For Joe, it’s November lemonade made from the bitter lemons of August.
Joe Lieberman is this man. Nancy Pelosi had better pay attention.
This is the problem the world still faces on November 8, 2006. It faced it on September 10, 2001, but darn few folks acknowledged it.
UPDATE: Background on Robert Gates. Here but especially here.
I suspect Texas Aggies are torn by this nomination. Based on gym chitchat and feedback through veterans groups (Texas gyms and military events are packed with Texas Aggies), I gather that Gates has been an outstanding university president.
Do you think the “100 hours” is a play on Newt Gingrich’s “100 days” in ‘94?
Comment by Jeff — 11/8/2006 @ 1:31 pm
Your readers might be interested in this Nov. 2006 Texas Monthly cover story about Gates and his management style: http://www.texasmonthly.com/preview/2006-11-01/feature
Comment by beloml — 11/8/2006 @ 1:42 pm
Not Quite September 10th… The Anchoress writes:1) Nancy Pelosi will not be the Speaker of the House. Partly because sheÂ’s too far to the left, partly because she really doesnÂ’t “play” well to the ordinary folks who will not want to watch her on……
Trackback by Ed Driscoll.com — 11/8/2006 @ 1:48 pm
Rumsfeld had offered his resignation on at least two occassions prior to this one. I think that this third one was the “charm”. I think Rummy as SECDEF was a little lost without Colin Powell at the State Department. They had a dynamic that worked well - at least according to William Safire, who observed their interaction one time. I liked Rummy. He won me over on 9/11 - he ran TO the site of the crash and tried to aid survivors. They had to talk him into leaving. The conservative base is complaining - but they’ve done a lot of griping since 2005 - and it probably alienated folks on the center-right, in the business community, and the small-l libertarians in the process.
Comment by Harold C. Hutchison — 11/8/2006 @ 1:51 pm
Election ‘06: The Day After: AP projects Montana goes Democrat… [Latest items on top] Austin Bay analyzes the strategic implications of the Rumsfeld resignation. Post mortem: “I am not particularly distressed. Part of this is the inevitability. And, yes, I’m not especially looking forward to Speaker Pelosi. But t…
Trackback by Pajamas Media — 11/8/2006 @ 1:55 pm
You quote: “One of the very smart young officers I know suggests the resignation is political prep for prosecuting the war even more vociferously.” Do you mean ferociously? We’ve had enough talk! Anyway, that will leave the Democrats with a stark, difficult choice, won’t it? Care to guess which side they’ll take?
Comment by edh — 11/8/2006 @ 2:11 pm
Re your point 2, I’ve been thinking the same thing. It’s good to hear people with a military background mentioning this.
Comment by Retread — 11/8/2006 @ 2:13 pm
[…] The second thing he screwed up was not getting seriously considering asking for the resignations of Rumsfeld and Cheney when he had the political capital to replace them with first-tier selections. This is not a criticism of Rumsfeld or Cheney per se, but doing so would have brought some movement to what had become stagnant; removing Rumsfeld earlier would have signaled a willingness to try different tactics when things got rough, too. Instead, at this point - as Austin Bay says - Rumsfeld becomes a scalp. I am not too worried - right now - about the troops. I think as long as Bush is president, he will not allow them to be reduced in number and turned into target practice for Al Queda. But I worry about their welfare when Bush leaves office. As far as moving Cheney out, I think President Bush’s thinking was was “win in ‘06 and then move out Cheney for the presumptive heir…” […]
Pingback by The Anchoress » A few Random Thoughts… — 11/8/2006 @ 2:16 pm
Reasons for Rumsfeld’s Resignation… Technically, the reasons for this decision are obvious: the President no longer feels that Rumsfeld is not the best man for the job. But the timing of the decision begs any number of questions, most of them hopelessly Machiavellian. For example……
Trackback by Punditish — 11/8/2006 @ 2:17 pm
What I dont understand is why did Bush wait til after the election to announce this? The only possible reason is that he thought it would help the GOP. I think he was entirely wrong. If he had announced this on Monday, there might have been enough moderate voters to move over and say “Well, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and vote GOP.” I think Bush assassinated the GOP.
Comment by Labamigo — 11/8/2006 @ 2:18 pm
Great. Spain gets trains bombed; Spain pulls out of Iraq. The Republicans lose control of Congress; Rumsfeld resigns. (”Dinosaurs eat man…woman inherits the Earth!”) The problem with this whole election is that the Dems are going to do the same thing the Repubs did in 2004. They will look on this as a Mandate From The Masses and say “we had more votes, therefore Americans agree with what we’re doing and want to see more of it.” As opposed to looking at the razor-thin margins and saying “wow, that could have gone either way, obviously neither of us is doing what people want to see.” ED NOTE: Great comment. Believe me, this is a common sense insight, and one shared by many. But this is not the way self-absorbed politicos (on either side of the aisle) think. To our national detriment.
Comment by DensityDuck — 11/8/2006 @ 2:27 pm
RUMSFELD RESIGNS… [Latest News on Top] Reactions Austin Bay analyzes the Rumsfeld’s exit and the election results and what each means stratgically to the Iraq war. President Bush press conference: “Why the grim faces?..Obviously disappointed, and as the head of GOP I….
Trackback by Pajamas Media — 11/8/2006 @ 2:37 pm
I think you’re right about the “rush towards center” but it’s been that way not just with the issue of the war in Iraq. Many conservatives were also sick of the Republican party catering to its base, which it perceives as the Christian/Evangelical religious right. This stress on social conservative issues (abortion bans, anti gay marriage, pro Creationism, anti stem cell research) turns off a lot of people who would otherwise vote Republican. The GOP has lost its appeal for some conservatives, who see Republicans as hypocrites who pay lip service to “small government” while outspending Democrats, destroying civil liberties, etc. Perhaps this is one reason for the stronger-than-expected Libertarian performance in these elections, which cost votes for the Republicans.
Comment by DarthVader — 11/8/2006 @ 2:49 pm
It’s possible that such an announcement would have been seen as too overtly political. We’ll never know, of course, but President Bush has emphasized a degree of seperation between the war and politics, and delaying the announcement until after the election is consistent with that.
Comment by Punditish — 11/8/2006 @ 2:52 pm
Is the Republican loss of SUCH magnitude that the only victory the GOP can trumpet is Joe Lieberman’s? Pathetic. ED NOTE: Your comment suggests your are unfamiliar with this website. I suggest you start reading the archives on this site regarding Senator Lieberman.
Comment by sean — 11/8/2006 @ 2:53 pm
Response to Lambigo: Bush didn’t announce it Monday because it wasn’t the plan on Monday. In his pre-election campaigning Bush has repeatedly stressed that he thought Rumsfeld was doing a great job and had his full confidence. If the Democrats had not won a majority in the House (and possibly the Senate) you can bet Rumsfeld would still have his job. As I see it, replacing Rumsfeld serves two purposes: 1. Rumsfeld was a very divisive presence. A LOT of democrats hate him. Removing the focal point of so much hatred is the politically wise thing to do if Bush plans to work with the Democrats in continuing to prosecute the war in Iraq. 2. It’s very likely that Democrats will open any number of investigations into “what went wrong with Iraq” and will lay much of the blame on Rumsfeld. It might take some wind out of their sails if Rumsfeld’s been gone a few months by the time their reports hit the news. Rumsfeld is the fall guy for the Republicans.
Comment by DarthVader — 11/8/2006 @ 2:59 pm
Nancy Pelosi has the brains of a gerbil. It will be fascinating to watch her caucus self-destruct given its inability to bear responsiblity for anything. It’s like the Palestinians–they can protest and intifada–but they can’t govern worth crap.
Comment by Samuel Butler — 11/8/2006 @ 3:10 pm
Well Said Mr. Butler. IMHO, this was just shear political calculus. We all know that the dems have been preparing the soil for articles of impeachment. My guess is that Bush just traded one of his knights for a better strategic position on the board. The Dems probably have someone in mind that they would love to see in the job, like even Powell. Machiavelli would have loved this.
Comment by Scot — 11/8/2006 @ 3:35 pm
Reportedly Valerie Plame is upset about the Gates nomination. I call that a good sign.
Comment by Harold C. Hutchison — 11/8/2006 @ 3:42 pm
I think Rumsfeld dropped out because he doesn’t care to spend the next few years sitting in front of some asinine House committee responding to Katrina-style Monday-morning quarterbacking by a bunch of preening media blowhards like Chuck Schumer. And who would? The man has grandchildren and perhaps roses to tend. Why continue to serve the people when the people treat you like dirt? I wouldn’t. As for the notion that this is a preliminary to prosecuting the war more vigorously: that’s pure whistling past the graveyard, my friend. Bush doesn’t have a secret plan to “win” the war (I put “win” in quotes because we don’t mean really mean win the war, which merely requires patience, but “win” it according to postmodern TV-drama rules, e.g. by the first commercial break and without actually hurting anybody). First, Bush doesn’t do secret plans. He’s an obvious kind of guy. Second, if he ever had a plan to “win” the war, or even move it in a direction the Vietnamistas among us couldn’t possibly paint as American failure, then he would have done so before the election, when it might have saved his governing majority. It’s a lot simpler. Bush lost his governing majority, and the few facts to be gleaned suggest it was because of the war. Notice I said because of the war and not because of how Bush presented the war. I know starboard-side pundits are fond of saying that if only Bush were more articulate, made more speeches, presented “a plan” (whatever that is, details usually being lacking), then the public’s perception of the war would be more in accordance with its reality. But this more wishful thinking. It just ain’t so. The President has, in fact, done just about as good a job “selling” the war as any previous President ever has. He’s been no worse at selling the Iraq war than Reagan was at selling the Cold War, or Truman Korea, or even FDR the Second World War. The public just didn’t buy it, that’s all. I think Bush, who is a good politician, knows this. He doesn’t hide from reliaty. He knows that Congress will now move to restrict funding to the Iraq war, and to the military generally, whether slowly or more quickly hardly matters. He knows there’ll be lots of payback in Congress to the activist left in terms of “bipartisan” 9/11-style committees who’ll suck up TV time and money doing endless “investigations” and making pompous recommendations. He knows that no candidate, Democrat or Republican, is going to run in 2008 without saying he’ll end the Iraq war just as soon as he takes office, and without condemning the whole affair as a stupid idea in the first place. Which means I think he’s concluded the war is simply lost, and that’s that. It’s time for him to play the long twilight end-game of finding a “peace with honor” (otherwise known as “defeat”), preserving what few friends and allies we can in the region, and hope the US lives to fight another day, in another place, under another leader — and almost certainly, unfortunately, in response to another tragedy.
Comment by Sponge Bob — 11/8/2006 @ 4:13 pm
“Joe’s core issue: VIctory in the War on Terror, which means victory in Iraq.” Although you wouldn’t know it by reading the press, which says the entire election was a rebuke on the Iraq policy. It’s much more complicated than that, as Lieberman’s victory shows.
Comment by ken — 11/8/2006 @ 5:02 pm
Not out of the woods yet. 2 things can happen now 1-suicides(preferred) 2-deployment of nukes After the resignation of Rumsfeld, Bush appoints Robert Gates. Before joining the CIA full-time as an intelligence analyst, he spent two years in the Air Force. During one posting, at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, he delivered intelligence briefings to ICBM missile crews. Go to video.google.com search “911″
Comment by Bob Lock — 11/8/2006 @ 5:45 pm
Other may have said it, but I’ll reinforce it, if Rumsfeld was to have left it should have been long ago, when Abu Gharb broke. It would have worked startegically for us. Now not much to be gained. A co-worker says look to the Korean War when the US replaced Walton Walker. A new CG and new attitude swept through the troops. A&M is losing a great President and a good friend. He was an outsider who came to Sing-Sing-on-the Brazos with an understanding of the schools ethos, but also an understanding of what needed to change. If he does the same at Defense, the nation will be well served.
Comment by Bill Gross — 11/8/2006 @ 6:14 pm
The new Democrats just elected aren’t like the old Democrats. It will take a while for the new guys to get grounded but, this is a minor key reprise of the 1994 Republican revolution. The new guys aren’t going for the hard left stance of the Dems who still remember beng pushed aside in 1994. They are a bit more conservative. Harry Truman and Scoop Jackson would recognize them as Democrats. Lamont, the Kos Kids fav, lost. Moonbattery is still a losing proposition.
Comment by Max — 11/8/2006 @ 6:28 pm
[…] Courtesy of Austin Bay: […]
Pingback by NoisyRoom.net » Blog Archive » Rumsfeld resigns– with analysis — 11/8/2006 @ 6:50 pm
Jim Matheson is the democrat Representative of my district in Utah. When the local news congratulated him on being in the majority he said that he considers himself a Blue Dog and that they would be quite powerful in the new session. I think that some of the Democrat candidates are like him, not ready to follow Pelosi off the cliff.
Comment by AST — 11/8/2006 @ 7:11 pm
Where I live none of this will matter much. We are part of a gerrymandered district for Democrats. Rumsfeld shouldn’t have to be the goat. He’s more of a leader than any of those mealy-mouthed retired generals who undercut him. If we can’t figure out a better way to fight guerrillas, we might as well just hunker down and wait to be attacked again. I just hate seeing our multi-million dollar equipment and our valiant warriors being taken out by a few thousand bucks worth of RPG or IED. It seems that we can destroy any regime that raises its head, but we can’t create one for them. And after yesterday, nobody will trust our “help” anymore.
Comment by AST — 11/8/2006 @ 7:28 pm
[…] Austin Bay reflects this same thought: ” The big race in 2006 was Lamont versus Lieberman. Joe Lieberman won. Joe’s core issue: Vctory in the War on Terror, which means victory in Iraq. That’s a warning to Nancy Pelosi and Co. If they go “nutsroots-Lamont Left†they will squander their victory.” […]
Pingback by Macsmind - Conservative Commentary and Common Sense » Blog Archive » This was not a “Liberal Victory” — 11/8/2006 @ 7:53 pm
See You In The History Books… Sadly perhaps, one of the most talented men ever to come to Washington has been commanded to commit political Seppuku. From a purely practical point of view–that’s what he’s there for. Many a SecDef has been rolled by the four and five stars, all of…
Trackback by UNCoRRELATED — 11/8/2006 @ 8:31 pm
The idea that Gates is going to prosecute the War on Terror “more vociferously” is patently absurd. Gates is a member in good standing of the Jim Baker school of appeasement and surrender. His nomination is a clear signal that Operation Cut and Run is about to commence. Or perhaps we should call it Operation Decent Interval - the idea being we just need a decent interval between our withdrawal and Iraq’s collapse into anarchy. Stick a fork in the GWOT, it is done.
Comment by Lugo — 11/8/2006 @ 10:07 pm
[…] But in the end I have confidence Bush will not allow our country to cut and run, that’s the only thing keeping me going right now. I take heart in this news from Austin Bay Blog: One of the very smart young officers I know suggests the resignation is political prep for prosecuting the war even more vociferously. I think he’s on to something. […]
Pingback by Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Get A Grip! — 11/8/2006 @ 11:24 pm
“Troop” and the Evolution of Words… Words change over time. This is a universal in all languages. Despite the best efforts of teachers and grammarians everywhere, words change meaning. We can fight to retard or to shape this change, but we cannot stop it. For examp……
Trackback by Dean's World — 11/8/2006 @ 11:40 pm
Pelosi is already talking about “working with the President” for a new direction. Changing drivers, but staying on the same road, will probably count with the Dems as a ‘new direction’ — it’s time (past?) for Bush to say the American goal: Victory in Iraqi Nation Building. Creation of a democratic Iraq with an Iraqi Security force that is the sole legitimate users of deadly force — helping pro-democracy forces win the civil war in Iraq. Rumsfeld was fantastic for changing the military (against the will of many top generals), was fantastic in the military campaign. But no good military will be so good at nation building. It is up to the Iraqis. The Rumsfeld & Bush mistake is to claim that “America” can win. No no no. Only Iraqis can win. America can choose which Iraqis to support. In non-Total War, like this limited war, the winners will only win on the timetable of the losers — the losers decide WHEN they lose. When they stop fighting. The losing USA decided, after the Dem party 1974 victory, to lose Vietnam in 1975. I claim the US loss in Vietnam is the “root cause” of the anti-America Islamist fight now. They know it is possible to win EVEN with 2 million in casualties, and EVEN without ever winning a battle campaign. All they have to do is keep fighting longer than impatient Americans are willing to fight. I’m pretty sure the Reps will be reminding folk about the Vietnam loss more, in asking the Dems how they plan to win. There might even be more media attention to what Iraqi leaders say.
Comment by Tom Grey - Liberty Dad — 11/9/2006 @ 3:20 am
Oh, I’m sure they will prosecute the war more vociferously - whether they prosecute it more vigorously is another question.
Comment by steve — 11/9/2006 @ 6:01 am
At some point during the Korean War, South Korea was eaten up with bypassed and cut off NORKS who were trying to fight a guerilla campaign in the south. The UN command basically told the South Koreans (who were pretty useless as offensive warfighters at that point) that the guerrillas were their problem. The UN forces kept after the remenants of the NORKS and later the Chinese. The South Koreans killed or captured all the guerrillas who were never a factor. It would seem to me that one approach in Iraq, since the “insurgents” have no real combat power, would be to send some more forces there, pull the coalition forces out to the borders and seal them. Then go to Maliki and tell him that the bombers and shooters in the cities are his problem, to take care of it and we would keep anyone else from infiltrating men, money or supplies into Iraq. We could provide airpower and heavy weapons support if needed. This is a battle we could influence well.
Comment by AF Dad — 11/9/2006 @ 7:08 pm
IMHO, I would assess Rumsfeld’s tenure as SecDef as generally positive. He has served honorably and well, and deserves the nation’s thanks for his service. It will be interesting to note the tenor of the confimation hearing for Gates. Right now, everyone is making the right noises, as usually occurs after an election. After the very short honeymoon is over, we will see. In any case, any SecDef will have to have the kind of personality and clout that Rumsfeld had, to keep the generals from going back to the “we don’t do windows” mentality that was so prevalent in the 1990s. I am sick of this “we don’t do nation building” mentality. Aside from the fact that we have done it(Germany, Japan), the “we don’t nation build” mentality is looking at the present situation as we wish it would be, not what it actually is. Like it or not, we have to do that sort of thing to the best of our ability, realizing that it is the best long term course to take. To let the Middle East continue to go on as before only guarantees that we will be subject to more terrorist attacks.
Comment by Rich — 11/10/2006 @ 8:16 am
A Conservative Plan for Iraq Anyone who questions the lack of a realistic and comprehensive Iraq strategy is labeled a friend of fascism by the Republican leadership. House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) recently said, “I wonder if [Democrats] are more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people.†Republicans are paralyzed with the fear of being thought ineffective on national security and the war. Meanwhile, the Democratic leadership cannot seem to accept that—regardless of how we got there—we are in Iraq. They have not made a convincing case that an arbitrary phased or date-certain troop withdrawal is in the best long-term interest of the United States. Rather, they seem to think that withdrawal will undo the decision to have gone to war. Rubbing President Bush’s nose in Iraq’s difficulties is also a priority. This political food fight is stifling the desperately needed public discussion about a meaningful resolution to the fire fight. Most Americans know Iraq is going badly. And they know the best path lies somewhere between “stay the course†and “get out nowâ€. Some Truths 1) Iraq is having a civil war between the Sunnis and Shiites. The Kurds will certainly join, if attacked. It may not look like a civil war, because they don’t have tanks, helicopters, and infantry; but they are fighting with what they have. 2) Vast oil revenues are a significant factor behind the fighting. Yes, there are religious and cultural differences—but concerns about how the oil revenue will be split among the three groups make the problem worse. 3) Most Iraqis support partitioning Iraq into Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish regions. (Their current arrangement resulted from a pen stroke during the British occupation, not some organic alignment.) 4) Most citizens of the Middle East who support groups that kill and terrorize civilians—such as Hezbollah, Hamas, or al Qaeda—in part because of their aggressive stance against Israel and the United States, but also because they provide much needed social services, such as building schools. 5) Both Republican and Democratic administrations have spent decades doing business with the tyrants who run the Middle East in exchange for oil and cheap labor. This has been the one of the rallying calls of Bin Laden and Hezbollah—that we support tyrants who abuse people for profits. In fact, our latest trade deals with Oman and Jordan actually promote child and slave labor; it’s so bad the State Department had to issue warnings about rampant child trafficking in those countries. 6) Iran is using the instability in Iraq to enhance its political stature in the region. Leaving Iraq without a government that can stand up to Iran would be very destabilizing to the region and the world. From the U.S. perspective, this is all mostly about energy. As things stand, a serious oil supply disruption would devastate our economy, threaten our security, and jeopardize our ability to provide for our children. New Directions Success in Iraq and the Middle East in general requires us to work in three areas simultaneously: (1) fostering a more stable Middle East region, including Iraq, (2) pursuing alternative sources of oil, and (3) developing alternatives to oil. To these ends we must: 1) Insure that the oil revenues are fairly and transparently split among all three groups: Shiite, Sunni, and Kurds based on population. 2) Allow each group to have a much stronger role in self government by creating three virtually-autonomous regions. Forcing a united Iraq down their throats is not working. Our military would then be there in support a solution that people want, rather than one they are resisting. 3) Become a genuine force for positive change, thus denying extremist groups much of their leverage. Driving a fair two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian problem should be our first priority. We should also engage in projects that both help the average Middle Easterner and Americans, such as supporting schools that are an alternative to the ones that teach hate and recruit terrorists. We should also stop participating in trade deals that promote child and slave labor by insisting on deals that include livable wages and basic labor rights. 4) Declare a Marshal Plan to end our Middle Eastern energy dependency with a compromise between exploring for new sources, reducing consumption, and developing of alternative energies. For example, we should re-establish normal relations with Cuba so we can beat China to Cuba’s off-shore oil. We should also redirect existing tax breaks for Big Oil into loan guarantees for alternative energy companies. Once we no longer need so much oil from the Middle East, we can begin winning over its people by using our oil purchases to reward positive and peaceful behavior from their leaders. This would ultimately reduce tensions and encourage prosperity in the region. We will have to live with the threat of Islamic radical terrorism forever; but these solutions are a start to reducing the threat. Both parties have to put politics aside and put together an honest and reasonable plan that the American understand.
Comment by John Konop — 11/14/2006 @ 8:43 am