Who said it better?

Jeb Bush....? On mass gun violence in a school:

 


Or Donald Rumsfeld? On Iraq




Visit this blog's homepage.

For 140 character IR and foreign policy talk, follow me on twitter.

Or for basketball, baseball, movies or other stuff, follow this personal twitter account.

Read the Duck

Virtually all of my recent blogging has been posted at Duck of Minerva:

Today, September 30, I posted Flashback: Afghanistan "Mission Accomplished." The post recalls something goofy Donald Rumsfeld said in May 2003.

Tuesday, September 28: Another war on terror outrage: asylum denied. Read about yet another way the U.S. has been screwing Iraqi civilians.

Thursday, September 16: The Latest in Mole Whacking. The post is about proposed escalation of the "war on terror" -- in Yemen.

Monday, September 6: "Debate Day." I reminisce about how Labor Day was traditionally an important work day for the University of Kansas debate team. The post takes note of recent articles and books by other former debaters.

Wednesday, September 1: "Preemption News." The Pentagon is gearing up to launch "preemptive" wars against potential cyber-attackers.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Ready, aim, ...Duck

Today, at the Duck of Minerva, I've posted "Global Strike Task Force" to explain my apprehension about Donald Rumsfeld's "transformation" of the military. Arguably, the US has become a "first strike nation" and now has the infrastructure firmly embedded to make that strategy possible. Times of politico-military crises are the most worrisome, for obvious reason.

August 7, I posted "Back to the Future IV" about Vladimir Putin's threat to reestablish Russian military ties with Cuba. I hinted that this might spell a new cold war -- and then Russia went to war with Georgia.



Visit this blog's homepage.

Generals: Dump Rummy

These past couple of days, this blog has been receiving a lot of google search hits for some provocative search strings: "Generals against Rumsfeld," "Generals against Bush" or "Generals against the war."

These pertain, of course, to the recent press reports focusing on the anti-Rumsfeld comments made by a number of retired Generals. See this article from the NY Times as well as this one.

Yet, this is certainly not a new angle to the Iraq story. Rumsfeld resignation rumors go back to October 2003. Looking for more context?

I blogged "Generals Against the War" December 31, 2003

"Generals Against the War" again on May 9, 2004

See also these related entries:

"Another Republican/General Jumps Ship" May 5, 2004

"Zinni on Iraq" May 2, 2004

And don't forget about critics like General Wesley Clark, who was a 2004 presidential candidate, and General Brent Scowcroft.

President Bush has tried to minimize the problem by speaking out in support of the Defense Secretary. To my knowledge, he didn't say that Rumsfeld was doing a "heckuva job" -- well, not this time anyway. When Mike Brown was praised in those words, he was gone a week later.

Remember, in the words of Francois de La Rochefoucauld, "Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue."


Visit this blog's homepage.

Filed as: Rumsfeld

The saviors in the Bush administration

On July 26, Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker reported in the New York Times that the US is no longer fighting a global "war on terror" (GWOT):

The Bush administration is retooling its slogan for the fight against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, pushing the idea that the long-term struggle is as much an ideological battle as a military mission, senior administration and military officials said Monday.

In recent speeches and news conferences, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the nation's senior military officer have spoken of "a global struggle against violent extremism" rather than "the global war on terror," which had been the catchphrase of choice.

The new acronym, potentially, is SAVE.

Sounds appropriate for an enterprise President Bush originally (in 2001) compared to a crusade, eh?

I'm kind of interested in the framing of public policy, so this new "catchphrase" seems to be something worth closer examination.

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has been using the new phrase since at least July 7, though the Times reports only on something he said last week. On October 10, 2004, and again on October 22, 2004, Rumsfeld used the phrase "global war against extremism." November 8, 2004, Rumsfeld used the phrase "global war against extremists." He also used that phrasing on February 3, 2005.

Much more frequently (2 or 3 dozen times), Rumsfeld (since September 7, 2004), has been discussing the "global struggle against extremism" or (since August 26, 2004), the "global struggle against extremists."

Thus, the US action is no longer "war" -- the US is engaged in a "struggle," which is obviously something very different. Indeed, the adjective "violent" has been added to describe the extremists, potentially making the US response to their actions all the more reasonable to other states -- and perhaps young people considering a career in the armed services.

In September 2001, Rumsfeld warned us all that the US was engaged in a "new kind of war," but now this one is not even a war. Even the long-time competition with the Soviet Union was commonly called a "cold war."

Note also that wars are typically won or lost, but struggles might last indefinitely. Kind of like the struggle between the Yankees and Red Sox. Maybe someone should remind the White House that in baseball, the same pitcher cannot get both the Win and the Save.

In any event, something odd is definitely happening; this new language is truly a remarkable political development. Arguably, the Bush administration is now trying to sound more like their domestic political critics and opponents. Consider this from that NY Times story:

Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the National Press Club on Monday that he had "objected to the use of the term 'war on terrorism' before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution." He said the threat instead should be defined as violent extremists, with the recognition that "terror is the method they use."

Although the military is heavily engaged in the mission now, he said, future efforts require "all instruments of our national power, all instruments of the international communities' national power." The solution is "more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military," he concluded.

General Myers sounds more like General Clark, former Democratic candidate for President.

They deny this, of course, but it sure sounds as if the administration has gone soft:

Lawrence Di Rita, Mr. Rumsfeld's spokesman, said the shift in language "is not a shift in thinking, but a continuation of the immediate post-9/11 approach."

"The president then said we were going to use all the means of national power and influence to defeat this enemy," Mr. Di Rita said. "We must continue to be more expansive than what the public is understandably focused on now: the military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq."

It's all quite a contrast to what Karl Rove said just last month:

"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war," he said in a prepared text released by the White House. "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."

Rove went on to say that conservatives wanted to "unleash the might and power" of the military against the Taliban in Afghanistan, while liberals wanted to submit petitions. He cited a petition he said was backed by MoveOn.org that called for "moderation and restraint" in responding to the attacks.

This is going to be an interesting 15 months before the 2006 congressional mid-term elections. Republicans want to be the tough blood and guts guys on national security, in opposition to wimpy Democrats -- but in recognition that the war in Iraq is no longer popular, they also want be for greater reliance on diplomatic, economic and political tools.

They want to be saviors!

Rumsfeld on the Lamb?

According to the AP wire, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is thinking about postponing his scheduled trip to attend and speak at the Munich Conference on Security Policy in Germany next week. Apparently, Defense Secretaries typically attend, though DoD #2 Paul Wolfowitz represented the US in 2002.

Want to know why Rumsfeld may not be going?

Attorneys from the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights filed a suit with German federal prosecutors last November charging that U.S. officials, including Rumsfeld, are responsible for acts of torture against detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. That is the prison where U.S. soldiers were photographed abusing and sexually humiliating Iraqi detainees...

The lawsuit against Rumsfeld was filed in Germany because its laws allow for the prosecution of war crimes and human rights violations across national boundaries.

The cases are obviously different, but the underlying legal argument is similar to the one used to go after former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in Spanish courts in the late 1990s.

The AP story also includes this odd line:

"Because the United States is not a member of the International Criminal Court, the case could not be filed there."

Meaning: an ICC case could not be filed in Germany. However, this is a simplification that obscures more than it explains.

The ICC has jurisdiction over states that are not party to the Rome Statute. Parties to the treaty had no reason to think that leaders of rogue states and other potential war criminals were going to agree to abide by the rules.

However, there are limits on all prosecutions under the agreement. For example, Rumsfeld could claim that the case should first be filed in the US. This protection was negotiated by the US in Rome years ago. The idea was to protect US soldiers from international prosecutors potentially gone wild.

Also, the US helped negotiate language in the treaty that created other notable exemptions -- and the US has been seeking those exemptions over the years. For a year or so, the US gained Security Council exemption for potential prosecution of its peacekeepers in various UN missions. Most importantly, the US has bargained bilaterally with at least 68 other states to gain exemptions (under so-called Status of Forces Agreements, or SOFAs). Unsurprisingly, a lot of US aid recipients have signed these deals with America. Various "carrots and sticks" were reportedly used to induce cooperation.

EU nations like Germany, however, have not and apparently cannot sign them.

The AMICC, a US NGO, keeps track of these sorts of things. Here, it demonstrates that the Bush administration is well-aware of the risk from US deployments abroad, even under the auspices of the UN:

US Ambassador Cunningham stated that, "In the absence of a new [Security Council exemption] resolution, the United States will need to take into account the risk of ICC review when determining contributions to UN authorized or established operations. We will also continue to negotiate bilateral agreements consistent with Article 98 of the Rome Statue to further protect U.S. persons from the exercise of jurisdiction by the ICC." Shortly after announcing its decision, the US pulled out peacekeepers from several UN missions, including 2 from Kosovo and 7 from Ethiopia-Eritrea.

So, we may one day have some neo-convicts after all.

Rumsfeld: Best Actor Slight?

Sundance is running "Control Room" and I finally caught it. If you haven't seen the documentary about the Arabic news channel Al Jazeera, I recommend a viewing.

To my mind, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stole the show. What a great, great performance. Here are his best lines in the film:

And it seems to me that it's up to all of us to try to tell the truth, to say what we know, to say what we don't know, and recognize that we're dealing with people that are perfectly willing to lie to the world to attempt to further their case. And to the extent people lie, ultimately, they are caught lying and they lose their credibility, and one would think it wouldn't take very long for that to happen dealing with people like this.

Of course, Rumsfeld was talking about al Jazeera, not fellow members of the Bush administration.

By the way, while the film has received some accolades, it was not nominated for a "Best Documentary" Oscar -- and apparently wasn't eligible.

Rumsfeld vs. Halliburton

I know this quotation has appeared on some other blogs, but I recently ran across it and wanted to preserve it for posterity.

This is Representative Donald Rumsfeld on August 30, 1966, on the House floor, in reaction to the awarding of a dubious defense contract to Halliburton company Brown and Root. I found it in
Government Executive Magazine dated January 30, 2001.

During the Vietnam War-on Aug. 30, 1966-Rumsfeld told his House colleagues that it "is beyond me" why the huge contract awarded to Brown and Root of Houston and other U.S. firms to build air fields and other facilities in South Vietnam "has not been and is not now being adequately audited. The potential for waste and profiteering under such a contract is substantial."

This is important, of course, because the Pentagon awards a great number of no-bid contracts these days, many to Halliburton. Worse, the Pentagon's oversight of military contracts "has been eviscerated."

recently, secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld handed the management and oversight of the "Star Wars" missile defense system to the contractors who are building the system. "The Pentagon has created a system where contractors are evaluating themselves and then making recommendations on how much more money they need," says Senator Jack Reed (D-R.L), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "It is an absurd arrangement."

I wonder if the Dems could use the old Rumsfeld quote in a campaign commercial?

Rumsfeld's revenge?

A couple of weeks ago, I noted a brief CNN report, based on a NY Daily News story, about Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's apparently tenuous hold on his job. National Security Advisor Condi Rice had just been put in charge of coordinating Iraq policy and Rumsfeld was being blamed for much of what's going wrong on the ground.

The administration also started a PR campaign to sell the war on terror. Vice President Cheney, President Bush and Rice made some prominent speeches to various groups. The conservative media's echo chamber, and even some "mainstream media" have thus been reporting more good news: about opening schools in Iraq, small victories in the war on terror, etc.

Whether Rumsfeld is getting his revenge or not, two stories from today's news highlight the administration's difficulty in putting a positive spin on Iraq.

First, the Associated Press had a story today from the top US soldier in Iraq:

The commander of U.S. forces in Iraq said Wednesday the number of attacks against American troops in Iraq is increasing.

During a press conference, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez said the average of 20 to 25 attacks daily had increased over the last three weeks "to a peak of 35 attacks a day."

This is the lead in a long story outlining the horrors of homemade bombs, ambushes and other guerilla-style attacks on US forces.

When I was in grad school, about a decade after Vietnam ended, some professors were still teaching that great power "wars" against guerillas were hopeless. Hmmm.

The second story (from USA Today) is about a fairly pessimistic memo on the overall "war on terror" written by Rumsfeld himself. Here's the lead paragraphs from that story:

The United States has no yardstick for measuring progress in the war on terrorism, has not "yet made truly bold moves" in fighting al-Qaeda and other terror groups, and is in for a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a memo that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sent to top-ranking Defense officials last week.

Despite upbeat statements by the Bush administration, the memo to Rumsfeld's top staff reveals significant doubts about progress in the struggle against terrorists. Rumsfeld says that "it is not possible" to transform the Pentagon quickly enough to effectively fight the anti-terror war and that a "new institution" might be necessary to do that.

A new institution, other than the Department of Defense?

Wow, that's a big claim. The newspaper calls the memo "candid" and "sobering."

One oddity. The memo claims "The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' cost of millions." However, this is an obvious error. This is a reference to the offense-defense costs, not the cost-benefit. Rumsfeld is doing the kind of math that has always precluded deployment of missile defenses. Offensive missiles are much cheaper and are more effective than the defensive ones.

In this case, defending against terror is more costly than terror.

But that doesn't mean the cost-benefit ratio is against the defense.

The cost-benefit, obviously, must calculate the expense of fighting terror and weigh that versus the gain from preventing terrorist acts. How much did the Trade Center attack cost? How many future Trade Centers have been prevented?

Rumsfeld argues, however, that it is quite difficult to measure success in the war on terror. I guess that means the Pentagon doesn't have an answer to the question. This is from Rumsfeld's memo, which is also available:

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?

I'm wondering if enough people in the administration asked that question before the US went into Iraq and created an occupying force that is now both a recruiting boon and giant bulls-eye for international terrorism.


Update: Is That Legal? discusses whether the Rumsfeld memo was leaked or openly distributed. The blogger points out that the Pentagon now has a copy on its website!