Mainstream Press Is Just Catching Up
In the bowels of the Pentagon, the colleagues and subordinates of Donald Rumsfeld were not upset by Republican senators who were sniping at him. Instead, they complained bitterly about a call for his removal by a private citizen with no political leadership position: William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard. His position was, in effect, a declaration of war by the neoconservatives against the secretary of defense.
The capital's feeding frenzy over Rumsfeld's fate did not begin until Kristol's Dec. 12 op-ed column in the Washington Post. While critical senators did not get to the point of demanding Rumsfeld's removal, Kristol did. He said the troops in
Rumsfeld's civilian colleagues at the Pentagon are furious because they consider Kristol a manipulative political operative, critiquing the war in
Rumsfeld is often bracketed with the neocons, but that is incorrect. In a long political career that dates back to his election to Congress in 1962, he has not even been associated with the traditional conservative movement. In the run-up to the attack on
Rumsfeld did name Richard Perle, one of the foremost neocon voices calling for regime change in
With the bloody occupation of
On April 30, Adelman said a ''miscalculation'' had been made in war planning because the operation in
Unlike Adelman, Kristol pinned defects in war-fighting tactics directly on Rumsfeld. In a Weekly Standard essay of Nov. 17, 2003 (written with his frequent collaborator, Robert Kagan), Kristol assailed Rumsfeld for sending insufficient troops to
Thus, the neocon message is that the war was no mistake but has been badly conducted. While Adelman does not blame his friend Rumsfeld, the accountability of the secretary of defense is implicit. Kristol's call for Rumsfeld's dismissal removes culpability for those who beat the drums to go to war.
Getting rid of Rumsfeld does not answer agonizing questions. Was the change of regime in
There are no clear answers. To say simply that all would be well in
Read the article here on the Chicago Sun Times website.
Things are not getting any rosier in the middle east as evinced by the recent report of the Defense Policy Board (DSB) which contained strong criticism of the present administration's war. Among other insights, the report frankly stated that "Muslims do not 'hate our freedom;' they hate our policies" and in particular, "what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestin(e)." Moreover, the optimistic appraisal of events coming out of Washington was tempered with the following: "in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq have not led to democracy there but only more chaos and suffering."
For more info on the report, google here.
I'm not quite sure why this report hasn't received more airplay. Nevermind, I do know why, but that is a different story. G*d Speed.