As the inevitable begins to catch up with him and the Pentagon issues a
memo to guide retired Generals on how to counteract the criticism of Rumsfled, we should go back to 2003 when another memo made the news and called the lie to much of what the WH and Rumsfeld had been telling America.
In that memo, Rumsfeld outlined to his staff the concerns he had on the whole war on terrorism strategy and our capabilities and even abilities to win. Their whole effort to make it seem we were winning the war on terror everywhere was a sham when in fact they thought we were losing or having a very difficult time everywhere.
It makes startling reading, as it seems to have been forgotten, as the WH goes back to saying how well things are going and keeps asking why the good news just can't attract media attention. And yes, should Rummy that "honorable" micromanager and military strategist stay?
The two-page memo, dated Oct. 16, was addressed to Rumsfeld's top aides: the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers; the vice chairman, Gen. Pete Pace; Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz; and Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith. Here are some key passages:
* "It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog."
* "My impression is that we have not yet made truly bold moves [in the war on terrorism]."
* "We are having mixed results with [tracking down] Al-Qaida. ... With respect to the Ansar Al-Islam, we are just getting started."
* "It is not possible to change DoD fast enough to successfully fight the global war on terror; an alternative might be to try to fashion a new institution either within DoD or elsewhere."
* "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?"
* "Does the US need to fashion a broad, integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists? The US is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists. The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' costs of millions."
* "How do we stop those who are financing the radical madrassa schools? Is our current situation such that 'the harder we work, the behinder we get'? ... Should we create a private foundation to entice radical madrassas to a more moderate course?"
Another question might be added to this list: Have you ever read a more pathetic federal document in your life? What is being stated here can be summed up as follows: We'll probably win the battle for Afghanistan and Iraq (or, more precisely, it's "pretty clear" we "can win" it, "in one way or another" after "a long, hard slog"), but we're losing the struggle for hearts and minds in the broader war against terrorism. Not only that, we don't know how to measure winning or losing, we don't have a plan for winning it, we don't know how to fashion a plan, and the bureaucratic agencies put in charge of waging this war and drawing up these plans may be inherently incapable of doing so.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan, when asked Wednesday about the leaked memo, tried to put the best spin on it, extolling the quality of questions that Rumsfeld had posed in the memo. "That's exactly what a strong and capable secretary of defense like Secretary Rumsfeld should be doing," McClellan said with a remarkably straight face.
Link