OK, so Fred Hiatt might be a lost cause, but at least WaPo hasn't fired EJ Dionne (yet). Dionne's editorial today,
Roots of the Uprising puts the "general revolt" in the bigger picture. Yes Rumsfeld must go...but that is not the whole story. Dionne's thesis:
Making Donald Rumsfeld the scapegoat for all that has gone wrong in Iraq is a way for other members of the administration to dodge responsibility for a misguided policy.
They are circling the wagons because one of the true inner circle is being attacked. And Rummy won't go yet...as Bush said today, he is the 'decider'. Moreso, they cannot bring themselves to jump out of their bubble and join the reality based community.
We never should lose sight of this truth:
For all his mistakes, Rumsfeld is not some alien creature operating as a loner sabotaging the otherwise reasonable policies of his bosses...Rumsfeld is Bush's guy, which is why the president resists firing him. Letting Rumsfeld go would amount to acknowledging how badly the administration has botched Iraq.
Rummy does not operate in some sort of vaccuum. There is a cadre of screw-ups in this administration that cannot see their folly.
Indeed, the rebellious generals have not confined their criticism to the secretary of defense. In his powerful article last week in Time magazine, [ed note: this recommended story can be found here.] Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold was far-reaching in saying that "the zealots' rationale for war made no sense." That was zealots , plural. He also said that our forces were committed to this fight "with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions -- or bury the results." Does anyone doubt to whom those words "casualness" and "swagger" refer?
Their "leadership" is dangerous to the country.
For decades, the top leaders of the American military have been overwhelmingly conservative and Republican in their political sympathies. I say "unfortunate" not because the brass's political views have often differed from my own but because it does not serve our military or our public life well to have the leadership of the armed forces so skewed in a single political direction. Nor does it serve liberals well to be -- or to be seen as -- reflexively hostile to the military.
And that may be the silver lining in the current cloud over Rumsfeld and our Iraq policy. Some smart and patriotic generals are telling us that a policy is not wise or respectful of our troops just because it is put forward by politicians on the right end of our political spectrum. We may be witnessing the weakening of partisanship in the top echelons of the military. That would be very good for our republic.
Beyond the most agregious offense of sending our soldiers into this damn war, we've seen time and again how R's vote against critical appropriations to give armor and other battle necessities to troops in battle. Then to add insult, they vote down benefits to veterans when they return him. This has got to stop.