The President held a little Q&A in the Rose Garden the other day and questions about the Secretary of Defense and the unprecedented public criticism of him by recently retired generals came up. Mr. Bush, as we've come to expect, was unbowed in his support of his SecDef:
"I'm the decider and I decide what's best," insisted Bush "And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the Secretary of Defense."
One cable news show even joked that every attack against a Bush staffer would result in them being kept on longer, just to prove that he didn't bow to polls or public opinion. And others had fun with casting "The Decider" as a comic book or superhero show. What I wonder is - is Mr. Bush thinking of what is best for the Defense Department or just for Donald Rumsfeld?
There are a lot of arguments pro and con about all these generals coming out now and speaking out about Mr. Rumsfeld. Some applaud them for their courage while others wonder where they were before. Some doubt their veracity and accuse them of shilling books while others note that they've tried working through less public venues but felt duty-bound to have their voices heard. There are now generals speaking out in favor of the SecDef and others count all the generals retired that aren't speaking out (without mentioning how many of these never worked around Rumsfeld). All that is fine - for better or worse - this administration and this time in history and media capability are producing partisan storms not seen before. The substance of the general's argument is hard to pin down because they don't all have the same complaint and they didn't all have the same duties, access, and observations. I think that most Soldiers in the field have little time for this sort of thing - but the hometown paper of Fort Hood - with two combat divisions that have been and are in Iraq and one of the most deployed units in the Army - ran a poll that said
"...Do you believe Rumsfeld has mismanaged the war and should step down?" Out of 108 votes cast by Thursday morning 78 said "Yes."
But we know the President's answer to that is "...what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the Secretary of Defense."
The answer to that question shouldn't be about what is best for Donald Rumsfeld. The answer should be about what's best for the Defense Establishment as a whole. As much as I'd like to say that we should worry only about what is best for the troops on the ground - the Secretary of Defense is responsible for much more than that. One must consider the possible replacements and how they might work within a national strategy and what they might do differently or continue as the Secretary of Defense. Rumsfeld has ruffled a lot of feathers and started a lot of revolutionary plans. The efficacy of much of this is a long way from being decided and there are huge commitments of funds and expenditures to go. Would the next Secretary throw all that in the bin and start a new plan or would he be expected to enact the current plans at a greater level of efficiency? If the Secretary was replaced now - what would that say about military control of our government, if anything? I think that one of the reasons these guys are speaking out so stridently is Mr. Bush's continued statement that he `listens to his commanders in the field.' Perhaps he listens through the filter of Mr. Rumsfeld and the generals, some of whom were in the field, want to catapult that. Some have opined that Mr. Bush can't fire Mr. Rumsfeld because it will look like he is firing himself or scapegoating Rumsfeld for the President's own miscalculations. Perhaps it is because the welfare of the Pentagon is no longer tied to a position - the Secretary of Defense - but to a man - Donald Rumsfeld.
This obstinacy of Mr. Bush's doesn't make him appear as a decisive leader who consumes a range of information and then advances a positive course of action. It makes him sound like the little boy in the corner holding his breath until he gets his way. It occurs to me that so much power has been concentrated in Mr. Rumsfeld's hands that there is no longer an objective way to separate him from the structures he's created. The power to select generals, keep personnel on beyond 30 years, the intelligence budget, and contracting authorities, to name a few have accreted to the Secretary of Defense since this administration took over. Many of these decisions and power assignments were not based on a system but on a personality - Don Rumsfeld's.
The President should consider adjusting his priorities and, if necessary, the rules and systems in place, so that what is good for Mr. Rumsfeld is not what he decides. The President needs to decide what is good for the nation.
-----
On an unrelated note - stand by tomorrow for an announcement.