War on Terror
November 8th, 2006...
Reasons for Rumsfeld's Resignation
It has been widely reported that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has offered his resignation to the President on several occasions over the last few years. But today, the President has apparently accepted the offer:
David Espo & Liz Sidoti - November 7th, 2006 President Bush said Wednesday Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is stepping down and former CIA Director Robert Gates will take over at the Pentagon and in prosecuting the war in Iraq.
Rumsfeld, architect of an unpopular war in Iraq, intends to resign after six stormy years at the Pentagon. The development occurred one day after midterm elections that cost Republicans control of the House, and possibly the Senate, as well. Surveys of voters at polling places said opposition to the war was a significant contributor to the Democratic victory.
Technically, the reasons for this decision are obvious: the President no longer feels that Rumsfeld is the best man for the job. But the timing of the decision begs any number of questions, most of which are hopelessly Machiavellian. For example:- Why announce the day after the midterm elections, when such an announcement would, at least presumably, temper criticism of the conduct of the war? Were there fears that such a decision would be seen as too nakedly political?
- Was the decision contingent on a disappointing showing in the midterms?
- Was the decision contingent on a disappointing showing accompanied by the consensus that Iraq was the primary factor in many of the Congressional losses?
- If the last point is true, was the decision made in part as a gesture towards Democratic leaders, a concession to Democratic leaders (perhaps their new position of power makes such a change inevitable?), or is it simply a concession to an electorate which demands a high-level indicator of accountability?
I generally believe that pundits (and pundit-ish folks like myself) overthink these sorts of things, and that as complex as Karl "Keyser Soze" Rove's political machinations might be, the truth is generally a lot simpler than the convoluted theories that the blogosphere occasionally spits out.
UPDATE: Austin Bay, coincidentally, has some answers to some of the hypothetical questions above.
May 31st, 2005...
Politicizing Memorializing
It is unfortunate that Gary Trudeau has chosen to make what is likely a subtle political statement by listing the names of soldiers who have fallen in "Operation: Iraqi Freedom" thus far for Memorial Day. It is doubly so because he's doing a good thing, but most likely for bad reasons.
And therein lies the problem; it is exceedingly difficult to support a war without turning a blind eye to its costs. For while the benefits may be immeasurable, so is the price we pay for them. Those of us who believe these actions are part of something more important than ourselves, then, are sadly left to acknowledge that people like Trudeau are right to enumerate our losses as a country, as a people, even if they may be doing so to discourage those in support of the cause.
The day those of us who support the war demonize justified actions like this in the name of politics is the day we become the warmongers we're already accused of being. It is sad that Trudeau is likely using these deaths to undermine what we've done in Iraq, but it would be sadder still if we did not acknowledge those deaths simply to deny partisans their ammunition.
March 4th, 2005...
Krauthammer on the "rolling revolution"
Charles Krauthammer is absolutely right. In other news, dog bites man.
February 26th, 2005...
Meanwhile, Back in Afghanistan
It's to be expected that Iraq would dominate the airways, but it remains disproportionate to the coverage in Afghanistan, which is looking more and more like an unmitigated success, day by day. The elections were conducted successfuly, the Taliban has all but given up, and -- get this -- stand-up comedy is flourishing. That last one's not a joke. Here's a quote:
Lane Hartill - February 23rd, 2005 At a recent impromptu performance, Mubariz wraps on a long black turban - a favorite Taliban accessory - and twists his face into a scowl. He grabs a Kalashnikov to complete the look.
Then he screams at the men to go to the mosque, physically prodding them with his rifle. He grabs one long-haired man and berates him for letting his locks grow - a Taliban pet peeve. His imitation is so precise that the audience can't stop laughing.
From Jihad to Jon Stewart in less than four years. How is this anything less than a triumphant victory?
February 19th, 2005...
Dean, Dean, the Debating Machine
As you may have heard, newly minted DNC Chairman Howard Dean went toe-to-toe with Richard Perle in a debate on foreign policy on Thursday. Everyone, of course, has been talking about the protester who threw their shoe at him during the event, but I'm more interested in this little tidbit:
Howard Dean - February 17th, 2005 Defense is a lot broader than swaggering around saying you're going to kick Saddam's butt," Dean said Thursday, drawing cheers from the crowd in this city that overwhelmingly voted Democratic last November.
Now, if you were to read this quote without being told who the speaker was, and your short-term memory functioned on a level anywhere above that of Leonard Shelby's, wouldn't you expect that the speaker was referring to the Clinton administration? After all, they were the ones who were merely "saying" they were going to go after Saddam (they even did so formally, in the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).
Couple this with Clinton's claims that Social Security was "in crisis," and the recent controversy over Dubya's similar claim, and it becomes quite clear that many politicians are willing to support something just as long as nobody goes out and does it.
Countering Conflicting Complaints
In an entry yesterday I linked to a post over on normblog making the case that, whatever their real motivation, both Bush and Blair devoted a great many words towards highlighting the need to free the Iraqi people, rendering the claims of a "shifting rationale" for war untenable.
Norm has followed up with what I think is an even more astute point:
Norman Geras - February 19th, 2005 Don't many of the same critics who purvey this after-the-event argument also accuse George Bush of seeing himself heading a crusade on behalf of liberty? Right or wrong, the accusation doesn't sit well beside this charge of post hoccery.
He's right, of course. And that's what happens when the goal is not truth, or coherency, but simply opposition. If your criticisms are not based in any ideological framework, they're going to begin contradicting one another before long.
Another example of this would be the claim that Bush is shrewdly manipulating his religious supporters with wedge issues, juxtaposed with the claim that he's, deep down, a religious zealot. Or that he's simultaneously diabolical and stupid.
|
|
Calendar
More Entries
Blogroll
Instapundit
Andrew Sullivan
Tom Maguire
Decision '08
Patrick O'Keefe
Categories
Blogging
Democrats
Economy
Elections '04
Elections '06
Elections '08
Entertainment
George W. Bush
Iraq
Media
Miscellaneous
Republicans
Social Security
Supreme Court
Technology
War on Terror
Email Me
|
