Promoted by Steven D.
Obviously, Donald Rumsfeld wanted no one interfering with ‘his’ Iraq plan. And no defectors (Chalabi excepted) so General Erik Shinseki’s departure was welcomed, if not greased. Rumsfeld is a very intelligent individual and can ably debate and discuss when pushed into such a mode. But he just won’t abide such if avoidable. I cannot pinpoint what is the basis for Rumsfeld’s choice of management style but it is cowardice-in-action, something quite revealing to attach to a Secretary of Defense. Obviously, George Bush cannot withstand disagreement or any attempt at intellectual debate and argument–that’s for pointyheads in academia not a gunslinger commander-in-chief. My sense is his management style is tragically based on an lifelong feeling of inferiority derived from his family relations and lack of success in the business world. Safety can be found in brooking no debate, always playing ‘offense,’ and refusing to ever play ‘defense.’
General Anthony Zinni, now retired and a registered Republican, recently spoke at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco (my error, it was actually at The World Affairs Council in SF). Among other items, he pointed out the very dramatic differences both in the deliberative processes and between the egos of Bill Clinton and his Secretary of Defense William Cohen and those of our so-called MBA President Bush.and Secretary Rumsfeld.
Clinton and Cohen (also a registered Republican) were grounded enough as human beings and not scared of having opposing viewpoints aired. As for George (Fearful) Bush and Donald (Afraid) Rumsfeld…
Here is an excerpt of Zinni’s speech:
Q: “There is a way in which active duty military are expected to speak their minds. Throughout the National Security Council process, as you lead up to war, they are asked what resources will be needed. Their job is to say what resources are required for a given operation. Do you feel that either A, that process was bypassed? Or B, the folks in that process did not either speak their minds or get it right?”
Zinni “There is a process. The process, though, can be controlled by personalities…
Let me tell you a short story in my experience in working for Secretary (William) Cohen, as the secretary of defense. I was asked, by the president and the secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, as the inspectors in Iraq were finding it more difficult to do their business, to prepare two options for striking Iraq. One was called a light option. One was called a heavy option. It had to do with the amount of bombing and targets we would strike. I prepared both options.
I was called by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. (Hugh) Shelton, and he said, “You will brief the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the options.” I came up to Washington (and) briefed the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Immediately following this briefing there was to be a meeting of the principals. This is the secretary of state, defense, the director of Central Intelligence, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the president and vice president at Camp David to make a decision on this.
In the course of my briefing to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Shelton said, “OK, you’ve heard both options, let’s take a vote.” The Joint Chiefs came down four to two in favor of the light option. I was then asked what option I favored. And I said the heavy option. If you’re going to bomb the guy, bomb the guy. And the chairman then called down the secretary of defense and said to him, “We have the Joint Chiefs voting one way on a split vote and the commander in chief of U.S. Central Command voting another way. How do you want to handle this?” . . .
The secretary of defense said, “Pack up Zinni, take him with us to Camp David.” The secretary of defense agreed with the vote in the Joint Chiefs, for the light option. We went to Camp David, sat there in front of the president (Clinton) and the assembled principals, and the secretary of defense said, “Mr. President, we have a split amongst your military advisers. The Joint Chiefs have voted one way, on a split vote. But your commander in chief of the U.S. Central Command feels a different way. I vote with the Joint Chiefs. But you need to hear his view. . . . I brought him here to make sure you hear his view.”
I’m just giving you (an) example of an environment where the room to talk and express different views was not only allowed, it was encouraged. And it allowed the senior decision-makers to hear everything. It allowed me to go back to my command and say, even if they didn’t agree with me . . . I said my piece. And it made me feel much better about the execution of what I had to do.”
A quick note to our beloved press: just how differently (than what took place recently) would you have covered ex-President Clinton’s lack of military service if a large number of retired military had spoken out so vehemently against Clinton’s foreign policies and choice of Secretary of Defense? Just asking.
