That would be Douglas Feith, former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, neoconservative extraordinaire and one of the architects of our current catastrophic success in Iraq. And guess what? He’s still the “fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth.” You want proof? Read this little gem from the Washington Post:
I know that Don Rumsfeld is not an ideologue. He did not refuse to have his views challenged. He did not ignore the advice of his military advisers. And he did not push single-mindedly for war in Iraq. He was motivated to serve the national interest by transforming the military, though it irritated people throughout the Pentagon. Rumsfeld’s drive to modernize created a revealing contrast between his Pentagon and the State Department, where Colin Powell was highly popular among the staff. After four years of Powell’s tenure at State, the organization chart there would hardly tip anyone off that 9/11 had occurred — or even that the Cold War was over.
Rumsfeld is a bundle of paradoxes, like a fascinating character in a work of epic literature. And as my high school teachers drummed into my head, the best literature reveals that humans are complex. They are not the all-good or all-bad, all-brilliant or all-dumb figures that inhabit trashy novels and news stories. Fine literature teaches us the difference between appearance and reality.
Because of his complexity, Rumsfeld is often misread. His politics are deeply conservative, but he was radical in his drive to force change in every area he oversaw. He is strong-willed and hard-driving, but he built his defense strategies and Quadrennial Defense Reviews on calls for intellectual humility.
Those of us in his inner circle heard him say, over and over again: Our intelligence, in all senses of the term, is limited. We cannot predict the future. We must continually question our preconceptions and theories. If events contradict them, don’t suppress the bad news; rather, change your preconceptions and theories.
I’ll consider Feith’s heart warming defense of his former Boss point by point, after the break.
(Cont.)
Point 1: Donald Rumsfeld is not an ideologue.
Well, that’s bound to be surprising news to William D. Hartung based on this report from January, 2001:
The most troubling aspect of Rumsfeld’s background lies in his close connections with the Center for Security Policy (CSP), a small, extremely effective missile defense advocacy organization founded by former Reagan Pentagon official Frank Gaffney. Going back to at least 1996, Rumsfeld has routinely been singled out as a “trusted advisor and faithful supporter” in CSP’s annual reports. Rumsfeld has also been a regular donor to the Center. Last but not least, in 1998, Rumsfeld received the Center for Security Policy’s “Keeper of the Flame” award at its annual fundraising dinner, in honor of his role in chairing the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States.
Rumsfeld has also served on the board of Empower America, a conservative lobbying group that has vigorously attacked members of the Senate who express doubts about the wisdom of rushing ahead with the deployment of a missile defense system.
Rumsfeld was already a card-carrying member of the missile defense lobby before he chaired the Congressionally mandated commission on the Third World missile threat that was used to jump start the NMD program at a point when it had reached a dead end in the Republican-led Congress. While claiming to do a careful assessment of the evidence on the potential for other nations to develop missile capabilities that can reach the United States, it is clear that Rumsfeld and his conservative cohorts decided to use the commission as an opportunity to press the case for missile defense.
Of course, he wasn’t just a avid proponent of missile defense. He was also a founder and card carrying member of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC):
Statement of Principles
June 3, 1997
American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America’s role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.
We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world’s preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital — both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements — built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation’s ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.
Need I remind anyone that PNAC first proposed the idea of regime change in Iraq through the employment of US military forces during the Clinton administration? Or that practically the first words out of Rumsfeld’s mouth after 9/11 to Richard Clarke, National Coordinator for Counterterrorism, was to demand we bomb Iraq (as opposed to going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan) because “[T]here aren’t any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq.”
Sorry Doug, Rumsfeld passes the dyed in the wool ideologue test with flying colors.
Point 2: Donald Rumsfeld is Intellectually Humble.
Someone really should have informed the generals he worked with at the Pentagon of the disarming streak of humility in Rumsfeld. If only they’d known, perhaps they wouldn’t have gone on the offensive to get him removed from office over his mismanagement of our military in Iraq:
It is startling to hear, in private conversations, how widely and deeply the U.S. officer corps despises this secretary of defense. The joke in some Pentagon circles is that if Rumsfeld were meeting with the service chiefs and commanders and a group of terrorists barged into the room and kidnapped him, not a single general would lift a finger to help him.
Some of the most respected retired generals are publicly criticizing Rumsfeld and his policies in a manner that’s nearly unprecedented in the United States, where civilian control of the military is accepted as a hallowed principle. Gen. Anthony Zinni, a Marine with a long record of command positions (his last was as head of U.S. Central Command, which runs military operations in the Persian Gulf and South Asia), called last month for Rumsfeld’s resignation. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who ran the program to train the Iraqi military, followed with a New York Times op-ed piece lambasting Rumsfeld as “incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically,” and a man who “has put the Pentagon at the mercy of his ego, his Cold Warrior’s view of the world, and his unrealistic confidence in technology to replace manpower.”
But the most eye-popping instance appears in this week’s Time magazine, where retired Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold, the former operations director for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, not only slams the secretary and what he calls “the unnecessary war” but also urges active-duty officers who share his views to speak up. Newbold resigned his position in late 2002—quite a gesture, since he was widely regarded as a candidate for the next Marine Corps commandant. His fellow officers knew he resigned over the coming war in Iraq. The public and the president did not. He writes in Time:
I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat—al-Qaeda. … [T]he Pentagon’s military leaders … with few exceptions, acted timidly when their voices urgently needed to be heard. When they knew the plan was flawed, saw intelligence distorted to justify a rationale for war, or witnessed arrogant micromanagement that at times crippled the military’s effectiveness, many leaders who wore the uniform chose inaction. … It is time for senior military leaders to discard caution in expressing their views and ensure that the President hears them clearly. And that we won’t be fooled again.
I guess he just kept his humility a secret (classified “TOP SECRET” no doubt) when it came to dealing with his subordinates in the armed forces.
Point 3: Donald Rumsfeld is complex.
To be precise, Feith called him a “bundle of paradoxes, like a fascinating character in a work of epic literature.” And I must say, I sort of agree with Dougie on this one. Rumsfeld is a mass of paradoxes, though not so much like a figure from a work of epic literature, but more like one from classical farce or mock heroic epic. After all, who has not listened to his press conferences or read their transcripts and not been struck by the comedy inherent in almost every word he spoke for public dissemination. Just read the following and tell me Rummy isn’t a master of unintended irony:
Arguments of convenience lack integrity and inevitably trip you up.
As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.
Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war.
Don’t divide the world into “them” and “us.” Avoid infatuation with or resentment of the press, the Congress, rivals, or opponents. Accept them as facts. They have their jobs and you have yours.
Don’t speak ill of your predecessors or successors. You didn’t walk in their shoes.
First rule of politics: you can’t win unless you’re on the ballot. Second rule: If you run, you may lose. And, if you tie, you do not win.
If in doubt, don’t. If still in doubt, do what’s right.
If in doubt, move decisions up to the President.
If you develop rules, never have more than ten.
In politics, every day is filled with numerous opportunities for serious error. Enjoy it.
It is easier to get into something than to get out of it.
It isn’t making mistakes that’s critical; it’s correcting them and getting on with the principal task.
I don’t do quagmires.
Many people around the President have sizeable egos before entering government, some with good reason. Their new positions will do little to moderate their egos.
Oh my goodness gracious, what you can buy off the Internet in terms of overhead photography. A trained ape can know an awful lot of what is going on in this world, just by punching on his mouse, for a relatively modest cost.
Politics is human beings; it’s addition rather than subtraction.
Secretary Powell and I agree on every single issue that has ever been before this administration except for those instances where Colin’s still learning.
The Secretary of Defense is not a super General or Admiral. His task is to exercise civilian control over the Department for the Commander-in-Chief and the country.
There are a lot of people who lie and get away with it, and that’s just a fact.
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.
“Freedom’s untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things.”
“It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”
“If I know the answer I’ll tell you the answer, and if I don’t, I’ll just respond, cleverly.”
Jonathan Swift would have had a ball with Rummy, eh Doug?
Come to think of it, Feith doesn’t really have a point does he? Other than “I’ll always love my Rummy!” that is. I guess I’d love someone who handed me a job in Government for which I was unqualified and ill suited, and who stood by me despite all my blunders. But I wouldn’t expect you to. Which means the only people on earth who might be stupider than Feith would have to be those who believe a single word he says in his paean of praise to Donald the Menace.
