Rumsfeld in Impromptus

My early morning reading today was Jay Nordlinger's "Impromptus" on NRO. Today, he shares conversation that the had with Donald Rumsfeld--and much of it centers on quickly challenging a "lazy and gullible" media.

3) "No plan." Many people charge that the U.S. had "no plan" for after-Saddam. But then, insisted Rumsfeld, how could we have done all we've done, in so short a time, with no plans? Why doesn't someone — other than the Wall Street Journal — go out and investigate whether the "no plan" claim, constantly asserted and parroted and accepted, is true?

And finally, 4) our old friend "imminence." Rumsfeld said, first, that no one he knows ever claimed an "imminent threat" — because the point of removing Saddam was to do so before he had reached the point of imminence, thus making it too late — and, second, this: "When was 9/11 'imminent'? Was it imminent an hour before it happened? Was it imminent a week before, a month before, a year before?"

Rumsfeld continues to impress; it's a shame that the media tends to focus on reporting what they think he means rather than asking him the question. The reports yesterday of the leaked memo were, across the board, of how bad he thinks the war on terror was progressing; that accusation was the writers projecting their feelings into Rumsfeld sound bites.

Having read the memo, it seemed to me like he was acting as a manager--noting a certain level of success but trying to find answers to doing the overall job better. In Iraq and Afghanistan, as the situations progress, the means used to achieve our ends must change to meet the new challenges. Failure to adapt would mean a general failure of the mission.

In the war on terror, we've found certain tactics and methods that have certainly hurt terrorist organizations--and those organizations, as they still exist, will continually respond with new concepts of their own. For us to be successful, again, our methodology must change and adapt to meet that moving target.

I, for one, am glad that he is asking these questions. I'm glad he's trying to urge his people to help continually guide US policy and response toward better and more successful tactics. If he simply sat back, said I love the way everything is going, and failed to work for something more efficient and effective, I would want him removed from his post.

The problem isn't with the questions he asked or what he said, but with the way it was reported. The headlines and tenor of the articles I read suggested that Rumsfeld was unsure about the war, didn't believe that we were making progress, and doubted that we could win. Rumsfeld thinks that reporting like this comes from the "lazy and gullible."

I'm not so sure. I think it comes from people with an agenda and a willingness to skew information to support that agenda.

Read Impromptus.
Read the USA Today article on the leaked memo.
Read the memo.

Posted by zombyboy at October 23, 2003 07:57 AM | TrackBack