Reality vs Rumsfeld: A New Leaked Memo

A leaked Nov 6 memo by Rumsfeld, in which he considers changes to the Iraq strategy, has been published by the New York Times. No doubt, Rumsfeld supporters will find these two tidbits a bit disconcerting:

Another option calls for redeploying American troops from “vulnerable positions” in Baghdad and other cities to safer areas in Iraq or Kuwait, where they would act as a “quick reaction force.” That idea is similar to a plan suggested by Representative John P. Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, a plan that the White House has soundly rebuffed.
[...]
Taking a leaf out of Mr. Hussein’s book, Mr. Rumsfeld seemed to see some merit in the former dictator’s practice of paying Iraqi leaders. “Provide money to key political and religious leaders (as Saddam Hussein did), to get them to help us get through this difficult period,” one option reads.

Right-wingers, of course, will hold those up as justifiable reasons for Rumsfeld's firing, despite the fact that at least the first option has already leaked out now as a recommendation from the Iraq Study Group. To admit Murtha was right is like blasphemy to that bunch.

Additionally, Rumsfeld finally admitted that his approach had been wrong:

“In my view it is time for a major adjustment,” wrote Mr. Rumsfeld, who has been a symbol of a dogged stay-the-course policy. “Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough.”

Nor did Mr. Rumsfeld seem confident that the administration would readily develop an effective alternative.

That lack of confidence in anyone but himself being capable to fix the situation though is just another expression of his arrogance, as is this:

To limit the political fallout from shifting course he suggested the administration consider a campaign to lower public expectations.

“Announce that whatever new approach the U.S. decides on, the U.S. is doing so on a trial basis,” he wrote. “This will give us the ability to readjust and move to another course, if necessary, and therefore not ‘lose.’ ”

“Recast the U.S. military mission and the U.S. goals (how we talk about them) — go minimalist,” he added. Mr. Rumsfeld’s memo suggests frustration with the pace of turning over responsibility to the Iraqi authorities; in fact, the memo calls for examination of ideas that roughly parallel troop withdrawal proposals presented by some of the White House’s sharpest Democratic critics.

And this:

The memo’s discussion of possible troop reduction options offers a counterpoint to Mr. Rumsfeld’s frequent public suggestions that discussions about force levels are driven by requests from American military commanders.

Instead, the memo puts on the table several ideas for troop redeployments or withdrawals that appear to conflict with recent public pronouncements from commanders in Iraq emphasizing the need to maintain troop levels.

So, his attempt to save his own butt when he must have known there was a change in his future coming down the line was a mixed bag of father still knows best and mea culpa (sort of) and it was, of course, too little much too late.

The memo once again shows just how much sole control Rumsfeld had in managing the war to the point where he would ignore his own commanders' pleas while trying to reassure the public, just like Bush, that the real military leaders on the ground were in charge. That Rumsfeld still thought that Americans had to or could be manipulated via the press in order to try to get them to believe that their military is actually winning in Iraq shows just how out of touch he was with the crushing reality in his country. The election showed that even Rumsfeld's propaganda couldn't save him on that front. Truth always wins out in the end. That's a lesson he never learned.