Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Sunday, December 03, 2006

Rumsfeld's Shocking Memo;
Over 100 Dead in Sectarian Violence


The NYT has gotten hold of a memo by Donald Rumsfeld detailing options on Iraq.

Several things struck me about it:

1. Rumsfeld doesn't understand the magnitude of the crisis or the tightrope the US is walking in the Gulf. His attitude is almost lackadaisical. Doing an all right job, but it isn't working fast enough or well enough. So maybe make some changes-- apparently any old changes will do because there are infinite lives to play with and infinite monies to spend.

2. Rumsfeld spends more time plotting out how to manipulate the American public than how to win the war. Everything is about spin, about giving the image of progress even in the face of a rapid downward spiral into the abyss. Consider these phrases:


' Publicly announce a set of benchmarks agreed to by the Iraqi Government and the U.S. — political, economic and security goals — to chart a path ahead for the Iraqi government and Iraqi people (to get them moving) and for the U.S. public (to reassure them that progress can and is being made) . . .

Announce that whatever new approach the U.S. decides on, the U.S. is doing so on a trial basis. 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. . . '


It is about how we talk, how we are perceived to set goals, what is made to look like progress. It isn't actually about getting progress. The point of going minimalist is to reduce expectations among the American public. If you tell them you can only move the ball a yard, you get a lot of points for moving it two yards.

There is nothing in the memo about effectively stopping the daily sectarian massacre in Iraq. Rumsfeld does not even appear to think there is a problem here. He doesn't see the basis on which the fabric of Iraq is coming apart. But God forbid he should be seen by the US public as failing. So let's set some vague "benchmarks" and make it look like progress is being made.

3. Rumsfeld openly admits that he wants to run Iraq just like Saddam did:

' Provide money to key political and religious leaders (as Saddam Hussein did), to get them to help us get through this difficult period. '


I mean, bribing people to be your puppets is bad enough, but citing Saddam's policies as an example for how Iraq should be run is absolutely outrageous. Not only did Rumsfeld want to manipulate the American public with phony "benchmarks" and "minimalist" language, but he wanted to directly manipulate Iraqis by buying off their notables.

The specifically military suggestions in the memo are all over the map. In addition to a lot of contradictory and not obviously effective politicies, he steals ideas from Democratic Senators and Congressmen.

Three major car bombings and mortar attacks in Shiite neighborhoods of the capital left at least 51 dead. In addition,44 bodies were discovered on Saturday. Reuters reports 13 other deaths around the country in political violence and more dozens wounded. One of the dead was a US soldier in al-Anbar Province.

In addition, an assassination attempt was made on secular Sunni politician Salih Mutlak, which he blamed on Shiites.

15 Comments:

At 7:16 AM, Blogger John Hamilton said...

I don't read Juan Cole as often as I should. Many thanks for the tireless and difficult public service. As far as Rumsfeld is concerned, this should seal his reputation as a sociopath among sociopaths. The real question for me in this whole debacle is how the experiment known as the United States of America could so easily be defiled. From the theft of the 2000 election to the surreality we are now experiencing, we seem to have been fair game for this criminal gang, like pheasants on one of Cheney's canned hunts.

 
At 8:02 AM, Blogger Spin proof said...

There must be millions of hideous old men like Rumsfeld in the world. It is the system that allowed him to get to where he was, and do the damage that he did, not him personally.

In just over a year, the Americans will be consumed by the greatest freak show on Earth: a multi-billion dollar marketing campaign just to select one of the two 'rented' candidates. No other nation in the world allows such a degrading and corrupt way to pick its leaders.

It is only natural that the slogan men and women get to power: it is the very skill needed to get there.

 
At 9:26 AM, Blogger Professor Smartass said...

To the extent that any of his ideas are good, they are remarkably similar to what Juan Cole proposed in August of 2005:

http://www.juancole.com/2005/08/ten-things-congress-could-demand-from.html

While pulling out as quickly as possible is the best option of all, if Rummy had implemented something like Cole's plan a year ago, American lives would have been saved and probably a hell of a lot of Iraqi lives too.

 
At 9:57 AM, Blogger Thomas Boogaart said...

I guess we all knew that Rummy was out to lunch, but Rumsfeld's memo is something of a bombshell nonetheless and I think it is going to take a few days to sift through all the implications. Over the longer run, one hopes that this memo will prevent any repeat of the Vietnam era's "stabbed in the back" myth.

The New Yorker did an interesting profile on Rummy some time back and that same intellectual rigidity is certainly on display in this memo. At a fundamental level he does not grasp what happened in Vietnam: how the security problem is not reducible to conventional military terms and how the projection of superpower in the new world order is going to require fundamentally different tools than brute force and traditional military propaganda. Honestly, if Rumsfeld could timewarp back to 2003 it is clear that he learned nothing from his own quagmire and would repeat all his mistakes in at best a slightly different form. I guess that is the intersection between hubris and tragedy, and historians will no doubt remember Mr. Splenda not so splendidly.

The other question this memo raises to me is about the Bush bubble. One can just picture the incurious Bush leaning on an expert that will not evaluate his assumptions for six years and mumbling "Get'r done." Rumsfeld might be gone, but the problem sure is not. What would Tolstoy say? Every healthy country is exactly alike, but every sick empire collapses in its own way?

And how does one reconcile Rummy's cynical Cold War blow em up and spin it approach with the more progressive Wolfy vision of fundamental regional transformation? It seems that from the very beginning these two quite different perspectives on the world order and Middle East were not only incompatible on an operational level, but the braintrust never seriously worked to reconcile them.

Incompetence is really an imprecise term. Tolstoy might say, every healthy empire is exactly alike and every

 
At 10:23 AM, Blogger Frank said...

Dear Professor Cole

You may enjoy the discussion in the morning's Washington Post as to who is the worst US President to date.

Not terribly productive, but illustrative of another pressure on the incumbent.

 
At 11:40 AM, Blogger John in Houston said...

Rumsfeld's cynicism is reminiscent of his predecessor Robert McNamara, who has admitted knowing that the Vietnam War was a lost cause long before it ended.

 
At 3:41 PM, Blogger Sha said...

A truly unbelievable memo - in all respects - but particularly relative to the suggestion on how to continue to lie to the American people and the world.

The Bush "adminstration" is guilty of war crimes and I long for the day when we see those trials.

 
At 5:10 PM, Blogger Jim Jay said...

The thing about this idea of things are moving to slowly does seem to willfully ignor that things are actually going in the wrong direction entirely

 
At 7:16 PM, Blogger El Cid said...

I am still convinced that one major explanation for the supremely "lackadaisical" nature of the Bush Jr. regime's callousness about turning Iraq into a chaotic hell is that they seriously thought that no one would pay that much attention.

While yes, I do think that they went along with "magical thinking" in assuming that most everything would work out all right, I also think that they have been stunned to realize that a chaotic Iraq actually proved to be a serious problem -- you know, for the things they care about: politics.

I can easily imagine a Bush Jr / Rumsfeld conversation and someone suggests that Iraq may fall apart and destabilize the region, and their first question is, "Will the American people pay that much attention?"

And somehow, they answered, "No, even that isn't a serious problem, sure they'll be some attention paid in the beginning, mainly around the troops, but we'll talk a lot about completing the mission and not undermining the troops, and the eggheads will mostly shut up about it, and then if we give them something else to think about, and they'll forget all about Iraq."

 
At 8:26 PM, Blogger daryoush said...

It sounds as if one his "less attractive options" has become the current option for Bush administration:

¶Move a large fraction of all U.S. Forces into Baghdad to attempt to control it.

 
At 9:50 PM, Blogger azmom said...

What bothers me is the 30+% of Americans who strongly support Bush and his policies. Is 1/3 of the country also insane?

 
At 3:46 AM, Blogger Kenneth Almquist said...

I was struck by the fact that Rumsfeld wrote a memo calling for "major adjustments" in Iraq and a couple of days later he is told that he is being replaced. Probably the timing is a coincidence, but I can't help wondering: Rumsfeld may seem lackadaisical to us, but is Bush replacing him because Bush thinks Rumsfeld isn't lackadaisical enough?

 
At 12:25 AM, Blogger Monty said...

I have my doubts that Rumsfeld's memo was "leaked;" it's contents illustrate perfectly that Rummy hasn't learned thing one since 2003 and that he's more concerned with maintaining the illusion of progress than actual progress.

What a sad attempt at legacy preservation...

No wonder it reads like applied psyops:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/27_01_06_psyops.pdf

 
At 4:50 AM, Blogger John Mclaren said...

If I were really, really cynical or entertained conspiracies, I would have to observe that we have a history of military and CIA involvments in third world countries, based on questionable pretexts, which result in anarchic and violent civil wars, which overall solidify the regional supremacy of superpowers, crush uncooperative or troublesome regimes, create areas benefitial to smugglers, arms and drug traffic, while keeping those black market goods overvalued, but available.

Phillipines circa 1900.
Post WWII Burma.
South America.
Much of Africa.
Central America.
Vietnam.
Now Afghanistan and Iraq.
Probably more.

Were I very, very cynical, I might suggest the US never wanted to win any of these conflicts or spread democracy, but instead intended simply to efficiently destroy whole nations while benefiting from other people's misery and death. Win or lose, democrat or republican, we won, they lost.

Only if I were really, really cynical would I say that, mind you.

 
At 7:58 AM, Blogger Michael Price said...

Question: Once the US starts ' Provide money to key political and religious leaders' leaders to minimise the violence won't said notables realise that they have to keep the violence going to keep getting paid?
I mean these guys are pretty cluey, they'll some figure out how to "game the system" to gain maximum revenue for them and provide minimal services. Of course they'll outsource the actual troublemaking to younger hotter-headed men. The US will then have to start paying them off like it did el-Sadr and the cycle begins...

 

Post a Comment

<< Home