Stay or Go
As Ken, of Esoteric * Diatribe, notes by asking this week’s Homespun Symposium question, Secretary Rumsfeld is the point of much discussion, finger pointing and speculation. And few will state that there is little or no basis for a public discourse on the issue. This week’s question, and a little background from Ken:
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld now finds himself in the midst of the bitter and often cruel politics which have become a hallmark of the D.C. political landscape. In the past few weeks Rumsfeld has weathered criticism over his handling of the ambush-like question planted by a reporter during a question and answer session with the troops, the defense secretary has received harsh indictments from the likes of John McCain and Trent Lott, and Rumsfeld has endured embarassing exposés fueled by Pentagon leaks.
Is all the controversy surrounding Rumsfeld justified? In your opinion, are these attacks on the defense secretary fair? And finally - borrowing a slightly modified line from The Clash - should he (Rumsfield) stay or should he go now?
The first question, is the controversy justified? Yes. Not because Secretary Rumsfeld has err’d specifically, or due to his responses, often foreign to the muted and benign form of speech employed in Washington, but due to the significance of the responsibilities of his office and the right of Americans to question the practices and policy of those in the arena of public service. Secretary Rumsfeld has served honorably and with the full confidence of the President and for the majority of the nearly 4 years he has had the support of the Republican base. Yet he has shown his limitations and given the nature of the active threat, found in Islamo-fascism, and the passive, threats as seen in Sino-Russian, Iranian and North Korean alliances, it is evident that he has the necessary capabilities to continue the effort to focus our military toward more mobile and technologically advanced war fighting.
Therein lies the trouble. While we fight in a more reactionary and mobile manner, as seen in Afghanistan and Iraq, we know that the size, scope and capabilities of our forces are not at the level required for defense against a more traditional military backed by an economically viable nation such as China or Iran. In invading Iraq or Afghanistan we faced the ravaged and weakened military forces both out armed and out numbered by American and allied forces. Our immediate control of the air over both nations gave us yet another significant advantage. Does anyone believe that our aging fighters would find similar success when engaged by an enemy equal in number of fighters and with significant air defense capabilities on the ground beneath. Yet Secretary Rumsfeld has not shown a willingness to demand additional newer fighters such as the F/A-22 or to seek increased heavy weapons, armor and an increase in force readiness capacity beyond the current practice of using the National Guard as a supplemental force.
Should the Secretary stay or should he go now? He’s welcome to stay as far as I’m concerned. But only so long as he and his deputies act toward national defense as a whole and not with the isolated and failed view that we face only one enemy or that we are incapable of doing better in all facets of our development and deployment of military capability. The President has made his choice. So our role at this time should be to add volume to the debate and ensure that the President and the Secretary understand that there is more to being SecDef than winning the battles at hand, he must prepare our forces for future threats, lead the effort to win current battles and ensure that our forces are of the size, nature and capability to successfully wage war or more optimistically prevent war in the first place.
As for a recommendation, support the Secretary and demand a larger active force, including additional divisions, to include Marine and naval forces, additional air power, reach and technical superiority, and finally through aligning the forces to the roles associated with their character, i.e. the National Guard is not meant for active duty service abroad over an extended time. The President has more than enough voices, both positive and negative, and the media is not in short supply of willing Republican detractors of Secretary Rumsfeld. What both are missing is the voice of Americans demanding defense capabilities ahead of entitlements, regulations, and false internal security mechanisms.
Other Homespun Responses
Being Thomas Luongo
The Redhunter
Major Dad 1984
Esoteric * Diatribe
Ogre's Politics and Views
The Commons at Paulie World
