Tacitus posts an incredibly well-written argument that a change in command is essential in order to win the war in Iraq. He argues that Rumsfeld should go:
The Secretary of Defense rightly noted before a Senatorial panel that he bears direct responsibility for that which happens on his watch. True indeed — and so he ought to endure the consequence of those happenings; not merely Abu Ghraib, but the entirety of a war effort adrift and awry. That consequence must be relief from duty.
[…]
If we are not to fail, then we must rid ourselves of those who have brought us to this impasse. It would represent a break with the past. It would open the door for our military’s analytical thinkers to take their concerns and insights to the next step up the chain of commander rather than the Washington Post. Such an act would not represent a fatal disruption of our wartime leadership: history is replete with examples of command handoffs as fortunes of war ebb and flow. See, for example, almost any parliamentary government in a long war; see Korea; see Vietnam; see the Army of the Potomac.
They have to go. But how?
He does not endorse Kerry, though. Mostly because he’s heard that Kerry will need to appoint Richard Holbrooke as his Secretary of State if elected, and Tacitus argues that Holbrooke is already convinced the war is unwinnable.
Essentially, however, Tacitus’s argument boils down to the need for a new course of action. With Bush saying at every step of the way he plans to “stay the course” how could change come if Bush stays? He’s sticking with Rumsfeld. What other options are there?
It’s wonderful that more people are realizing that Rumsfeld must go, but then so should Gen. Boykin. Just wish people would stop calling this a War instead of an Occupation, which is what it is. We did not declare War and the Iraqi people did not ask us to liberate them. In fact the most recent poll shows the majority wish us to leave now. As unsafe as they feel if we leave, they now feel more unsafe with us there. And if Holbrooke thinks this is unwinnable, he has my support as this Occupation has been a nightmare from the get-go and is getting worse every day. How could it have happened any other way when those in charge were expecting bouquets? A hundred thousand of us marching in NYC alone before the Occupation began were trying to tell them otherwise. It wasn’t the smell of roses in the air, it was the scent of disaster.
“Staying the course” when the nose of your plane is pointed at a mountain does not strike me as a prudent policy.
One thing that might be helpful is if someone could point out what a new course might look like.
Well, Sebastian, this is your blog as much as anyone’s: why don’t you post inviting people to contribute their ideas for a new course for Iraq?
If the discussion happens here, it’ll focus on the negative things that have to happen first – get rid of Rumsfeld, get rid of Boykin, get rid of Bush, get rid of Cheney, get rid of Wolfowitz, etc.
Start a new post for positive proposals like the one Tac did six months ago. Suppose that in one fell swoop the entire administration is got rid of, leaving only “some guy” behind, who at least lacks all the baggage of Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and so on, but is stuck with the problem of Iraq as it is right now, no fair going back to May 2003 and pointing out all the things that could have been done differently then. Given the authority to make real changes, what would you do?
I’m not being snide. I think that would be an interesting topic.