These events occurred on my watch. As secretary of defense, I am accountable for them and I take full responsibility.
—Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, May 2004, to the Senate Armed Services Committee
In light of the Fay Report (warning: 177-page pdf) released yesterday, showing how policies implemented by Rumsfeld led to the abuse in Abu Ghraib, one has to wonder what Rumsfeld meant by that statement above. What exactly does he mean when he says he is accountable?
The report is your typically clear-as-sludge government document, but The New York Times summarized it this way in an editorial today:
Pentagon officials who are never named get muted criticism for issuing confusing memos and not monitoring things closely enough. This is all cast as “leadership failure” – the 21st-century version of the Nixonian “mistakes were made” evasion – that does not require even the mildest reprimand for Mr. Rumsfeld, who should have resigned over this disaster months ago. Direct condemnation is reserved for the men and women in the field, from the military police officers sent to guard prisoners without training to the three-star general in Iraq.
Still, the dots are there, making it clear that the road to Abu Ghraib began well before the invasion of Iraq, when the administration created the category of “unlawful combatants” for suspected members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban who were captured in Afghanistan and imprisoned in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Interrogators wanted to force these prisoners to talk in ways that are barred by American law and the Geneva Conventions, and on Aug. 1, 2002, Justice Department lawyers produced the infamous treatise on how to construe torture as being legal.
In December 2002, Mr. Rumsfeld authorized things like hooding prisoners, using dogs to terrify them, forcing them into “stress positions” for long periods, stripping them, shaving them and isolating them. All this was prohibited by the Geneva Conventions, but President Bush had already declared on Feb. 7, 2002, that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to Al Qaeda.
In January, the general counsel of the Navy objected, and Mr. Rumsfeld rescinded some of the extreme techniques. Then another legal review further narrowed the list, and Mr. Rumsfeld issued yet another memo on April 16, 2003. The Schlesinger panel said the memos confused field commanders, who thought that harsh interrogations were allowed, and that things could have been made clearer if Mr. Rumsfeld had allowed a real legal debate in the first place. Yet the panel places no fault on Mr. Rumsfeld for the cascade of disastrous events that followed.
So, in this instance, “accountability” seems to mean “get praised by your boss,” as that’s the only response to this we’ve seen from the White House.
Of course, arguments have been made that firing Rumsfeld (something I would defintely demand of a SecDef in a Democratic administration under the same cirsumstances) would help the “enemy.” As if letting them point to Rumsfeld standing next to our smiling President doesn’t serve as the greatest recruitment poster they could have ever prayed for.
Of course, arguments have been made that firing Rumsfeld (something I would defintely demand of a SecDef in a Democratic administration under the same cirsumstances) would help the “enemy.”
Didn’t the Schlesinger panel make exactly this argument? Since my own kneejerk reaction is that we’d be better off if all government officials were fired, I don’t feel any particular need to defend Mr. Rumsfeld. Isn’t the actual question whether retaining or dismissing Mr. Rumsfeld will better facilitate the War on Terror?
Isn’t the actual question whether retaining or dismissing Mr. Rumsfeld will better facilitate the War on Terror?
In the context of accountability? Absolutely not.
Take that to its logical conclusion. Some authoritarian-minded monster with carte blanche might make a much better SecDef in terms of winning the war on terror. He could work to imprison any dissenters at home and torture whomever he wanted to in the field and really control the situation.
The question is what price are we willing to pay to win? And what will we have been fighting for along the way?
“The question is what price are we willing to pay to win?”
Another question, of course, is whether keeping Rumsfeld in office will actually help us win. Given his record so far, I don’t see any reason to think so.
“Of course, arguments have been made that firing Rumsfeld (something I would defintely demand of a SecDef in a Democratic administration under the same cirsumstances) would help the “enemy.””
I wouldn’t make that argument. I would argue that changing his position purely for public relations reasons (i.e. just because they don’t like him) would be foolish, but we have overriding internal reasons for addressing his position that ought to rule the day.
The question is what price are we willing to pay to win? And what will we have been fighting for along the way?
Edward, take your question to its logical conclusion. It implies that even if absolutely necessary for victory there are some things we mustn’t do. Fair enough. The challenge is in making the distinctions.
hilzoy, the burden of proof here lies, as usual, with those proposing change. It’s not enough to say “I don’t see any reason to think so.” Demonstrate that removing Mr. Rumsfeld from office will facilitate the War on Terror and I’m with you 100%.
Sebastian, I don’t think I understand your point. Could you expand on it a little?
Sebastian
The title of the thread is “defining Accountability” So I’m perplexed as to why you say:
“I would argue that changing his position purely for public relations reasons (i.e. just because they don’t like him) would be foolish…”
He would be fired because he should be accountable for the poor leadership that allowed such behaviour to be condoned or accepted or rampant or …(take your pick).
Sure. I was unclear.
If we remove Rumsfeld merely because he is not liked or in response to demands from terrorists that he be removed, it would be a victory for the terrorists. (Imagine a hostage situation: Fire, Rumsfeld or we kill the hostage). If he is effective, being liked isn’t the point. In my opinion we are spending entirely too much time worrying about short term Arab opinion. It is absolutely going to be awful for at least a few more years no matter what we do. If killing people like Sadr continues that trend, but stops his revolutions, we have to be willing to do it. We can worry about being liked after more of the important work has been done.
But, but, but, you might say, we have to win the hearts and minds in order to make it so that Al Qaeda and the like doesn’t spring back up from their midst. True, in the long run. But first things first. We aren’t able to deal with the terrorist groups and win the hearts and minds at the same time because the Arab world has lionized its terrorists to such an extent that killing or capturing them doesn’t make us liked. So we must kill and capture FIRST, and win hearts and mind AFTERWARDS. When we can do the second without harming the first we ought to. We ought to look for such situations whenever we can. But when the second interferes with the first we have to ignore it.
There are also certain things that we choose not to do because we think they are just wrong in almost any circumstances. If our people do them, they have to take responsibility (which contrary to the UN version often includes real action).
So back to Rumsfeld. If we think he is effective, and if we think he has not transgressed by doing (or ordering) the things we don’t do, then we should not get rid of him for mere PR reasons in the Arab world. If we think he is not effective, we should of course get rid of him. If we think he might be effective but has transgressed, we have to weigh the transgression against the effectiveness.
I didn’t have unrealistic expectations about Iraq becoming a paradise in less than a year, so I am not too worried about his effectiveness. I suspect that the US unwillingness to kill or capture Sadr during his first attempt at revolution was a horrific decision made for PR reasons but not by Rumsfeld, for instance.
I am skeptical about the nexus between Gitmo and Abu Ghraib so I have not yet come to a personal decision on the transgression issue. (I’ll read the report this weekend.) But if we are going to have a proper debate about Rumsfeld, that would be the proper parameters.
And yes I saw the title of the post, and am responding to the last paragraph.
“He would be fired because he should be accountable for the poor leadership that allowed such behaviour to be condoned or accepted or rampant or …(take your pick).”
I don’t think it was rampant. We known it wasn’t condoned since there was an investigation for court martial before the news broke. And ‘accepted’ is the question at hand. The NYT summary, unlike the Geneva Conventions, makes no distinction between the Gitmo prisoners and the Abu Ghraib prisoners. Which is why I have to read the whole report because as usual the NYT doesn’t pay attention to the important details.
Thank you, Sebastian.
I think this has gotten off track a bit.
Let me rephrase the central question:
Rumsfeld acknoweldged rightfully that he is accountable for what happened in Abu Grhaib. The report connects the actions there to his office.
What is the appropriate response by the President, his boss, in light of this report? How will he be held accountable?
One could be accountable by having to fix the problem…
Edward, the problem is that you are using ‘accountable’ in multiple ways without distinguishing between them. Of course he is accountable. He is the top of the direct chain of command. He is strictly accountable for every single thing that ever happens down the chain from him. He is accountable for investigating problems and dealing with them, he is accountable for issuing orders, he is accountable for making sure they are followed, he is accountable for the logistics of making sure that everyone has enough bullets, he is accountable for explaining what happened if they don’t. But you aren’t distinguishing between his different accountabilites.
If he had ordered prisoners to be sexually abused, he should be fired and prosecuted.
If he had known that sexual abuse had become an interrogation technique and did nothing about it, he should be fired and probably prosecuted (though it would be tough to prove).
If he had given a nudge and a wink and suggested tangentially that sexual abuse would be ok, he should be fired and prosecution will be impossible.
If he heard about the abuses of Abu Ghraib and did not investigate them, he should be fired, but we already know that there was an investigation taking place before the news broke so this is counterfactual.
If he found out about the abuses, investigated and court martialed the offenders before the story broke he would clearly be accountable but shouldn’t be fired. (He was accountable in a good way.)
Some accountablilities mean you should be fired, others don’t. The publicity came in mid-investigation so we don’t know, but we have to make informed judgments and try to go from there.
But this is what I don’t like about the NYT piece which you quote:
The NYT isn’t making the important distinctions. It is wholly appropriate under US and international law to treat the Gitmo prisoners in one way (no Geneva protections) and the Abu Ghraib prisoners another way (they have Geneva protections). It conflates (as I hope the full report does not) the two cases. This is obvious because the first memo they cite was issued before we were even in Iraq.
The NYT doesn’t bother to tell us why “the panel places no fault on Mr. Rumsfeld for the cascade of disastrous events that followed.” And that is the whole issue that is important in this thread. It is very possible that when I read the report this weekend I will be unconvinced by the panel’s reasoning in placing no fault. Or maybe I will be convinced. But the NYT report doesn’t help me because it spends so much time pretending that the Gitmo and Abu Ghraib situations are legally identical that they can’t be bothered to tell me the important stuff.
A part that you don’t quote comes closer:
But even here the author of the editorial misses the real points. Does Miller’s ‘interpretation’ make sense. Did Rumsfeld know that techniques for non-Geneva protected combatants were being used on Geneva-protected civilians? Did he know that even harsher techniques than authorized for Gitmo (which should be the outside limit) were being used on Geneva protected prisoners? The fact that the report allegedly assigns no responsibility to General Miller worries me. But the focus of the editorial on so many extraneous issues and its incorrect understanding of the Geneva Conventions make me leary of relying on it.
Good explanation Sebastian, and you’re right there are more questions than answers. I think this gets to the crux of it though:
Did Rumsfeld know that techniques for non-Geneva protected combatants were being used on Geneva-protected civilians? Did he know that even harsher techniques than authorized for Gitmo (which should be the outside limit) were being used on Geneva protected prisoners?
The report does, according to the NYTimes, note “the [Rumsfeld] memos confused field commanders, who thought that harsh interrogations were allowed, and that things could have been made clearer if Mr. Rumsfeld had allowed a real legal debate in the first place.”
So here, at the very least, Rumsfeld allowed confusion to spread through incompetent communication and by not having a “real legal debate in the first place.”
In other words, he created the atmosphere under which
Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who had been running the prison in Guantánamo Bay, went to Iraq in August 2003, [and brought] the harsh interrogation rules with him. The report said Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the commander in Iraq, used his advice to approve a dozen “aggressive interrogation techniques,” and that General Sanchez was “using reasoning” from the president’s own memo.
But in response to this the President says he’s doing a good job.
Aside from the president’s response, however, “accountable”, at some point, has to mean spending less time looking for excuses than (as Blue rightly notes) fixing things. It also means, at some point, admitting you screwed up.
Edward,
In the climate that has been created by the media in this country and others it is not possible to be a part of this administration and admit ones mistake without being crucified.
It won’t happen. You don’t admit mistakes to people who are only looking for you to make or admit mistakes.
Sad, but true.
If there was sincerity… maybe
No admitting of mistakes ipso facto no accountability.
Blue: First, that’s only true if your overriding aim is to avoid criticism, not to do the best job you can for the country. Second, the right was out to crucify Clinton at least as much as anyone is out to crucify Bush, yet despite that, he asked his Secretary of Defense to resign after Somalia. It can be done, if you have the guts to do it. Third, it would have been possible to “allow” Rumsfeld to resign “for personal reasons” when it became clear that he had screwed up. Bush would not have had to admit a mistake at all. People might have speculated that Rumsfeld had resigned for other reasons, but, again, I don’t see why, if Bush did think he should go, this speculation would outweigh the need to have the best possible Secretary of Defense.
I think Rumsfeld should have resigned long ago, when it became clear that his insistence on invading Iraq with too few troops to provide security after the fall of Saddam had been a catastrophic mistake. I also think he should resign over Abu Ghraib. I haven’t yet read the report, but it would surprise me if it made me think that the administration’s cavalier attitude towards the humane treatment of prisoners had nothing to do with what happened. And it would astonish me if it convinced me that his decision to go in with inadequate numbers of troops had nothing to do with the chaotic conditions that more or less everyone seems to think allowed the abuses to go on, or that his failure to plan adequately for the occupation was not a contributing factor.
The right is not the MSM.
I admit Clinton most likely lied because of the consequences. But, there is no proof of any lieing going on here.
Hil,
“I think Rumsfeld should have resigned long ago, when it became clear that his insistence on invading Iraq with too few troops to provide security after the fall of Saddam had been a catastrophic mistake.”
Maybe, you should read Tommy Franks book where he claims it was his idea to reduce the number of troops needed.
I think Rummy is a great SecDef. I would hate to see him resign.
And you might try this, an analysis of some of the relevant parts of Franks’ book by Phil Carter, who served “as an operational planner in the 4th Infantry Division, responsible for military police and anti-terrorism/force protection operations.” (from his web site bio.)
Again, by definition, if you cannot admit mistakes you cannot be accountable. Responsibility begins with the recognition and acceptance of the existing situation on the ground. Not the situation you would prefer.
If the president isn’t willing to admit anything why should his staff. (Although it’s obvious there are no repercussions for the staff either way.)
“Success has many authors. Failure has only…” None?
You don’t have to admit your mistakes to the whole world to be accountable. You only need to admit them to yourself and take corrective action.
Of course if Iraq was going swimmingly and Afghanistan were a budding democracy that didn’t include the re-emergence of the Taliban and Pakistan had reasons to fear what would happen if they sold nuclear secrets to our enemies and if Korea as a member of the “Axis of Evil” didn’t have essential free reign to do as they please. And, if our military weren’t bogged down in a country indefinitely with such large troop numbers that it hinders our country’s ability to react to world events.
If all those things were true then…you might be right.
I think when we talk about “accountability” in the context of public service we can take for granted that we mean accountability to someone besides oneself.
You guys still miss the point. I wouldn’t feel accountable in the sense that I need to stand up and be a whipping boy for people who hate me. The press hates this administration, along with many people at this site.
Did it ever occur to you that the administration may being doing the best possbile job given all the factors?
You guys still miss the point. I wouldn’t feel accountable in the sense that I need to stand up and be a whipping boy for people who hate me. The press hates this administration, along with many people at this site.
I find it unfortunate that this is the climate we live in, but it is reality.
Did it ever occur to you that the administration may being doing the best possbile job given all the factors?
You don’t get into politics if you can’t stand constructive criticism. Some non-constructive criticism comes with the job as well.
Is that the new meme. Bush will do better next time if we only act nicer to him. Low self esteem has little place in the white house.
Carsick,
The left did offer some constructive criticims in the form of Lieberman, but then rejected him…
Low self-esteem does seem to have found a home for sure…
ZZZZzzzzzzzzz…..
Now, that’s the first time Carsick has made sense today.
A nap would really be nice about now. ; -)
I wonder if he was sleeping during his other postings.
Sebastian makes some good points. To follow up, what is the reason that General Miller, who set rules and procedures in a non-Geneva convention situation, sent to Iraq to advise on establishing rules and procedures in a Geneva convention situation?
To put it another way, two questions:
1. Who decided to send Miller? Rumsfeld? Someone else?
2. Why was this decision to send Miller made, considering the stated difference in the prisoners’ status?
And was there any thought that Miller was incapable of knowing the difference between the two cases.
Blue: Did it ever occur to you that the administration may being doing the best possbile job given all the factors?
No, because it’s been obvious for well over a year that the current administration is not doing “the best possible job”. As for example, the total failure to make plans for the occupation of Iraq. (Or rather, to make any plans that went beyond: “The entire population will welcome us with open arms. We will topple a statue of Saddam Hussein in front of news cameras, and accept flowers.”) The failure to make plans for the occupation, and the overriding need of the Bush administration for intelligence that would support their stated goals rather than for intelligence that would allow them to decide on appropriate goals, was merely an additional source of error. Bush & Co were advised on what they needed to do to ensure that certain foreseeable disasters did not happen: such as, for example, the looting in Baghdad. Such advice was disregarded. Plainly, therefore, Bush & Co have not been doing the “best possible job”.
Jes,
Please show me where either Bush or Cheney said that we would be welcomed with flowers.
I do think that they have been doing the best possible job in a very difficult situation.
So many people in the U.S. and abroad have worked so hard against them… it’s a shame.
Haven’t most of the deaths in AbuGhraib been caused by mortar attacks by insurgents? (April 6 and 20 IIRC – Im on dialup so I cant Google it easily) And Karl Zinmeister’s article in National Review suggests that US personnel kept the death rate from being higher. (All ignored by MSM)
Look, State Dept messed up Turkey pre-war, CIA had bad or minimal intelligence: I think DOD did the best job of those 3 branches of govt.
Dems have wanted to put somebody on trial for a long time now (see Rockefeller memo, also ignored by MSM, see Condi Rice, see Plame affair, but ignore Sandy Berger), and will present the Abu Ghraib atrocities as official US military policy, the same way John Kerry did in hiis 1971 testimony. Rumsfeld, the new Genghis (Zhen-gjis) Khan.
Indeed.
You guys still miss the point. I wouldn’t feel accountable in the sense that I need to stand up and be a whipping boy for people who hate me.
When one collects a salary from the taxpayers of the United States — regardless of existing personal wealth — and is one of the two or three most important Cabinet secretaries in the United States government, one does not get the benefit of not being publicy accountable. And that’s true whether the name is Donald Rumsfeld or Janet Reno or who the hell ever.
I don’t give a fat rat’s butt what party you belong to — you work for everyone in the United States, not the [Party] National Committee, and you don’t get to hide behind a wall just because there are people in another political party out there criticizing you.
The press hates this administration, along with many people at this site.
The press hates many people at this site?
The press hates this administration
Proof?
“The press hates many people at this site?”
We shouldn’t get too full of ourselves. I suspect we aren’t yet important enough to have been noticed by the press. 🙂
However we may want to watch out for the FBI.
Blue: Please show me where either Bush or Cheney said that we would be welcomed with flowers.
I gladly concede that it’s entirely possible Bush and Cheney merely assumed that an invading army and a foreign occupation would be warmly welcomed – and they did so assume – but didn’t go into specifics about flowers. (I have no wish to force you to “prove a negative”.)
The more important point is the lack of planning. That utter failure to plan ahead proves the point that the Bush administration hardly did “the best possible job”.
“Don’t divide the world into “them” and “us.” Avoid infatuation with or resentment of the press, the Congress, rivals, or opponents. Accept them as facts. They have their jobs and you have yours.”
Donald Rumsfeld
http://www.opinionjournal.com/wsj/?id=85000505
Edward,
Are you seriously doubting that the press doesn’t hate this administration?