Rummy must go? Ummm, No.

46 thoughts on “Rummy must go? Ummm, No.”

1. I agree, von. The sheer amount of people involved in this made it likely there would be those in Iraq who would do things like this, and be able to get away with it to a degree. I’m not at all surprised it happened – what surprises me more is that people either felt recording it to show to others was perfectly acceptable, or felt they’d not get in trouble if the footage/photos got out. But then, some people are colossally stupid, and some people do have a very different take to, say, me, on what’s acceptable behaviour.

2. The oft-forgotten lesson of war is that, in a war, even the good guys (and, yes, we are the good guys) do bad things.
   While that’s certainly true, I’m not really sure how one gets from “even the good guys do bad things” to “it’s ok to do bad things when you’re at war because good guys do that sort of thing”. There’s too much of a moral carte blanche implicit in that statement for my taste.

3. While the attacks on Rumsfeld are not without political motivations, the defenses of Rumsfeld are more so.
   The usual ‘amen chorus’ are defending Rumsfeld solely because they understand it would be disastrous for the Bush 2004 campaign. They also realize it would be a tacit admission the invasion and occupation of Iraq was ill-advised and poorly executed. In fact, the Rumsfeld defenders cannot tell us why Rumsfeld should continue or why it is necessary for him to do so.
   OTOH, there are quite a few very valid and non-partisan reasons why Rumsfeld should be fired. I should note that much of the so-called partisan sniping or piling on is coming from within the Pentagon.
   The reasons for Rumsfeld to go are many: the incomprehensible neglect of what was happening in Abu Ghraib and other military prisons, the poor or non-existent planning for post-war Afghanistan and Iraq, the slurs against our allies, various acquisition scandals, the weakening of our national defense posture–to cite a few.
   Rumsfeld’s failures have led directly to the needless deaths of US servicemen, the loss of respect abroad, and a weakening of our national security.
   Frankly, the only reason the Rumsfeld defenders can muster to keep him on is that they don’t want this to harm Bush’s campaign.

4. in a war, even the good guys (and, yes, we are the good guys) do bad things.
   Whitch happens to be one of the biggest reasons I had to be against this war. Now, I agree that the only real reason ever to fire anybody is if they got a blowjob at the office. So it must be the partisan in me that wants to fire every member of this administration down to the sub-assistant to the assistant deputy of the department heads. Gross incompetance, lying to everybody about everything, disclosing names of CIA agents, neglegence, and lost opportunity costs after 911 would be some of my highly partisan charges. But those don’t count.
   I think you should take more seriously the “in loco parentis” obligation of the military to make sure its soldiers aren’t doing want they shouldn’t. I bet those soldiers were doing exactly what was expected of them. It’s both a failure of leadership and the fulfillment of it. If Rummy couldn’t prevent it he could have stopped it sooner than he did. He deserves to be fired – but no more than any of the other kinder, gentler totalitarians in this administration.

5. Wow. I’m more crassly partisan then Ken Starr, am I? You say the SWEETEST things.
   As for this–
   “this is not Rumsfeld’s failing. For Rumsfeld did not make this policy, he merely implemented it. (Responsibility for implementing the policy poorly falls on those with with direct supervisorial responsibility for the prisons; responsibility for the policy itself must rest with Bush.)”
   It seems like a one size fits all argument against ever firing a cabinet secretary for anything other than disloyalty or indictment. Which seems like Bush’s policy too, but it’s not a very good one. I can’t think of a policy decision where the President isn’t ultimately responsible, and there will always be someone closer to the ground to carry it out.
   That said–I care more that this stuff ends that Rumsfeld goes. But I have seen nothing in the administration’s response to make me believe it will end if there aren’t photos released on 20/20.

6. I can’t think of a policy decision where the President isn’t ultimately responsible,
   Like a plate on top of a stick at the circus, the buck doesn’t stop anymore, it just keeps spinning so it doesn’t crash to the ground.

7. Thanks, Casey.
   I’m not really sure how one gets from “even the good guys do bad things” to “it’s ok to do bad things when you’re at war because good guys do that sort of thing”. There’s too much of a moral carte blanche implicit in that statement for my taste.
   I said no such thing, Anarch. What I do suggest is that torture and abuses are a routine and expected part of war, and that if there mere presence of torture and abuse in wartime was sufficient to require a cabinent-level firing, no Defense Secretary would last any war.
   As for this–
   “this is not Rumsfeld’s failing. For Rumsfeld did not make this policy, he merely implemented it. (Responsibility for implementing the policy poorly falls on those with with direct supervisorial responsibility for the prisons; responsibility for the policy itself must rest with Bush.)” . . . It seems like a one size fits all argument against ever firing a cabinet secretary for anything other than disloyalty or indictment.
   Don’t see where you get this, Katherine. I wrote that Rumsfeld should be fired for failing to plan for post war Iraq. Cabinet Officers can (and should) be fired for incompetency. But Cabinet Officers should not be fired for plans they did not create or incompetencies that they did not commit.
   BTW, per JadeGold, I’m a greater partisan than you for defending Rumsfeld. Which makes me “more crassly partisan” than Ken Starr to second degree. 😉

8. Do you agree with the “more than Starr” comment, Von? That’s laughable. If you think the guy should have been fired before for conducting his job in an unhelpful manner, and then you’re faced with a situation where him being fired might also serve a direct practical good, well then maybe you’d say so. Does it mean he led prisoners around by leather collars personally? No, no one’s saying that.
   But ultimately, I’d like to look beyond the cabinet. The conditions for widespread abuse were created when we decided to ignore Geneva Conventions for even people we wanted to pull off the street for secondary or tertiary reasons than they were planning a terrorist attack, and that goes all the way to the top. Criminally culpable? Not in a legal sense, not for this. But has this administration, starting with Bush, perverted not just how Americans are viewed, but worked to pervert our values themselves. Yes, and that should not be forgiven. It’s amazing to me that millions of people can debate that policies of allowing torture in some situations are OK. If that’s America, then I don’t like it one bit. I don’t think it is, or has to be, but it’s gone way too far.

9. I think you should take more seriously the “in loco parentis” obligation of the military to make sure its soldiers aren’t doing want they shouldn’t.
   Fabius, there are sixteen year old drug dealers who we, as a society, sentence to death. Surely we can expect eighteen-plus year old soldiers (one of the main offenders, BTW, was 37) to know right from wrong.

10. We’re at war with Iraq? I’d love to see our Declaration of War, the one mandated by the Constitution. And please don’t bring up the ridiculous “Blank Check” handed over regarding Afghanistan and September 11th. It is not, nor has it ever been a War where Iraq is concerned. It’s a premeditated occupation. And a horribly planned and executed premeditated occupation at that.

11. I think it’s a question of attitudes.
    Exhibit A for the prosecution:
    “I do not feel the slightest bit of concern at their treatment. They are being vastly better treated than they treated anybody else.”
    -Donald Rumsfeld
    Referring to prisoners at Guantanamo Bay
    January 15, 2002
    Watching him now on CSPAN, though, I think he has gotten the message.
    Here’s hoping he gets the message re: troop levels. What kind of pictures will it take?

12. Please read the post before you criticize (there’s plenty in the post to criticize, by the bye.)
    Do you agree with the “more than Starr” comment, Von? That’s laughable.
    For the record, Katherine, Carpeicthus, and other posters are not “more partisan” than Starr. But I think that the current attack on Rumsfeld is partisan opportunism (we can get him for this, so let’s get him — damn the merits). As I said, there are legitimate reasons to fire Rumsfeld; this ain’t one of them, however.
    We’re at war with Iraq? I’d love to see our Declaration of War, the one mandated by the Constitution.
    I said that Iraq is a war, Wilfred, so I don’t know what your challenging.

13. I said that Iraq is a war, Wilfred, so I don’t know what your challenging.
    Or, to clarify (ignoring the obvious typos): I’m merely making a functional assessment; I’m not debating whether the war in Iraq is legitimate or no (though — and I’m not getting into this for lack of time — I do think the Iraq war is legitimate).

14. hey, if Iraq is a war, then prisoners are prisoners of war, no?

15. What I do suggest is that torture and abuses are a routine and expected part of war, and that if there mere presence of torture and abuse in wartime was sufficient to require a cabinent-level firing, no Defense Secretary would last any war.
    Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984, entry into force 26 June 1987, ratified by the US Senate December 1990.
    Von, you appear to be arguing that no one should be held responsible for breaking the law because it’s inevitable that the law will be broken. Certainly that attitude ensures that no Defense Secretary will ever bother to enforce the law, knowing that they will never be held responsible for it being broken.

16. Sorry von, not even close. Your last paragraph was a reminder of the big picture, and the big picture is that we are in an occupation, not a war. The rest of the world gets it, just not the majority of Americans (yet). Many of us here in the US and most of the world understand this was not a war on terrorism but a premeditated occupation. The Iraqi people were not our enemy and they did not (outside of Chalabi and his carpetbagging brethren) ask us to intercede in an overthrow of a leader already brought to his knees by no-fly zones, embargoes and UN Inspections.

17. Surely we can expect eighteen-plus year old soldiers (one of the main offenders, BTW, was 37) to know right from wrong.
    Option 1: These things didn’t happen in a vacuum. They happened by design and the leadership is more culpable than the grunts. Yet the grunts are still culpable.
    Option 2: These things did happen in a vacuum. Where was leadership? If it was negligent then that negligence is criminal and they are equally culpable as the grunts. No way this regime of abused should have existed a day much less a year or more.
    Bush has set up a gulag. The US used to be against such things. It is a result of Bush’s executive authority and his policy. These things are happening at Gitmo, in Afganistan and Iraq. Its happening in other countries, such as Syria, on our behalf. Rumsfeld is putting this Gulag in place for Bush. He should have a greater sense of right and wrong than what you say the grunts should have. These are evil things, they are the not just the result of but are government policy. It’s not a partisan issue. There is demonstrably bad leadership. Rumsfeld must go. And Bush and the rest in November.

18. I’ll agree that it would be inappropriate to fire Rumsfeld over Abu Ghraib, IF, despite clear indications that torture and humiliation were not acceptable (not only because we are better than that but because we had signed treaties saying we wouldn’t), a group of rogue soldiers took it upon themselves to do this.
    But what we’re seeing is the fully expectable result of an attitude that holds International law in comtempt.
    Then, again, it needn’t be solely on Rumsfeld’s desk this buck stops.
    From Anthony Lewis in today’s New York Times:

    Instead of a country committed to law, the United States is now seen as a country that proclaims high legal ideals and then says that they should apply to all others but not to itself. That view has been worsened by the Bush administration’s determination that Americans not be subject to the new International Criminal Court, which is supposed to punish genocide and war crimes.
    Fear of terrorism — a quite understandable fear after 9/11 — has led to harsh departures from normal legal practice at home. Aliens swept off the streets by the Justice Department as possible terrorists after 9/11 were subjected to physical abuse and humiliation by prison guards, the department’s inspector general found. Attorney General John Ashcroft did not apologize — a posture that sent a message.
    Inside the United States, the most radical departure from law as we have known it is President Bush’s claim that he can designate any American citizen an “enemy combatant” — and thereupon detain that person in solitary confinement indefinitely, without charges, without a trial, without a right to counsel. Again, the president’s lawyers have argued determinedly that he must have the last word, with little or no scrutiny from lawyers and judges.
    There was a stunning moment in President Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address when he said that more than 3,000 suspected terrorists “have been arrested in many countries. And many others have met a different fate. Let’s put it this way: They are no longer a problem for the United States.”
    In all these matters, there is a pervasive attitude: that to follow the law is to be weak in the face of terrorism. But commitment to law is not a weakness. It has been the great strength of the United States from the beginning. Our leaders depart from that commitment at their peril, and ours, for a reason that Justice Louis D. Brandeis memorably expressed 75 years ago.
    “Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher,” he wrote. “For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself.”

19. I said no such thing, Anarch. What I do suggest is that torture and abuses are a routine and expected part of war, and that if there mere presence of torture and abuse in wartime was sufficient to require a cabinent-level firing, no Defense Secretary would last any war.
    Jesurgislac beat me to it, but I’ll amplify: if this was about the mere “presence” of torture and abuse, you’d doubtless be correct. That is not the case. The allegation is that there was severe and systemic use of torture — “an organized and conscious process”, to quote Senator Levin just now — upon not only potential combatants and terrorists but innocents as well.
    Am I surprised that such things happened? Not as much as I’d like to be; you are of course right that no-one comes out clean. But as Jes said, your remarks come perilously close to saying that punishment is unnecessary because people are going to break the law anyway. That is the implicit moral carte blanche to which I was referring, and one I haven’t seen you address.

20. Actually, let me add one remark, von: You argued above that Rumsfeld “should not be fired for plans they did not create or incompetencies that they did not commit”. I’d like to point out that Rumsfeld knew about the systemic problem of Abu Ghreib in January; as far as we know, no-one was punished in any but the lightest of ways until just recently. Does that not comprise incompetency, if not outright dereliction of duty?

21. Wow, McCain is really going after this.

22. you appear to be arguing that no one should be held responsible for breaking the law because it’s inevitable that the law will be broken.
    No, Jes, I’m arguing that Rumsfeld should be fired for this particular lapse. Big difference.
    Sorry von, not even close. Your last paragraph was a reminder of the big picture, and the big picture is that we are in an occupation, not a war.
    I’m not sure that there’s a meaningful difference between a resisted occupation (i.e., a guerrilla war) and a war.
    But as Jes said, your remarks come perilously close to saying that punishment is unnecessary because people are going to break the law anyway. That is the implicit moral carte blanche to which I was referring, and one I haven’t seen you address.
    I’m suggesting that we hold the correct people responsible for the abuse and the conditions, if any, that led to it. On the policy level, President Bush — not Rumsfeld — sets the policy. On the operational level, the Generals and officers on the ground — not Rumsfeld — implement the policy.
    Calling for Rumsfeld’s resignation when your real dispute is with Bush’s policy is disingenuous.

23. Man, these Senators need to learn to ask questions instead of making speeches…Buried in Kennedy’s tirade was “when did you first tell the President about this, what exactly did you say, and what was his reaction?”
    I’m sympathetic to the tirade, but I’d much rather get the answer to that question. But Rumsfeld did not address it all–either because he didn’t know where to begin, or because he didn’t have to.

24. To amplify Anarch’s remarks, I’d note reports of problems at US military prisons in Iraq were known far earlier than January. DoD had been informed by several human rights groups and the US State Dept about potential abuses.
    Further, a note on military reports–they don’t occur in a vacuum. The last thing anybody at the O-6 level and above ever want to see is a report coming across their desk (especially ones that contain bad news or screwups) without having received some prior warning or heads-up. It is absolutely inconceivable that MGEN Taguba, MGEN Miller and/or their staff didn’t inform their chain of command there were problems and something very bad was incoming.
    Pretending nobody at the Pentagon knew nothing until the report was distributed is a non-starter.

25. uh-oh, here’s hoping Kennedy doesn’t embarrass himself.

26. KAtherine –
    I don’t understand why they can’t just have their remarks put into the record and proceed with questions.

27. Sorry, clarification (in bold)
    “No, Jes, I’m arguing that Rumsfeld should not be fired for this particular lapse.”

28. On the policy level, President Bush — not Rumsfeld — sets the policy. On the operational level, the Generals and officers on the ground — not Rumsfeld — implement the policy.
    Are you saying it was Bush’s policy to torture prisoners in Abu Ghreib?
    Calling for Rumsfeld’s resignation when your real dispute is with Bush’s policy is disingenuous.
    Claiming that this is about Bush’s policy when it’s about (potentially) massive systemic human rights abuses under the auspices of the United States is equally disingenuous.

29. Marshall gives an alternative name to who should be fired, if not Rumsfeld. Hint – General Boykin.
    href=”http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/Drum quotes others who think it was a systematic problem – not just rogue grunts. Hint – the highly partisan David Kay, Paul Bremer and Colin Powell.
    Down with Rumsfeld. Down with Bush.

30. Are you saying it was Bush’s policy to torture prisoners in Abu Ghreib?
    I’ll say it Anarch. Course, you weren’t asking me.

31. Dear lord. Joe Lieberman really needs to think about what comes out of his mouth. To paraphrase: “We are better than the bad guys because we apologize after we torture and kill you.”

32. Von: No, Jes, I’m arguing that Rumsfeld should not be fired for this particular lapse. Big difference.
    What you said to Anarch was: “What I do suggest is that torture and abuses are a routine and expected part of war, and that if there mere presence of torture and abuse in wartime was sufficient to require a cabinent-level firing, no Defense Secretary would last any war.”
    I was responding to that, as I’d thought I’d made clear, and what you are saying here is that since it’s “routine and expected” that the law will be broken, no Defense Secretary should be expected to enforce the law.
    Later on you elaborate that the President set the policy of ignoring international law and the generals on the ground enforced it, therefore the President ought to go: which I don’t disagree with – but surely the Defense Secretary must bear a certain amount of responsibility for what Defense does?

33. Jack Reed, now…that’s what asking questions looks like.

34. I don’t understand why they can’t just have their remarks put into the record and proceed with questions.
    Because C-Span allows them to campaign under the guise of questioning.

35. Rumsfeld just blew the “frat house” argument out of the water…saying that you can’t help but be outraged when seeing the photos.
    He’s getting a bit hot.

36. He’s missing her point…once CBS told them they had the photos, they could have AT THAT POINT told the world what to expect.

37. Von, “inept [as] Rumsfeld’s response to them has been”, he still shouldn’t be fired?
    For crying out loud, you need to go review the transcript with John McCain this morning.
    Rumsfeld sounded like an ass. He needs to be replaced, the same way a baseball team shakes up the management when things are going bad.

38. From the Post today, via calpundit:

    “[Paul] Bremer repeatedly raised the issue of prison conditions as early as last fall — both in one-on-one meetings with Rumsfeld and other administration leaders, and in group meetings with the president’s inner circle on national security. Officials described Bremer as ‘kicking and screaming’ about the need to release thousands of uncharged prisoners and improve conditions for those who remained.”

    Rumsfeld knew there was a problem, and ignored it until it got too rancid to keep under wraps. How is this not, in some significant way, his responsibility? Seriously, this is fucked up. To respond by branding Rumsfeld’s critics as kneejerk Bush-haters is, frankly, baffling.

39. “routine and expected” that the law will be broken, no Defense Secretary should be expected to enforce the law.
    Again, that’s not what I said.
    Later on you elaborate that the President set the policy of ignoring international law and the generals on the ground enforced it, therefore the President ought to go: which I don’t disagree with – but surely the Defense Secretary must bear a certain amount of responsibility for what Defense does?
    If Rumsfeld was responsible for this particular policy, you would find me arguing that he has to go.

40. Eh, von;
    I’ve got to agree with you that there’s nothing to suggest that Rumsfeld be fired. To actually fire a Cabinet Secretary would require some overt act or malfeasance so egregious that there’s no other option. On that point then, I just ignore the “demands” for his head.
    Unfortunately, however, Don Rumsfeld leads a Department that is quite different and apart from the others. What I mean is that none of the public opinion polls regarding whether he should stay, resign, or get canned are particularly relevant. The crucial opinions are the ones held by all of the members of the US Military. No matter how strongly the public at large feels (either way) about this matter, the continued effectiveness of Rumsfeld to lead the Department of Defense depends upon how he’s perceived by the military community from here on out. Within that community, traditional concepts of authority, responsibility and accountability often raise the expectation that an “accountable” individual do “the right and honorable thing” and resign. It simply has nothing to do with fault or blame or animosity. If you are accountable, you are accountable. Period.
    I certainly don’t demand that he resign. I rather expect that he won’t, at any rate. Whether he does or not, his actions will be weighed and judged privately by the personnel that serve in the military. Their judgment and theirs alone, will determine how effective he is a Secretary of Defense from today forward.

41. “in a war, even the good guys (and, yes, we are the good guys) do bad things.”
    “Whitch happens to be one of the biggest reasons I had to be against this war.”
    So you feel we shouldn’t have intervened in Bosnia, shouldn’t have attacked over Kosovo, shouldn’t have intervened in Haiti, were right to let the genocide in Rwanda happen, and should have left Germany and Japan alone in 1941?
    Oh, ok. Mustn’t let bad things happen, after all.

42. I’m slightly bewildered to read everyone in this thread refer to the hearings being on C-Span, as if they weren’t also on ABC, CBS, PBS, and NBC. (Fox, UPN, and WB? I didn’t flip around to check.)
    I’m as much of a fan of C-Span as anyone, but why act as if this wasn’t something all America didn’t see? It’s kinda bizarre.

43. Gary, I don’t think your 8:56 comment is fair – you’re lumping together a bunch of very different conflicts and, as far as I can tell, willfully overreading a defensible argument.

44. Well, Von, this is what you said, quoted exactly: “What I do suggest is that torture and abuses are a routine and expected part of war, and that if there mere presence of torture and abuse in wartime was sufficient to require a cabinent-level firing, no Defense Secretary would last any war.”
    How is this not saying that since it’s “routine and expected” that US solders will break the law (against torture), no Defense Secretary should be expected to enforce the law or be fired if he doesn’t?
    I’d appreciate it if you would actually explain what you were saying here, rather than just let me keep trying to figure it out and telling me I’ve got it wrong.

45. Dittos to Jes’ remarks above. Also:
    If Rumsfeld was responsible for this particular policy, you would find me arguing that he has to go.
    If Rumsfeld, with full knowledge of its effects and consequences, failed to stop this particular policy, is he not also culpable?

46. Addendum: Or if he failed to adequately punish those responsible, for that matter.

Comments are closed.