Secretary should pay for mistakes
The White House is rapidly losing control in Iraq.
According to Gallup polls released in April, a plurality of Iraqis believe that the war has done “more harm that good,” and 71 percent view coalition forces as occupiers rather than liberators. April was the bloodiest month of the war for coalition forces so far, and 10,000 civilians were killed in 2003.
The United States is losing the chance to bring democracy to the Middle East, and much of the responsibility belongs to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. There are four main reasons why he must resign.
The first reason is the growing Abu Ghraib prison torture scandal. Congress recently viewed 1,800 pictures and videos depicting gruesome Abu Ghraib interrogation tactics. According to a May 13 National Public Radio report, “One senator said he saw a picture of troops preparing to sodomize a prisoner. A few photos showed female Iraqi prisoners exposing their breasts…”
Other pictures are far worse. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, compared the images to pornography. Sen. Bill Nelson , D-Fla., said, “You can’t tell me that seven Army privates are the ones who are responsible for this.”
A May 17 Newsweek article said that Rumsfeld personally signs off on brutal interrogation methods used in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba — methods very similar to those used in Abu Ghraib. “A senior Defense Department official… confirms that there is a secret list of what he called ‘categories’ of interrogation techniques — which, he says, can be used only with the case-by-case approval of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld,” the article said.
A May 6 Los Angeles Times article said Pentagon officials claim Iraqi administrator Paul Bremer was “kicking and screaming” about prison conditions last fall. A Red Cross document published in the Wall Street Journal states that 70 to 90 percent of Iraqi detainees are innocent civilians.
Rumsfeld is no Saddam Hussein, but that is no excuse for the tactics used at Abu Ghraib.
The second reason Rumsfeld should resign is his disregard for truth. In the book “Against All Enemies,” former White House terrorist expert Richard Clarke writes, “Rumsfeld complained there were no decent targets for bombing in Afghanistan and that we should consider bombing Iraq, which, he said, had better targets.” Rumsfeld wanted targets, not truth. This does not help fight terrorism.
Third, Rumsfeld’s overall attitude is a problem. On an October edition of PBS’ “Frontline,” former Iraq administrator Jay Garner said that looting gutted 17 of 23 government agencies needed for the occupation. Rumsfeld dismissively said, “Freedom’s untidy.” This counterproductive attitude tells the Iraqi people we don’t care about their plight.
Finally, Rumsfeld must resign because of his refusal to work with the generals. As Clarke writes, “(Former) Joint Chiefs Chairman Hugh Shelton’s reaction to the idea of (invading Iraq) was guarded. He noted that could only be done with an invasion by a large force, one that would take months to assemble.” Former Chairman Colin Powell’s public push for a strong U.N. role suggests that he, too, was in favor of a larger force. Eric Shinseki, former Army Chief of Staff, told Congress that a post-war Iraq occupation would require “several hundred thousand soldiers.” Rumsfeld dismissed Shinseki’s claims as “far off the mark.”
Though Rumsfeld is a former Navy pilot, he is first and foremost a career politician and businessman. Civilian oversight of the military is certainly important. But like Lyndon Johnson micromanaging Vietnam, Rumsfeld goes too far.
Bremer would be an ideal replacement for Rumsfeld. His term as administrator ends June 30, he is familiar with Iraq, and he has experience dealing with the military.
But regardless of who replaces Rumsfeld, President Bush must either request his resignation, or fire him.