Goodbye Rummy, you big fat asshole (that leaves only Bush and Cheney of the Five Big Iraq Assholes - Wolfowitz & Bremer are the other two)

1. It Wasn’t Only Rumsfeld’s War – by Rootless Cosmopolitan

The news that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is to be the Bush Administration’s ritual sacrifice on the altar of its electoral rebuke comes as no surprise: It had been obvious for months now the call for Rumsfeld’s head is a kind of consensual fetish among those who supported the Iraq war for not having to deal with their own culpability in the catastrophe it inevitably became. I say “inevitably” because you don’t have to have a working knowledge of Iraqi history to have anticipated how Iraqis would respond to their country being occupied by a foreign army — you simply needed to have watched “Red Dawn” back in the 80s. (A working knowledge of Iraqi history, as many U.S. military types who quietly but firmly opposed the war had, would certainly have helped anticipate some of the specific sectarian and regional consequences, but that’s another matter.)

But instead of admitting and reckoning with the fact that the war they advocated was a catastrophically bad idea, everyone from neocon hacks to flip-flopping Democrats, Bob Woodward (arch channeler of White House sources) and the self-styled “liberal hawks” of the chattering classes, like Peter Beinart and George Packer, have signed on to the notion that it was a good war, the right war, executed badly, because Rumsfeld adhered to some bizarre capital-intensive theory of warfare. In other words, if Rumsfeld had simply sent more troops, the outcome would have been different.

And that narrative, which the White House itself appears to have adopted in the wake of its midterm electoral drubbing, is a self-serving evasion. Indeed, the “blame Rumsfeld for Iraq” chorus reminds me of nothing as much as listening to Trotskyists trying to rescue Bolshevism by blaming its grotesque consequences on Stalin’s “implementation” rather than on its inner logic.

Having more troops in Iraq would have made a tactical differences, and might have altered the story arc and timeline, but I can’t see how it would have produced a fundamentally different outcome. And the idea evades the reality that the troop levels in Iraq were a function of the politics of the war rather than of some whacky CEO cost-cutting obsession. In fact, the chiefs of staff (and Powell, too, initially) were trying to stop the war, or at least slow the train by making the project look prohibitive because of the troop levels required. They believed it needed up to a half million troops, and they probably also knew that presented with a realistic picture of the cost and commitment, that Congress would balk. That was the reason why, for example, Paul Wolfowitz jumped so aggressively down General Shinseki’s throat when he suggested before Congress that the U.S. would need a “few hundred thousand” troops to secure the peace. It wasn’t that Wolfowitz was seized by some Rumsfeldian “New Generation Warfare” theory; it’s that he was on board with a political strategy to make the invasion happen and destroy any obstacle that would prevent it.

There are three fundamental flaws in the suggestion that the invasion would have achieved its objectives (still not entirely clearly defined from a strategic point of view — in particular, they’ve avoided answering the question of what the U.S. intends by building permanent bases) had three times as many troops been deployed:
Having more troops is a quantitative change rather than a qualitative one in what the U.S. was doing in Iraq: the political impulses that drive the insurgency, and which drive the sectarian warfare, would have been present regardless of U.S. troop levels. So it might have made a tactical difference to the outcome, but not a strategic one. Nor is it clear that the decision to disband the Iraqi army came from Rumsfeld. Even if it had been kept intact, however, the impulses driving the insurgency and the civil war would have had to find different expression. (The current security forces are well infiltrated by both insurgents and sectarian militias; the old one would probably also have been. And the “de-Baathification” has been pursued most relentlessly by the democratically-elected Shiites — and remember, it was Shiite power that forced the U.S. to concede to holding elections at all. So it’s a little too glib to imagine that there were two or three bad tactical choices made along the line — attributed to Rumsfeld — that made things turn bad in Iraq. The mistake was the strategic choice to invade in the first place.
The U.S. military has struggle to maintain the deployment of 140,000 troops in Iraq; if troop levels were far higher that strain would have been that much greater, even prohibitive. The U.S. could simply not have afforded to sustain the troop levels required for this scenario for more than a few months. And the idea that there was somehow a window through which a new democratic Walmart nation of Iraq could have been pulled in that time is simply naive.
And, had the upfront requirement of troops for Iraq been double that which was deployed, it’s quite conceivable that the war wouldn’t have happened at all. Every subsequent request for more troops would have been read against the domestic political calculations of the war. Rumsfeld may have told the generals no, but he was acting in concert with a Bush Administration political consensus on how the war would be prosecuted.

None of this absolves Rumsfeld, of course. I’ve always seen him as a kind of scary clown figure, light reflecting off his glasses as he muttered his trademark circular dissembling. Like a Dr. Strangelove character who might be played by Jack Nicholson… America is well rid of him. But it has not yet confronted the problem as long as Cheney, and Condi, and Bush himself are on the job, and the media is still taking seriously all the revisionist pundits who blame Rumsfeld for their own hubris.


2. Rumsfeld’s Rules:

“Don’t accept the post or stay unless you have an understanding with the president that you’re free to tell him what you think ‘with the bark off,’ and you have the courage to do it.”

“Be precise. A lack of precision is dangerous when the margin of error is small.”

“Learn to say, “I don’t know.” If used when appropriate, it will be often.”

“It is easier to get into something than to get out of it.”

“If you are not criticized, you may not be doing much.”

“Keep your sense of humor. As (World War II Army) Gen. Joseph Stilwell said, ‘The higher a monkey climbs, the more you see of his behind.’”

“Don’t ‘overcontrol’ like a novice pilot. Stay loose enough from the flow that you can observe, calibrate and refine.”

“If in doubt, move decisions up to the president.”

“Look for what’s missing. Many advisers can tell a president how to improve what’s proposed or what’s gone amiss. Few are able to see what isn’t there.”

“Public servants are paid to serve the American people. Do it well.”

“Beware when any idea is promoted primarily because it is ‘bold, exciting, innovative and new.’ There are many ideas that are ‘bold, exciting, innovative and new,’ but also foolish.”

“Watch for the ‘not invented here’ syndrome.”


3. Rumsfeld's exit ushers in hope for Iraq policy shift – USA Today Editorial

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's resignation Wednesday would have been a shock in any case, given how many times critics have called for his head and how many times the prickly and combative Pentagon chief has ignored them. It was additionally surprising because President Bush said just last week that Rumsfeld was doing a "fantastic" job and that he'd stay for two more years.

That turned out to be, to put it charitably, disinformation. Bush was already planning Rumsfeld's departure. Rumsfeld has become a toxic distraction at the Pentagon. His departure was overdue, and it removes an obstacle to the new direction and ideas on Iraq that American voters demanded Tuesday.

Three and a half years ago, it would have been hard to imagine the savvy and brilliant Defense secretary meeting such an ignominious end. He came to the Pentagon in 2001 with the laudable goal of transforming the military, and he made progress toward closing excess bases and eliminating waste. His steely resolve was inspirational when the Pentagon was hit on 9/11, and he oversaw the successful military campaigns to topple the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

But the fall of Baghdad proved to be the peak of Rumsfeld's tenure. The relatively small force he deployed to Iraq was unable to contain the looting and violence unleashed by Saddam's fall. Rumsfeld at first dismissed the deadly insurgency as a few "deadenders," then consistently underestimated its tenacity. His negligent guidance on the treatment of prisoners led at least indirectly to the abuses at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, which badly damaged America's image.

As the situation in Iraq continued to spiral out of control, Rumsfeld lost the confidence of the military brass, key congressional Republicans and even some of his colleagues inside the administration. When he snapped at a recent news conference that war critics should "back off," he carried the air of a man who had reached the end of the line.

Replacing Rumsfeld now will avert the spectacle of an unpopular Defense secretary trying to defend an unpopular war at contentious congressional hearings. Bush was right to want to avoid that.

But Rumsfeld's exit is only half the equation. The other is the president's choice of former CIA director Robert Gates as a replacement. It is telling in ways that reach beyond style or political convenience. Gates' foreign policy pedigree is so different from Rumsfeld's that it seems to signal not just a change of leaders but also of approach.

Rumsfeld, 74, is a longstanding champion of the aggressive, almost imperial, foreign policy that characterized Bush's first term, infuriating allies and justifying the Iraq war. Gates, in contrast, is a veteran of the first Bush administration and the Persian Gulf War in which Bush's father wisely declined to press on to Baghdad for fear of destabilizing Iraq.

Gates, 63, is also a prot eg e of Brent Scowcroft, the first President Bush's pragmatic national security adviser, and serves with former secretary of State James Baker on the Iraq Study Group, which is poised to give the current President Bush advice on Iraq. With Rumsfeld gone and Vice President Cheney's influence fading, Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice can shift the administration's foreign policy dialogue.

It is, of course, one thing to talk about a "fresh perspective" on Iraq and quite another to come up with the meaningful changes in Iraq policy. The 10-member study group , co-chaired by Baker and former Democratic representative Lee Hamilton, has been working on the problem since it was formed by Congress eight months ago. Patterned on the respected 9/11 Commission, it has talked to more than 150 experts, visited Iraq, and met with representatives of Iran and Syria as well as Iraqis, U.S. military leaders and top U.S. officials.

Among the options it has considered, according to published reports , is one in which stability (but not democracy) is emphasized. That option would focus on trying to stabilize Baghdad, draw insurgents into politics and bring Iran and Syria in to help end the fighting. Another option would involve a gradual, phased withdrawal to bases outside Iraq from which U.S. troops could move quickly against terrorists who establish footholds.

Given Iraq's present chaos, it might already be too late to salvage much. But Rumsfeld's departure opens the way to new thinking, and Bush's willingness to listen to fresh advice is an encouraging sign.

Tragically, Rumsfeld's legacy will reflect that he ignored a piece of his own advice, collected as " Rumsfeld's rules " for serving in the White House: "It is easier to get into something than to get out of it."


4. Winds of Rage, Winds of Change -- by Joan Vennochi

Donald Rumsfeld just got the Michael Brown treatment.

One moment he was doing a heckuva job. The next minute, he was out as secretary of defense, just as Brown was out as head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

In Brown's case, it took the disastrous fallout from Hurricane Katrina for President Bush to cut him loose, after first lavishing him with praise. In Rumsfeld's case, hurricane strength rage at Bush and his Iraq war policy swept through the country on Election Day. Angry voters tossed Republicans out of office. This time, the winds of change rattled the White House, too, and Rumsfeld had to go.

Last week, Bush said Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney were doing "fantastic" jobs. At a press conference yesterday, the president explained that statement by saying he did not want to inject "a major military decision" into Tuesday's election. Win or lose on Election Day, Bush insisted, Rumsfeld would be leaving because the situation in Iraq needed "fresh eyes."

But, the "fresh eyes" came quickly after Democrats took control of the House of Representatives . The timing made it look like Bush was responding to an angry electorate and its demand for change.

What this means in the short term for Iraq war policy is less clear than the election results or even Rumsfeld's departure might indicate.

Bush said he understands that with Tuesday's vote, "America's saying, 'Come home.' " But, the president insisted, he is still "committed to victory." If the goal of Democrats "is to get out now, that's going to be hard to do together. Is America going to leave? No, it's not."

Clearly, the power shift in Congress dramatically changes the dynamic for the Bush White House. But even some anti war Democrats don't see a quick end to war or even a consensus about how to end it.

"My first hope is that my friends don't think tomorrow we're coming home" from Iraq , said US Representative Michael Capuano of Massachusetts, a war opponent from the outset of the Iraq invasion. ". . . As always, the public is way ahead of elected officials." According to Capuano, there's no majority "yet" for a proposal by US Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania to redeploy troops from Iraq to border countries. During a conversation that took place before the Rumsfeld announcement, Capuano predicted debate in Congress on military appropriations and a push to oust Rumsfeld. Bush obviously preempted the second part of the plan.

Just like the country, the Massachusetts delegation does not walk in lock-step when it comes to Iraq. US Representative Barney Frank believes that Tuesday's election results "will lead George Bush to redefine victory and start getting out." Fellow Republicans will force him in that direction, predicted Frank, by telling the president "you cannot take us into 2008 with this around our necks." Democrats, said Frank, can also "help George Bush out of Iraq" via investigations that show how badly the war was planned and executed.

Part of the Democrats' problem is that the voter rage at Bush and his Iraq war policy produced some contradictory election outcomes.

"The rage toward our president proved insurmountable," said Lincoln Chafee, the moderate Republican senator from Rhode Island who lost to Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse. In this case, voters turned against Chafee even though he didn't vote for Bush or to approve the invasion of Iraq.

In Connecticut, US Senator Joe Lieberman, a Democrat who supports the war, lost a primary election to anti war challenger Ned Lamont. However, in the general election, Lieberman, who ran as an independent, beat Lamont. Although he moderated his comments somewhat about Iraq, saying he wants to bring the troops home as soon as possible, Lieberman did not back down from his basic support of the war. Neither did Christopher Shays, a Republican congressman from Connecticut, who also won re election. Shays became one of a few Republicans to call for Rumsfeld's resignation and also suggested a timeline for troop withdrawal.

The real message of the election is something less than a call for immediate withdrawal. But voters clearly want to begin the process of extricating this country from Iraq.

In the interests of self-preservation, Bush quickly decided the first step was extricating Rumsfeld from the Pentagon.


5. Prosecute Rumsfeld, Now -- by Mark LeVine

Donald Rumsfeld is one of the half a dozen principal architects of the Iraq disaster. He should have been fired years ago, except that the disaster that unfolded before the eyes of the world was exactly what the Bush administration was hoping for--enough chaos to make sure no one in power in Iraq would ask us to leave.

Now that the American people have woken up to the ruse known as "Operation Iraqi Freedom" perpetrated by the Bush Administration for the last three and a half years it is imperative that progressive immediately push for a full investigation into the real reasons for the invasion of Iraq and the miserably and criminally managed occupation. And there is no greater symbol of everything that has gone wrong in Iraq than Donald Rumsfeld.

While in office, many of my friends and colleagues in the legal community believed that he was untouchable, although a legal brief sponsored by Code Pink that I helped research (see it at www.indictpresidentbush.org) argues compellingly that all the main planners of the war, including President Bush and Vice President Cheney, could at least be indicted, if not prosecuted, while in office. Now, thankfully this question is moot. Rumsfeld is or will very soon be a private citizen. As such, there is no problem for a US court--and as important, a foreign court such as Germany's which still claims universal jurisdiction to prosecute for war crimes--to indict him as the mass murdering torturer that he is.

Rumsfeld is clearly guilty of innumerable war crimes. I first reported on them after my trip to Iraq in 2004, where I saw first hand evidence of them. The violations he's responsible for include the failure to assure humane treatment for the civilian population (under Article 27 of the 4th Geneva Convention) and permit life in Iraq to continue as unaffected by its presence as possible; to ensure the public order, safety and welfare of the Iraqi people, including using all the means at its disposal to meet the basic food (Article 50), health (Articles 20, 50, 55, 56 and 59, among others), and education needs (Article 50) of the population; providing medical car (Articles 68 and 69 of Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions).

Crucially, even if people aren't purposefully killed by US forces, if the violations listed above lead to their death, the violations become war crimes. Moreover, the purposeful targeting of ambulances, or the prevention of or delay in the receiving of medical care, as happened during the fighting in Falluja and on numerous other occasions (violations of Articles 55 and 147 of the 4th Geneva Convention), the U.S. crosses the line between "merely" violating international humanitarian law (specifically articles 17 through 19 of the 4th Geneva Convention) and the commission of actual war crimes. These are defined as grave breaches of the 4th Geneva Convention as described in article 147, including "willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including... willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person... or willfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial ...taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly."

On top of all this, of course, there is also the issue of US torture, which is a violation of international and US Federal law, and military regulations as defined in the US Army Field Manual 27-10.

But there's an even larger issue here. It could be argued that Rumsfeld is guilty of something far more serious than war crimes: crimes against humanity and even genocide.

Under international law, "crimes against humanity" includes many acts any of the following acts that the US military has committed systematically in Iraq against the civilian population: murder; imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law; torture; the enforced disappearance of persons; and other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

The crime of "genocide" is found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. It includes a "mental element," meaning "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and a physical element, which includes five acts, including killing or causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, and deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. One can be prosecuted for genocide not just for committing but also for merely conspiring, attempting or being complicit in an attempt or conspiracy to commit genocide. As important, the phrase "in whole or in part" is important because destruction of only part of a group (such as its educated members, or members living in one region), is also considered genocide.

Now, let’s look at what Rumsfeld and Co. have accomplished in Iraq: upwards of 600,000 dead, much of the educated class has been forced into exile with no prospect of returning while many have been killed. Most important, the invasion and occupation of Iraq have led directly to a situation now in which many people are calling for a partition of the country. The partition of Iraq would mean the destruction of the Iraqi people as a nation, even if they survived as individuals in new countries. And the United States is the party directly responsible for this action by launching an illegal war and sewing chaos across the country, making some form of de facto if not de jure partition increasingly possible.

At the very least Rumsfeld and Co., and that includes President Bush, are guilty of politicide, defined by Israeli sociologist Baruch Kimmerling in the context of Israel's war against Palestinians, as a gradual but systematic attempt to cause their annihilation as an independent political and social entity.

For the sake of the integrity of the United States, and for all the harm we've done to Iraq, Donald Rumsfeld must be indicted and prosecuted as a war criminal as soon as possible.

(Mark LeVine is a Prof. of History at the University of California, Irvine, and the author of "Why They Don't Hate Us: Lifting the Veil on the Axis of Evil." For more information see: www.culturejamming.org)