Robert McNamara Remembered - lessons from a liberal technocrat

"I come to bury Caesar not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones.
So let it be with Caesar."

- William Shakespeare (Marc Antony's eulogy)

Marc Antony's intent was masked by his words, and the words that Shakespeare put in his mouth are the opposite of what Shakespeare knew to be true. As a rule - it is the good that men do that live after them. We are reluctant to speak ill of the dead. We prefer to celebrate the song and dance man, but forget the child molester and drug abuser. So let it be with Michael. But what of Robert? Almost lost among the Michael Jackson Memorial media circus last week was the notable death of Robert McNamara. Perhaps he is an exception to the rule of remembering only the good men do.

Robert McNamara died in his bed on Monday July 6th. Words like those of Shakespeare's Antony, words crafted to deceive, words considered only as a means to a political end, are words that seem particularly apropos when remembering Robert McNamara.

McNamara has been a frequent topic on this blog. The recurring theme and the unanswered question: What did he know to be true about the Vietnam War, when did he know it, what actions did he take and fail to take as a consequence, and why did he chose not to tell the American people what he knew? It seemed an important lesson for today. From a September, 2006 post:

In 1995, Robert McNamara (widely referred to as "the architect of the Vietnam War") writing in his memoir "In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam", revealed that as early as 1967 (with 25,000 American dead) he no longer believed that America could win the war in Vietnam, and as a direct consequence of expressing that view, resigned (or was fired) from the LBJ administration. This McNamara quote is excerpted from Harold P. Ford's analysis "Thoughts Engendered by Robert McNamara's In Retrospect":

"We were wrong, terribly wrong... Enemy morale has not broken . . . . It appears that [the enemy] can more than replace his losses by infiltration from North Vietnam and recruitment in South Vietnam. . . . Pacification has if anything gone backward. As compared with two, or four, years ago, enemy full-time regional forces and part-time guerrilla forces are larger; attacks, terrorism and sabotage have increased in scope and intensity. . . . In essence, we find ourselves--from the point of view of the important war (for the [hearts and minds] of the people)--no better, and if anything worse off. This important war must be fought and won by the Vietnamese themselves. We have known this from the beginning . . ." Robert McNamara -"In Retrospect" (pp. 262-263).

Neither McNamara nor LBJ chose to share that insight with the American public. Ultimately it took 50,000 American lives for a majority of Americans to learn that their government could not be trusted on the reasons for, nor the "light at the end of the tunnel" progress in, Vietnam. It is reasonable to posit, that if McNamara had recognized in 1968 that his loyalty was owed first to the American people, and second to the LBJ administration, had communicated what he knew then to the American people, we might have seen a better end, a quicker end, and fewer deaths and casualties in Vietnam.

McNamara had a bit more nuanced view of his own actions. While he acknowledged his analysis and the consequent administration decisions on Vietnam were dead wrong, while he regretted his support of that war, he remained unapologetic about putting loyalty to his president ahead of his obligations to the American people. He had no problem rationalizing his decision to keep the American people ignorant of what he knew to be true about that war.

The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer was one of the few broadcast news outlets not distracted by the Michael Jackson death-a-palooza, and explored this very question on the night of his death. An excerpt:

The full segment includes interviews with documentarian Earl Morris and biographer Deborah Shapley. Also interesting, the complete 1995 interview between Macneil and McNamara, as well as a spirited round table discussion between a young Senator John McCain, George McGovern, McGeorge Bundy and Robert Scheer, also available on the PBS site:

Recommended viewing.

The picture of Robert McNamara that emerges from the interviews, the book and the documentary differs from contemporaneous reporting when his memoir was published. There is no contrition on display. No quest for redemption is in evidence as some suggested at the time. This is the technocrat, the policy wonk, the engineer poring over the wreckage of an airplane he designed and offering observations on why it crashed and burned. His hope for his memoir:

"I hope what it will do is cause us to examine what happened then and try to prevent it in the future."

Examining the McNamara lessons can drive a blogger to drink. So let us start at our favorite watering hole, The Repeating History Bar. Here we find another senior administration official choosing personal loyalty to a president over their duty to the American people. Many have compared McNamara to Rumsfeld. I have done so myself. But in the context of the lessons learned from McNamara and Vietnam, the more apt comparison is Colin Powell. From a more recent post:

Colin Powell enabled the GWB administration to garner the support needed to put us on this course [in Iraq]. I suspect that Colin Powell, out of misplaced loyalty, like McNamara on Vietnam, failed to be forthright and honest with the American people about Iraq. Should Colin Powell, in future memoirs, like McNamara, proclaim that he knew that the Iraq occupation was a wrong policy, he will, like McNamara, have blood on his hands for every day that passes between the time that he recognized the mistake, and the day he finally comes clean with the American people. It took McNamara 27 years. How long will it take Powell?"Make no mistake. It was a critical decision point, a nexus in history, when in 2002 Colin Powell walked into the Oval office to advise the President. As he related to Tim Russert:

"when I took it to the president and said, “This is a war we ought to see if we can avoid,” I also said and made it clear to him, 'If, at the end of the day, it is a war that we cannot avoid, I’ll be with you all the way.' That’s part of being part of a team."

Powell understood that this was the wrong path. Powell understood that the rationale for action in Iraq did not pass muster on the lessons he extracted from Vietnam, the Powell Doctrine. Powell could have told Bush that he did not support the policy and resigned. Instead Colin Powell enabled George W Bush to make the decision to prosecute the occupation, much like McNamara enabled LBJ to expand our footprint in Vietnam. Colin Powell sold the war to the American people. After Cheney and Bush, Powell is the man most responsible for the war decision.

That lesson went unheeded. How about another lesson? A cautionary tale about the hubris of having the "best and the brightest" liberal ideologues run the country:

ROBERT MACNEIL: You say you were prompted to write this book because you were heartsick at the cynicism, even the contempt with which people view their political institutions today. How did you think this book might dispel that cynicism?

ROBERT MCNAMARA: I hope it will explore why the leaders did what they did. My associates were properly described by that pejorative term, "the best and the brightest." They were young, intelligent, well-educated, hardworking, dedicated servants, they're people in their government, and they were wrong.

Now, I think, if our people understand that, then we can talk about, why were they wrong? How can we avoid similar errors in the future?

ROBERT MACNEIL: But as you document, if the best and the brightest that Kennedy and Johnson could muster year after year made the mistakes you admit and they refused to listen to their critics, to use your phrase, "were blind prisoners of their assumptions," and in the process sent nearly 60,000 Americans to their deaths, would that not confirm or deepen people's cynicism about government today?

ROBERT MCNAMARA: Well, no, I think -- I hope what it will do is cause us to examine what happened then and try to prevent it in the future.

The last administration did not learn from the lessons of McNamara. One wonders - Could our brand spanking new administration comprised of today's "best and the brightest" liberal ideologues learn anything from Robert? Perhaps they need no lessons, after all they are so supremely confident in their intellect and ability that they:

• Believe the country is best served by accumulating power unto themselves far beyond what is proscribed in the constitution.
• Think they can safely manage the currency and economy destroying Frankenstein monster of massive spending and deficit on a level never attempted before.
• Are perfectly comfortable preempting and substituting their judgment for that of the market.
• Know exactly how the automotive industry should be structured, how many car companies we should have, which should succeed, which should fail, how many dealers they need, and what kind of cars they should build.
• Understand the rule of law does not apply to them and should really be considered purely advisory.
  
• Can, of course, re-design the entire health care system, supremely certain that they can cut costs and improve care without rationing services.
• Oh - almost forgot. They can also pacify Afghanistan.
  

Nothing to worry about there.

Rest in Peace Robert McNamara.

Your political and intellectual heirs are in charge.

UPDATE: McNamara's favorite poem

A punctuation mark for the man and the post...



The Palace - Rudyard Kipling

"WHEN I was a King and a Mason - a Master proven and skilled
I cleared me ground for a Palace such as a King should build.
I decreed and dug down to my levels. Presently under the silt
I came on the wreck of a Palace such as a King had built."

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: Afghanistan, Colin Powell, Michael Jackson, , Vietnam, Robert McNamara, Iraq, hubris, The best and the brightest, Barack Obama.

Neocon warmongers for Obama!

I was not going to bother, but the Powell and Adelman endorsements have apparently been declared by the blogging powers that be as a mandatory post for all political bloggers. I have no choice but to declare a "Yossarian", as I have periodically done before. and paraphrase Joseph Heller's famous protagonist from Catch 22 - "What if everyone was blogging about the Powell endorsement?" I can only respond as did Bomber Pilot John Yossarian: "Then I'd be a damn fool not to".

The topic was not all that interesting, because I don't believe that either Powell or Adelman's endorsement will have any meaningful impact on this election. Obama will be elected for exactly one reason - the country is in the grip of an economic meltdown and market panic during the last few weeks of the election. A poorly executed McCain campaign did not help, but the economic fear swamps all other considerations. Under this kind of economic cloud the electorate will sweep the incumbent party out and the opposition party in. If McCain had kept it close, these endorsements might have made a difference and been important for Obama. As it is, the endorsements are bringing "coals to Newcastle". Unfortunately, Obama and the Democrats will claim a mandate, and with no meaningful opposition in Washington, we are on a high-speed hell-bound train to the inevitable bad governance, corruption and abuse of power that always accompanies single party rule.

Back to Adelman. Obama supporters have breathlessly covered his endorsement as a shocking validation of everything that is wrong with the McCain campaign. After all, this is a "loyal", lifelong Conservative Republican. I have a couple of problems with that characterization. First, it is astonishing that anyone who believes the Iraq war was a mistake (as do I) would put any credence in Adelman's judgment or take anything he says seriously. Adelman is most famous (infamous?) for his 2002 Washington Post editorial where he pitched the Iraq War as a "cakewalk":

"In 1991 we engaged a grand international coalition because we lacked a domestic coalition. Virtually the entire Democratic leadership stood against that President Bush. The public, too, was divided. This President Bush does not need to amass rinky-dink nations as "coalition partners" to convince the Washington establishment that we're right. Americans of all parties now know we must wage a total war on terrorism. Hussein constitutes the number one threat against American security and civilization. Unlike Osama bin Laden, he has billions of dollars in government funds, scores of government research labs working feverishly on weapons of mass destruction -- and just as deep a hatred of America and civilized free societies."

Adelman was a neocon's neocon. And the neocon "might makes right" eagerness to wield the military as a instrument of policy rather than as a last resort, coupled with their willingness to sacrifice the Constitution, rule of law, bill of rights, and common decency on the alter of "security" is the very reason why the Republican Party is about to rendered completely irrelevant.

As regards his professed "loyalty" to the Republican Party or conservative principles, recall that in a 2006 Vanity Fair article, Adelman was only too eager to hold himself and the Neocon philosophy blameless, while throwing everyone else in the Bush administration under the bus. It stands as one of the most gratuitous examples of craven CYA finger pointing ever committed to print. But hey! This is one of the key architects of the philosophy that may have destroyed the Republican party, or at least rendered it politically impotent for a generation. So why not pay attention to him and his endorsement for Obama? Neocons for Obama!

Colin Powell is a more interesting study. He has been a frequent topic of posts on this blog. Powell is a man I deeply respected in the Bush41 administration, and would have whole heartedly supported for President in 2000. If we had used the Powell Doctrine as a guiding principle in 2003 as we did in the first Gulf War, we never would have gone down the disastrous Neocon path in Iraq.

But the big question about Colin Powell remains - Why did he enable the Bush administration to support a policy he knew to be in contradiction to the successful doctrine that bears his name? Why did he choose loyalty to the administration over loyalty to the American people? I asked this question in an open letter and a 2006 post where I wondered "whether Colin Powell might, in the judgment of history, carry the label of being to Iraq what McNamara was to Vietnam":

"In 1995, Robert McNamara (widely referred to as "the architect of the Vietnam War") writing in his memoir "In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam", revealed that as early as 1967 (with 25,000 American dead) he no longer believed that America could win the war in Vietnam, and as a direct consequence of expressing that view, resigned (or was fired) from the LBJ administration.... Neither McNamara nor LBJ chose to share that insight with the American public. Ultimately it took 50,000 American lives for a majority of Americans to learn that their government could not be trusted on the reasons for, nor the "light at the end of the tunnel" progress in, Vietnam. It is reasonable to posit, that if McNamara had recognized in 1968 that his loyalty was owed first to the American people, and second to the LBJ administration, had communicated what he knew then to the American people, we might have seen a better end, a quicker end, and fewer deaths and casualties in Vietnam... Colin Powell enabled the GWB administration to garner the support needed to put us on this course. I suspect that Colin Powell, out of misplaced loyalty, like McNamara on Vietnam, failed to be forthright and honest with the American people about Iraq. Should Colin Powell, in future memoirs, like McNamara, proclaim that he knew that the Iraq occupation was a wrong policy, he will, like McNamara, have blood on his hands for every day that passes between the time that he recognized the mistake, and the day he finally comes clean with the American people. It took McNamara 27 years. How long will it take Powell?"

Make no mistake. It was a critical decision point, a nexus in history, when in 2002 Colin Powell walked into the Oval office to advise the President. As he related to Tim Russert:

"when I took it to the president and said, “This is a war we ought to see if we can avoid,” I also said and made it clear to him, 'If, at the end of the day, it is a war that we cannot avoid, I’ll be with you all the way.' That’s part of being part of a team."

If Powell understood that this was the wrong path, Powell should have told Bush that he did not support the policy and resigned. Colin Powell enabled George W Bush to make the decision to prosecute the occupation. Colin Powell sold the war to the American people. After Cheney and Bush himself, Powell is the man most responsible for the war decision.

At some level Powell knows this. He is a study in contradictions. As a consequence of failing to act on what he knew to be right in 2002, he has spent years explaining and justifying his actions. I cannot help but feel that this endorsement is yet another attempt to assuage his conscience, rehabilitate his reputation and scrub the blood off his hands.

Divided and Balanced.™ Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: Yossarian, 2008 election, Colin Powell, Barack Obama, Iraq, Ken Adelman, neocon

Powell Agonistes

Not too long ago, Colin Powell was legitimately described as the most trusted man in American politics. Today he is perceived to struggle in a battle to rehabilitate his credibility, the most recent effort being a Sunday appearance on Meet the Press with Tim Russert. I missed the show itself, as I was returning from an extended fishing holiday in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. [How was the fishing you ask? Quite good thank you. We had several fish fries comprised of some nice bass and plenty of panfish. I even managed to catch and release a couple of brookies despite my general incompetence with a fly rod.]

Upon my return, I got a flavor for the reaction to Powell's interview, when I re-immersed myself in the political pool by taking a deep dive with a quadruple twisting plunge on MSNBC, watching Tucker, Matthews, Olberman and Scarborough back-to-back-to-back-to-back. All had pointed questions for Powell.

CARLSON: "Powell‘s willingness to vote for a Democrat in ‘08 is interesting as well as the obvious rebuke he gave the Bush administration. But consider the opposite angle, though he has escaped the deep public anger absorbed by the president, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, any number of others in this administration, Colin Powell was the chief salesman of the decision to invade and occupy Iraq. So the question is, why would Barack Obama want his advice in the first place?"

MATTHEWS: "Why didn‘t Colin Powell just resign? Former Secretary of State Colin Powell has criticized this administration since he left office. But why did he salute the boss if he did not fully support the war? Where was Powell‘s tough talk against the administration when it would have counted?"

ROBACH (substituting for Olberman): "We know that Colin Powell did not advocate going to war, but he tells Tim Russert that once the president decided to do it, he, Powell, was with him all the way. Have we ever heard Colin Powell say that the president and that he ultimately made a mistake in that decision?"

HUFFINGTON (Guest on Scarborough Country): "So many people will tell you again and again that, if it wasn‘t for Colin Powell putting his enormous credibility behind the selling of the war, they would not have been behind the war. So I think it‘s really sad. It‘s a little bit like watching George Tenet, you know, come out, after all the damage has been done, and then singing a very different song. And, you know, of course, it‘s great that he wants to close down Guantanamo, not tomorrow but this afternoon, but where was that kind of moral authority when the country needed it? "

DWSUWF finds these questions for Colin Powell to be disingeuous, and a distraction from the important comments that Powell made in the interview. The questions are echoed and amplified by disngenuous bloggers on both the right and left. [SIDEBAR: Don't you just love the word "disingenuous"? It is such a great high-brow way for DWSUWF to say they are all "so completely full of sh*t their eyes are brown."]

Colin Powell is speaking out. This is exactly what we need him to do. The Powell Doctrine, forged from the lessons learned in Viet Nam, served this country well in the first gulf war and as a guiding set of principles for our involvement in other military conflicts. The irony of Colin Powell being a primary enabler for the US involvement in a conflict that so clearly violated the tenets of the doctrine that bears his name has not been lost on us. The only one who can solve the riddle of of Colin Powell is Powell himself.

Powell has been a recurring topic at DWSUWF, and taken to task for failing to contribute to the national dialog prior to the 2006 mid-term elections. In September, DWSUWF posed the question "whether Colin Powell might, in the judgement of history, carry the label of being to Iraq what McNamara was to Vietnam". A few weeks later, still questioning his silence, DWSUWF posted an Open Letter to Colin Powell, concluding with this:

"Your experience with the military, with this administration, with the field of conflict in Iraq, with both failed and successful US conflicts, means you are uniquely qualified to help the American people find the right path through this thicket, by shedding some light on the problem. Permit me to be blunt. As an American citizen that supported this war to a large extent because of your support of it, and your eloquent arguments before United Nations in January of 2003, I do not find it acceptable for you to withhold your assessment of the status and outlook for this war now. Quite frankly, you owe this country the benefit of your honest assessment now. You owe us your complete, unexpurgated, unvarnished view."

In all honesty, DWSUWF did not expect Colin Powell to respond to a letter from this blog, and was not surprised that he did not. Regardless, his statements and appearances in the MSM over the last few months have addressed many of the very concerns expressed in that letter. It is critically important for Powell's evolving perspective on the war he helped sell to be publicly aired, as the country struggles to find a way to bring it to an end. He provides a unique and important perspective that is worthy of careful consideration by all Americans.

DWSUWF highlighted more recent Colin Powell quotes in these posts (Thank you Mr. Powell, One more Rum & Mac for the road) while commenting on his 12/17/06 interview with Bob Scheifer on CBS News' Face the Nation:

SCHIEFFER: "Let me ask you about the retirement ceremony they had for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. The vice president said Secretary Rumsfeld is the finest secretary of defense in the history of this country, or words to that effect. What is your assessment?

Mr. POWELL (paraphrased): Well, that's the vice president's judgement. As we all know, Rumsfeld had his nose so far up Cheney's fat ass, I am surprised they could pull him out to fire him.

More Powell quotes:

"So if it's grave and deteriorating, and we're not winning, we are losing."

"...this looks like a civil war, and we ought to call it that."

"I am not persuaded that another surge of troops into Baghdad for the purpose of suppressing this communitarian violence, this civil war, will work..."

"...I think you have to talk to a country like Syria.

"The current active Army is not large enough, and the Marine Corps is not large enough, for the kinds of missions they're being asked to perform."

"... we are a little less safe in the sense that we don't have the same force structure available for other problems."

"But sooner or later, you have to... begin the drawdown of US forces. I think that's got to happen sometime before the middle of next year, at least the beginning of this. You cannot--we cannot walk away."

To this list we can now add Powell's comments from his Sunday (6/10/06) appearance on Meet the Press with Tim Russert:

"The current strategy to deal with it... —the military surge, our part of the surge under General Petraeus—the only thing it can do is put a heavier lid on this boiling pot of civil war stew... The solution has to emerge from the other two legs, the Iraqi political actions and reconciliation, and building up the Iraqi security and police forces. And those two legs are not going well."

...at the end of the day, when this civil war resolves itself, as every civil war eventually does resolve itself, one way or the other, and we see a government emerge that does represent the interests of its people, then maybe that’s the best success we can hope for, even though it might not be a government... we would have designed in Philadelphia based on Jeffersonian principles."

" ...the president is not satisfied with the way in which the war has been managed. Now, you can, you can move the deck chairs around, and you can bring in new people and you can change the organizational arrangements, but, ultimately, the president has the responsibility. "

"Once the government in Baghdad came down, everything came down. And it was our responsibility then, under international law as the occupying authority as well as the liberators, to be responsible for restoring order, and we didn’t have enough troops there to restore that order nor did we have the political understanding of our obligation to restore that order."

"... the case that we took to the world and the case that we took to the American people rested not just in his human rights abuses or his cheating on the Oil for Food program, it rested on the real and present danger of weapons of mass destruction that he could use against his neighbors, or terrorists could use against us. That was the precipitating issue in my judgment, and it turned out those weapons were not there... they all came to the conclusion there are none, and they’re not buried in the ground, they weren’t shipped to Syria. We got it wrong."

"Guantanamo has become a major, major problem for... the way the world perceives America. And if it was up to me, I would close Guantanamo not tomorrow, but this afternoon. I’d close it. And I would not let any of those people go. I would simply move them to the United States and put them into our federal legal system."

Powell did not back away from his support of the war in 2003. Consequently the unasked and unanswered question for Colin Powell still goes begging: General Powell, even accepting that the decision was based on wrong intelligence, how do you justify your suppport for a military action that unambiguous failed to meet the tests of the Powell Doctrine?

Colinn Powell put his reputation on the line, performing in the role of Huckster In Chief, pitching the war in Iraq during his January, 2003 address to the United Nations. Notwithstanding, Powell is now making strong, direct statements that provide a valuable and important contribution to the dialog on Iraq, from a voice that is uniquely qualified to offer observations, recommendations and opinions. His MSM appearances sharpen the focus of his critical view of the administration's handling of the war, as well as his own complicity in its outcome. His words are a valuable resource for those Americans struggling to understand our remaining limited options in Iraq.

Divided and Balanced.™ Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: divided government, Colin Powell, libertarian, , Vietnam, Iraq, surge, Donald Rumsfeld, Powell Doctrine.

Will the ones who got us in, be the ones to get us out?

Hmmm.

I'd like a different question please. To be fair, this happy group convening in Crawford, Texas are not exactly the same ones that got us in. There is at leasat one new subordinate in the picture.

The Washington Post reports:

"One idea gaining currency in the administration is to send between 15,000 and 30,000 additional troops to Iraq, at least on a temporary basis, to help improve security, but there are questions among senior military leaders about how effective this move would be...The political component of the emerging Bush package would set up benchmarks for long-overdue steps, such as amending the constitution to help address the objections of Iraq's Sunni minority and dismantling 23 predominantly Shiite militias. But it is unclear whether the Iraqi government would go along with such milestones... In brief comments to reporters here, the president made clear that the focus of his review is to strengthen the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, which has been struggling to quell militia violence and bring about political reconciliation between Sunnis and Shiites. "The key to success in Iraq is to have a government that's willing to deal with the elements there that are trying to prevent this young democracy from succeeding," Bush said. "We want to help them succeed."

Conventional wisdom informs us that the nascent plan for a troop "surge" is not a strategy to win but a tactic to not lose. Readers of this blog will not be surprised by the reports coming out of Crawford. Earlier this month we revealed a confidential memo from the Secretary of Defense to the President of the United States outlining his recommendations - edited excerpts here:

"We should not even rule out, as part of the strategy, changing key subordinates in the US Government to meet the charge that "Washington is tired and Washington is stale."... Not to panic because of a belief that the enemy must be made to capitulate before the elections. No one's proposal achieves that end.... Move the newly elected government to a political settlement... a settlement to transform military opponents to political opponents... Limit force increases to no more than 30,000... concentrate on the infiltration routes.. improve the negotiating environment within a limited deployment of US forces by combining continuous attacks with slow improvements in pacification (which may follow the new constitution, the national reconciliation proclamation, our added efforts ... ) The strategy ... is based on their belief that we are in a military situation that cannot be changed materially by expanding our military effort, that the politico-pacification situation will improve but not fast... this course implies a conviction that neither military defeat nor military victory is in the cards... Their government might collapse under the strain. We would then have to decide whether to snip a piece of stem, plant it, nurture it, and start over again, or to force a compromise under our own auspices."

Confidential memo from Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara to President Lyndon Johnson:
"Subject: Future Actions in Vietnam - May 19, 1967"

As I write this post, CNN announces Saddam is dead and is broadcasting video of Iraqi's dancing in the street. Good. The butcher is gone. The regime is irrevocably changed. There is no WMD threat in Iraq. The military objective that was the justification for the occupation is accomplished. Yet, we still await a new plan for Peace with Honor from our President, that will apparently assure at least two more years of involvement indistinguishable from where we are today. "Stay the course" by any other name, will smell as bad.

Divided and Balanced.™ Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: divided government, Colin Powell, libertarian, , Vietnam, ,Robert McNamara, Iraq, surge, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Robert Gates.

Bartender! One more Rum & Mac for the road.

Time Magazine Covers from 2004 and 1966

It is closing time here at the Repeating History Bar. We are way past final call, but I'm a regular, and the bartender slipped me one more Rum & Mac for the road. Hey, I'm a big tipper, he takes care of me. I didn't think much of this drink when I started sipping it here, but after pounding down doubles all night, I'm beginning to appreciate the peculiar character of this drink more and more.

Speaking at Donald Rumsfeld's retirement ceremony, Dick Cheney hailed Rumsfeld as "the finest secretary of defense this nation has ever had." In Sunday's interview with Bob Schieffer on on CBS News' Face the Nation, Colin Powell declined to agree:

SCHIEFFER: "Let me ask you about the retirement ceremony they had for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. The vice president said Secretary Rumsfeld is the finest secretary of defense in the history of this country, or words to that effect. What is your assessment?

Mr. POWELL: "Well, that's the vice president's judgment. I've known many fine secretaries of defense: Caspar Weinberger comes to mind, and Dick Cheney comes to mind himself. But it's history that will judge the performance of all of us in this troubling time of history, and it is a history that I think will ultimately be written as a result of what happens in Iraq."

Sometimes, a judicious amount of alcohol helps one to see things more clearly. With the copious quantities of R&M's I have ingested here at the RHB, I have developed a GWB-like capacity to peer into the soul of my fellow man and read their innermost thoughts. For the benefit of my loyal reader, a transcript of what Colin Powell was really saying:

Mr. POWELL: "Well, that's the vice president's judgement. As we all know, Rumsfeld had his nose so far up Cheney's fat ass, I am surprised they could pull him out to fire him. I've known many fine secretaries of defense: Caspar Weinberger comes to mind, and Dick Cheney comes to mind himself. I wouldn't put Don ahead of Bill Cohen, Les Aspin or William Perry either. Now that I think about it , he wasn't better than Frank Carlucci or Harold Brown. Of course, Don couldn't carry the jockstrap of James Forrestall, George Marshall, Bob Lovett, Charles Wilson or Thomas Gates. And I'd definitely put Elliot Richardson, Melvin Laird, Neil McElroy and James Schlessinger ahead of Don SecDef-wise. Clark Clifford ... now thats close, but I'd have to give Clifford the edge. McNamara! Thats it! He is a marginally better secretary of defense than McNamara. No doubt. Don was better than Bob. But it's history that will judge the performance of all of us in this troubling time of history, and it is a history that will ultimately be written as a result of what happens in Iraq. I just hope I don't find myself burning in historical hell right next to Rumsfeld for all eternity. "

Bartender, could you freshen this up? Whenever I drink R&M's I feel the need to ramble on a bit about our outgoing Secretary of Defense. You know, I am not the only one that noticed the parallels between Don and good ol' Bob. Richard Galli of the Galli Report scooped DWSUWF by several months with a press release last June - excerpted here :

Bush Accepts Rumsfeld Resignation, Hires Robert McNamara

"I have a Thinkpad now" confident Vietnam warrior assures skeptics - "George Bush informed Donald Rumsfeld yesterday that one of his resignation letters had been discovered under a pile of unread security briefings, and the President had belatedly accepted it...In a statement released shortly after the press conference, Robert McNamara said he will be honored to answer his country’s call to service once again. “I have spent the last 30 years of my life educating the American people about the War in Vietnam without ever being held accountable for it,” McNamara said. “I have the experience and the skill set that the White House desperately needs right now.”

Hey! Is that Robert Scheer from TruthDig at end of the bar? He must be drinking Rum & Macs too - You know he's got the same mind-reading skills as me - look at this column where he's channeling Rumsfeld - gives me the willies just to think about it...

One Last Lie for the Road
"Did I write a secret memo saying that I don’t believe in this thing anymore? You bet! But you can’t let the public in on that and just cut-and-run. Jeez, how would that look for the Rummy Legacy? ... I’m not going down that negative road that finished off old Bob McNamara’s legacy. What a disappointment—this is a guy who could sell us the Vietnam War and then blows it by suddenly getting all squishy about the truth when he’s long retired. Jeez Louise, he was once my role model. No secretary of defense ever sold a losing war better. They think I’ve got a frozen smile, just look at those old pictures of Mac flying into Saigon and giving an upbeat assessment in the midst of carnage. Talk about whistling past the graveyard. And he stayed on the “We’re about to turn the corner” message right to the end when LBJ fired him, just like Georgie Porgie did me. "

Ah yes. The confidential memo. One last unexepected and somewhat astonishing bit of synchronicity between the outgoing SecDefs - 39 years apart, writing hand-wringing memos to their respective commanders in chief, outlining options for a failing war policy, and getting canned shortly thereafter. I pull a crumpled piece of paper out of my pocket, smooth it out on the surface of the bar and wave it in the bartenders face. "Look at this!" I said. "I couldn't believe when I heard about the Rumsfeld memo. I had to see for myself how it compared to McNamara's 'Draft Memorandum From Secretary of Defense McNamara to President Johnson' ... I actually looked up the orginal text of both messages to compare them." The bartender, seemingly unimpressed, topped off my glass and retreated to the other end of the bar, leaving the paper behind. "McNamara was a lot wordier." I mumbled under my breath to no one in particular. "But ... definite similarities... definite... similarities...."

MCNAMARA MEMO:
"Subject: Future Actions in Vietnam - May 19, 1967"
RUMSFELD MEMO:
"Subject: Iraq — Illustrative New Courses of Action - Nov 6, 2006"

MCNAMARA: "This memorandum is written at a time when there appears to be no attractive course of action. The probabilities are that Hanoi has decided not to negotiate until the American electorate has been heard in November 1968. Continuation of our present moderate policy, while avoiding a larger war, will not change Hanoi's mind, so is not enough to satisfy the American people; increased force levels and actions against the North are likewise unlikely to change Hanoi's mind, and are likely to get us in even deeper in Southeast Asia and into a serious confrontation, if not war, with China and Russia; and we are not willing to yield. So we must choose among imperfect alternatives."
RUMSFELD: "The situation in Iraq has been evolving, and U.S. forces have adjusted, over time, from major combat operations to counterterrorism, to counterinsurgency, to dealing with death squads and sectarian violence. In my view it is time for a major adjustment. Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough. Following is a range of options."

MCNAMARA: "The Vietnam war is unpopular in this country. It is becoming increasingly unpopular as it escalates--causing more American casualties, more fear of its growing into a wider war, more privation of the domestic sector, and more distress at the amount of suffering being visited on the non-combatants in Vietnam, South and North. Most Americans do not know how we got where we are, and most, without knowing why, but taking advantage of hindsight, are convinced that somehow we should not have gotten this deeply in. All want the war ended and expect their President to end it. Successfully. Or else."
RUMSFELD: "Publicly announce a set of benchmarks agreed to by the Iraqi Government and the U.S. — political, economic and security goals — to chart a path ahead for the Iraqi government and Iraqi people (to get them moving) and for the U.S. public (to reassure them that progress can and is being made)."

MCNAMARA: "Publicly, emphasize consistently that the sole US objective in Vietnam has been and is to permit the people of South Vietnam to determine their own future, and declare that we have already either denied or offset the North Vietnamese intervention and that after the September elections in Vietnam we will have achieved success. The necessary steps having been taken to deny the North the ability to take over South Vietnam and an elected government sitting in Saigon, the South will be in position, albeit imperfect, to start the business of producing a full-spectrum government in South Vietnam."
RUMSFELD: "Recast the U.S. military mission and the U.S. goals (how we talk about them) — go minimalist... Begin modest withdrawals of U.S. and Coalition forces (start “taking our hand off the bicycle seat”), so Iraqis know they have to pull up their socks, step up and take responsibility for their country."

MCNAMARA [Course A - Not Recommended] : "... neither military defeat nor military victory is in the cards, with or without the large added deployments, and that the price of the large added deployments and the strategy of Course A will be to expand the war dangerously."
RUMSFELD [Below The Line - Not Recommended] : "Increase Brigade Combat Teams and U.S. forces in Iraq substantially."

MCNAMARA: "Move the newly elected Saigon government well beyond its National Reconciliation program to a political settlement with the non-Communist members of the NLF--to try to arrange a ceasefire and to reach an accommodation with the large number of South Vietnamese who are under the VC banner; to accept the non-Communist members of the NLF as members of an opposition political party and, if necessary, to accept their individual participation in the national government--in sum, a settlement to transform the members of the VC from military opponents to political opponents."
RUMSFELD: "Provide money to key political and religious leaders (as Saddam Hussein did), to get them to help us get through this difficult period... Initiate a massive program for unemployed youth. It would have to be run by U.S. forces, since no other organization could do it."

MCNAMARA [Recommended Course of Action - Course B] : "Limit force increases to no more than 30,000; avoid extending the ground conflict beyond the borders of South Vietnam; and concentrate the bombing on the infiltration routes south of 20 degrees. Unless the military situation worsens dramatically, add no more than 9 battalions to the approved program of 87 battalions....A part of this course would be a termination of bombing in the Red River basin unless military necessity required it, and a concentration of all sorties in North Vietnam on the infiltration routes in the neck of North Vietnam... We recommend Course B because it has the combined advantages of being a lever toward negotiations and toward ending the war on satisfactory terms, of helping our general position with the Soviets, of improving our image in the eyes of international opinion, of reducing the danger of confrontation with China and with the Soviet Union, and of reducing US losses."
RUMSFELD [Recommended Options - Above the Line]: "Significantly increase U.S. trainers and embeds, and transfer more U.S. equipment to Iraqi Security forces (ISF), to further accelerate their capabilities by refocusing the assignment of some significant portion of the U.S. troops currently in Iraq....Retain high-end SOF capability and necessary support structure to target Al Qaeda, death squads, and Iranians in Iraq, while drawing down all other Coalition forces, except those necessary to provide certain key enablers for the ISF... Position substantial U.S. forces near the Iranian and Syrian borders to reduce infiltration and, importantly, reduce Iranian influence on the Iraqi Government.
GATES: - Recommended Course of Action- TBD

The glass is empty. No one else is here. I steady myself on the bar as I roll off the stool. After the room slows to a manageable shimmer, I make my way to the door and out into the cold night fog. "This is not going to feel good in the morning." I think to myself, adding - "I'm not drinking those anymore."

Hangover Update 12/21/06: 06/11/07 Corrected Typos
I didn't drive in that condition. Still got caught in the Beltway Traffic Jam.

Divided and Balanced.™ Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: divided government, Colin Powell, libertarian, , Vietnam, ,Robert McNamara, Iraq, surge, Donald Rumsfeld, Powell Doctrine.

Thank You Mr. Powell

DWSUWF welcomes Colin Powell's reappearance on the national stage. I never received a reply or acknowledgment to my open letter sent to Colin Powell on September 25. In the letter I thanked him for weighing in on the interrogation of enemy combatants and called on Mr. Powell to speak out on the war that he helped to justify and launch. Excerpt:

"The question of interrogation of detainees is not the only issue where your opinion could be influential. Since resigning as Secretary of State, you have maintained a low public profile, choosing to either reserve judgment or simply not to share your thoughts with American public at large regarding the war in Iraq... Quite frankly, you are doing the American people a great disservice by not sharing your detailed views on the war in Iraq. From my perspective, there are disturbing similarities between your words describing Vietnam and the current conflict in Iraq, and even more disturbing similarities between McNamara’s public silence in 1968 and your public reticence on the war now... Permit me to be blunt. As an American citizen that supported this war to a large extent because of your support of it and your eloquent argument before United Nations in January of 2003, I do not find it acceptable for you to withhold your assessment of the status and outlook for this war. You owe this country the benefit of your honest assessment now. You owe us your complete, unexpurgated, unvarnished view."

I have no way of knowing whether Mr. Powell ever read or received the letter. I suspect it never made it past the flak catchers. Regardless, I was delighted to see that Sunday last, on CBS News' Face the Nation, Mr. Powell delivered the goods. Some quotes from the show (transcript here):

"I agree with the assessment of Mr. Baker and Mr. Hamilton. It's grave and deteriorating. And as Secretary-designate of Defense Bob Gates said at his confirmation hearing, we're not winning. So if it's grave and deteriorating, and we're not winning, we are losing."

"I see a situation where the government is having difficulty extending control...and nothing seems to be improving. It seemed to me that this looks like a civil war, and we ought to call it that."

"I am not persuaded that another surge of troops into Baghdad for the purpose of suppressing this communitarian violence, this civil war, will work... There needs to be a clear mission that these additional troops are going to be performing."

"...I think you have to talk to a country like Syria. It's a little--not--it's a little discordant to see that we're not talking to them, but the Iraqis have just opened their embassies in Damascus and Tehran."

"Iran is a little difficult... they're difficult to deal with, and they're acting very, very badly. But at the same time, I think that low-level conversations of the kind we had earlier might give us some channels of communication..."

"I'm suggesting that what General Schoomaker said the other day, before a committee looking at the Reserve and National Guard, that the active Army is about broken. General Schoomaker is absolutely right, and all of my contacts within the Army suggest that the Army has a serious problem in the active force, and it's a problem that will spread into the Guard and Reserves: Backlog of equipment that is not being repaired, soldiers--especially officers and noncommissioned officers--going on repetitive tours."

"The current active Army is not large enough, and the Marine Corps is not large enough, for the kinds of missions they're being asked to perform. And we need to let both the Army and the Marine Corps grow in size, in my military judgment."

"... we are a little less safe in the sense that we don't have the same force structure available for other problems. I think we have been somewhat constrained in our ability to influence events elsewhere."

"But sooner or later, you have to begin the baton pass. Passing it off to the Iraqis for their security and begin the drawdown of US forces. I think that's got to happen sometime before the middle of next year, at least the beginning of this. You cannot--we cannot walk away."

Predictably, Powell takes shots from both wings of the political bird, and stimulated comment across the political spectrum. From the right, Cassandra at Villainous Company posts "Why Colin Powell is impractical" saying this is "just more of Powell's woolgathering disguised as stunning feats of insight". From the left, David Mark at Jabbs is equally dismissive in his post "Good Soldier Powell" claiming "it's same old, same old." And from the unrepentant center, Joe Gandelman at The Moderate Voice, notes that the "Isolation Of Bush Administration Over Iraq Apparently Widens".

McQ at the QandO Blog takes a reasoned approach, linking Powell's comments to the the IPB (Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield), a prerequisite to defining any military mission, in his post "Why Colin Powell is concerned":

"Unless we give them the "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" mission, this may be mission impossible, militarily speaking. And given that, you have to then question the utility of more troops. That's precisely where Colin Powell is coming from. So when I see Powell talking like this, I'm not at all put off by it, nor do I hear "defeatist talk". I hear a commander who, during his entire time in the service, demanded answers to those very questions and ensured that they were answered satisfactorily before he ever approved an operation. In fact step 2 in the Powell Doctrine asks "do we have a clear attainable objective?" That is the same question as that found in his quote. At this point, unless I've missed it, the answer is no."

Exactly.

In the mainstream media, the Washington Post's Eugene Robinson used Powell's comments as a platform to also decry the lack of clarity on the mission in Iraq in his column "A Surge in Wasted Sacrifice":

"Here's an idea: Let's send more U.S. troops to Iraq. The generals say it's way too late to even think about resurrecting Colin Powell's "overwhelming force" doctrine, so let's send over a modest "surge" in troop strength that has almost no chance of making any difference -- except in the casualty count. Oh, and let's not give these soldiers and Marines any sort of well-defined mission. Let's just send them out into the bloody chaos of Baghdad and the deadly badlands of Anbar province with orders not to come back until they "get the job done."

Powell's unique perspective has moved the debate in a positive direction. As I said in the 9/25 letter:

"You were in Vietnam. You shaped our victory in Desert Storm. You participated in and argued for the decision to occupy Iraq in 2003. Your experience with the military, with this administration, with the field of conflict in Iraq, with both failed and successful US wars, makes you uniquely qualified to help the American people find the right path by shedding some light on the problem."

The reaction to Powell's statement show why we need to continue to hear his clear, strong perspective. Doubtless, my letter was never read. Powell's likely motivation to speak out now is to serve as a public proxy for his friends and colleagues in active service that are legally constrained from publicly airing their concerns. Whatever the motivation, his reappearance on the national stage is reason for me to say once again:

Thank you Mr. Powell. You are at least two years later than I would have liked, but still in time to make a difference.

Divided and Balanced.™ Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: divided government, Colin Powell, libertarian, , Vietnam, ,Robert McNamara, Iraq, surge, Bush, Powell Doctrine.

Bartender! - Another Rum & Mac. Make it a double.

We are back at the Repeating History Bar, and the drink of the day is once again the Rum & Mac on the rocks.

I am updating and reposting this, as it is even more relevant now than when I originally (and incorrectly) stated on Labor day that Rumsfeld's resignation/firing was imminent. The point of this post was that Rumsfeld has presided over such breathtaking incompetence in the prosecution of the Iraq occupation, that the Republicans could not maintain a majority in Congress if he retained his post. Now, here we are, two months later, Rumsfeld is still in his post, and the Republicans are days away from losing at least one house of Congress. I was wrong about the resignation timing, but right about the consequences.

On a compaign swing this week, President Bush stated that "he wanted Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, the top architect of the war... to remain with him until the end of his presidency". With that statement, George W. Bush pounded the last nail in the coffin of three Republican Senate candidates who have called for Rumsfeld to go: Mike Dewine of Ohio, Tom Kean in NJ, Cynthia Theilen in Hawaii.

His statement reinforces the key point of this post. George W. Bush practices a private sector hands-off management style that (when implemented correctly) demands accountability from and replacement of direct reports that fail to meet agreed objectives. Problem being, despite his frequent empty rhetoric about accountability, this President has not held Donald Rumsfeld accountable for his failure in Iraq. This simply passes all understanding, and is another reason why it is important that a divided government/Democratic congress be elected on Tuesday.

On Monday, November 6, an editorial will appear in the "must read" newspapers of our military - the Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times. It begins with this quote ...

"So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion ... it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth." - Marguerite Higgins

... and ends with this admonition:

"Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt. This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth: Donald Rumsfeld must go."

What more need be said? We need a Congress that will accept the responsibility that the executive branch has abandoned, and impose the oversight and accountability on Rumsfeld and the execution of this war that the executive branch has failed to implement.

The original Labor Day post:

Robert McNamara (Secretary of Defense '61-'68) from "The Fog of War":

"I had this enormous respect and affection, loyalty, to both Kennedy and Johnson. But at the end, Johnson and I found ourselves poles apart... And I said to a very close and dear friend of mine, Kay Graham, the former publisher of the Washington Post:"Even to this day, Kay, I don't know whether I quit or was fired?" She said, "You're out of your mind. Of course you were fired." ... Something had to give. There was a rumor that I was facing a mental breakdown. I was under such pressure and stress. I don't think that was the case at all. But it was a really traumatic departure. That's the way it ended. Except for one thing: he awarded me the Medal of Freedom in a very beautiful ceremony at the White House."

Let's see, a President caught between the "rock" of growing unpopularity of a costly war, and the "hard place" of affection and loyalty for the Secretary of Defense / architect of that war, and completely convinced of the correctness of his own administration's actions in that war.

I have seen this movie before, and I remember how it ends.

Rumsfeld is history. It is only a question of time and timing. Rumsfeld resigns as soon as a replacement is identified and agreed. Is it politic to wait until after the mid-terms, or to act now? My guess - He resigns within the week and (since we are already out on a limb, might as well climb out on the small branches) John McCain is the new Secretary of Defense.

The Democrats are ramping up for a Rumsfeld Rip-Fest. A non-binding resolution declaring "No-Confidence" in the Secretary of Defense will be offered by Democrats in Congress on Wednesday. The outrage is being rehearsed and the purple prose is being prepared as we speak. Democrats are salivating to take their pound of Rummy flesh while demonstrating their oratorial skills on you-tube, c-span, and the nightly news (in that order).

Rove and the Republicans know exactly what is coming, and no one has ever accused them of being politically naive. What better way to take the air out of the expanding Democratic political balloon than by announcing Rumsfeld's resignation before the speechifying starts? What better way to respond to all those speeches, than to keep them on the shelf? Paradoxically, the shit-storm around Rumsfeld's recent comments has handed the administration a perfect face saving opportunity to strike a potentially game changing blow in the 2006 political season. Rumsfeld can play the misunderstood, misquoted, patriotic, loyal soldier, taking a bullet for the team, while the media takes the blame. Here is his speech: - "Even though my words have been misreported and misrepresented, I cannot allow my words and my presence to become a distraction, and a detriment to the important work facing the President and the American people in this war against terror." The President expresses his regrets, and appoints a universally respected unassailable warrior in his place. In a couple of weeks, Rumsfeld gets his medal, and we move on.

Will it happen? Just ask yourself - Can the Republicans maintain the majority with two months of continuous Rumsfeld/Iraq War bashing between now and the election? On the other hand, can they possibly pull it out with a "fresh start" and a new voice calling for a new direction on war?

Done Deal.Rum & Mac on the cover of Time magazine.
Coincidently each cover appeared two years before their respective resignations.

Politics are the wrong reason for this move , but it is still the right move for our country. We really need a change. We need new thinking from our leadership on this war and we need it right now. Take this example from Rumsfeld's speech: "The extremists themselves call Iraq the “epicenter” in the War on Terror." This just begs the question (and I mean fully prostrate plaintive begging) of exactly Why did the extremists not think that way, before we occupied the country? But lest I be accused of "moral and intellectual confusion", let us just call this one more instance in the continuing series of what Rumsfeld and other adminstration officials now seem perfectly comfortable saying - to whit: "mistakes were made" in the prosecution of the war.

So let's get to the right reason for getting rid of Rumsfeld. It is understandable in the "fog of war" that "mistakes are made". The American people can accept that. But when the stakes are thousands of American soldiers lives, tens of thousands of civilian Iraqi lives, hundred of billions of dollars, and staring into the abyss of a failed policy, it is not acceptable for there to be no consquences when "mistakes are made". We are not talking about small mistakes or a minor misjudgement here:

"... civilian officials in the Pentagon were so convinced that these "follow-on forces" wouldn't be needed in Iraq that they thought they could withdraw 50,000 troops from Iraq in June 2003; 50,000 more in July; and a final 50,000 in August. By September 2003, Rumsfeld and his aides thought, there would be very few American troops left in Iraq."

This is a breathtakingly large mistake. This is not, as Rumsfeld said in his Tuesday speech simply a matter of "As the nature of the threat and the conflict in Iraq has changed over these past several years, so have the tactics and the deployments. " This was a big-time, world class screw-up, and someone has to be accountable and take the fall.

Bush and Cheney are elected, so barring impeachment, that only leaves the Donald. The change can be justified purely on the failure of tactics/strategy which I do not need to further belabor here. Anton Kaiser, retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel and Vietnam vet, does a much better job than I can explaining "Why Rumsfeld Should Be Fired For not learning the lessons of previous conflicts."

There is another reason, and it has to do with the President's management style. His leadership has been likened to a private sector CEO . This quote summarizes his style as well as any "Bush's 10 common-sense leadership lessons: Hire smart, build trust, talk straight, and leave aides alone..."

This is a classic private sector management style. If you get the right team in place, it is highly effective. I can speak from personal experience, having managed large and small teams most of my professional career. My greatest success in business was using this style when I had a great team working for me. They made me look like a genius and left plenty of time for golf and pontificating on how to win in business.

The problem centers on the word "accountability", a word that GWB uses frequently, but does not seeem to apply to his direct reports. With that management style, "say what you'll do, do what you say" is the mantra. It is incumbent to have clear agreed objectives, and if the objectives are not met, immediate replacement is expected. If you, as the leader, are not going to get deep in the details yourself, then your only tool for managing performance is changing personnel when agreed objectives are not met. If you do not, then you have abrogated your leadership responsibility.

I am not going to go into details of "coulda, shoulda, woulda" in Iraq. That particular dead horse is being continually beaten every day throughout the blogosphere. George Will explains why "Regarding Iraq, there will not soon be an Eisenhower moment. " (i.e. just stop the war - as in Korea). My point is simple. Regardless of the specifics of how we got here, regardless of how long we need to stay, it is absolutely clear, that we are not now where we expected to be in Iraq, and the same guys that did the planning and then executed the plan that got us here are still in charge.

Accountability demands that Bush replace Rumsfeld. Sometimes change for the sake of change is the right answer. Bush put Rumsfeld in the pilot seat of a plane that took off from New York and was flying to Paris, but instead, landed in San Francisco. The fact that he is still flying the plane, is a reflection of a boss that does not understand the meaning of the word accountibility.

Since the President does not understand this principle of accountability, it must be applied another way:

Divided and Balanced.™ Now that is fair.

Just Vote Divided.

Technorati tags: divided government, Iraq, McNamara, 2006 election,democrat,republican,Rumsfeld, Vietnam, Bush, military.