Monday, September 08, 2003
Donald Rumsfeld is absolutely right
In this article in the New York Times, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld strikes out against critics of the war in Iraq:
"To the extent that terrorists are given reason to believe [Bush] might [back down], or, if he is not going to, that the opponents might prevail in some way, and they take heart in that, and that leads to more money going into these activities, or that leads to more recruits, or that leads to more encouragement, or that leads to more staying power, obviously that does make our task more difficult."
He uses the example of Somalia, where a relatively small number of casualties led us to withdraw our troops. Admittedly, this may have represented some wimpiness on our part, but I'm not sure the comparison is very apt. First, Somalia admittedly represented no vital national interests of the US aside from humanitarian concern (at least as far as I understand; correct me if I'm wrong here). Second, given our continued engagement in Kosovo, years after the fact, it doesn't seem to be uniformly the case that we will automatically withdraw -- it would seem to depend partly on the public's mood (which was clearly soured by the "Black Hawk Down" incident) and on the degree to which our national interests are at stake. The Iraq war was presented as a war of national interest, and no matter whether that was true in the beginning, it is clearly true now. To abandon Iraq in its present state, especially after the ruin to which our sanctions subjected the Iraqi people, would be both cowardly and immoral. We're just plain stuck, and I don't think that any Democratic candidate is seriously considering an absolute, immediately withdrawal (again, correct me if I'm wrong). In any case, if a Democrat did advocate that, it would take a massive, almost miraculous change in public opinion for that Democrat to win.
So assuming, as Rumsfeld appears to do, that Osama bin Laden and his advisors are subscribers to Harper's, The Nation, and Dissent, it seems like a bit of a stretch to think that the terrorists are waiting for a member of the party that voted overwhelmingly in favor of the Iraq war to win the presidency. Now that we're actually on the ground in Iraq, this isn't a partisan issue; again, we're stuck, and if anything, the Democrats have shown themselves to be very adept at handling the messes that Republicans hand them (for instance, the deficits inherited from the Reagan years that were finally eliminated under Clinton). Insisting on making this at all a partisan issue is both misleading and petty, but that is exactly what Rumsfeld does:
He had not previously suggested that the administration's critics might unwittingly be aiding the terrorist cause. He made that point in response to a question about criticism from Democratic presidential candidates and others, which Mr. Rumsfeld described as the "hits" that the administration was taking over issues related to costs and casualties, and whether the United States had enough troops in Iraq.
Although undoubtedly there is some personal animus against the president among some of his opponents, that is not uniformly the case, and dismissing all criticism as malicious is counterproductive. Presumably, Rumsfeld recognizes this:
"There should be a debate and discussion on these things," he said. "We can live with that. We can live with a healthy debate as long as it is as elevated as possible, and as civil as possible."
What, though, is "uncivil" about suggesting that we find ways to reduce casualties or send more troops? More to the point, how could the proposal that we send more troops possibly represent a failure of will on the part of opponents? Except for some fringe critics (so fringe that I cannot even cite one right now), it certainly appears that everyone is now concerned with how to do the job right in Iraq, and it seems like the normal, human response to constructive criticism, after the initial defensiveness, might be to take seriously the arguments of other concerned parties -- like the Democrats and our European allies. The Democratic party and the UN both have a strong interest in the continued prestige and strength of the United States, and even if they turn out to be wrong in the specifics, excluding, via an a priori assumption, the possibility of their acting as good-faith partners in an important debate is simply stupid.
This preemptive dismissal of ideas not originating in their circle is one of the most unappealling aspects of the Bush administration, and it is certainly unbecoming of world leaders to behave in such a manner. I recognize the necessity of saving face for everyone involved, and I understand that it's not entirely fair to expect the administration to hold a press conference repenting of their every mistake when they decide it's time to change course. Still, some humility would be a welcome change. From Rumsfeld's tone, one gets the impression that the administration is being gracious in even allowing potentially disruptive criticism of their position, when in fact it is the duty of all political leaders to point out potential mistakes and problems when they see them. No one party or administration has all the answers, and to pretend that this administration does is to cast aside one of the primary benefits of a pluralistic, democratic society.
One might even claim that such behavior is un-American, but since I've made such an effort to be non-snarky in this post, I'll resist that temptation.