Full Version: The Rumsfeld Memo
I can't believe no one has started this thread yet, so I will:
An internal Pentagon memo was leaked yesterday:
Rumsfeld Questions Terror War Progress
Rumsfeld is upset that this was leaked...
Official: Rumsfeld 'Livid' Over Memo Leak
Do you think this memo is really one of doublespeak, where officials are publicly optimistic, but privately worried? Or does it show that Rumsfeld is focusing on making sure the DoD is doing the necessary things to change and adapt so that we can win the global war on terror?
An internal Pentagon memo was leaked yesterday:
Rumsfeld Questions Terror War Progress
QUOTE
In sharp contrast with the Bush administration's upbeat progress reports, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is questioning whether the United States has failed to take "truly bold moves" in Iraq and Afghanistan and asking the Pentagon to rethink its strategy.
In an internal memo, Rumsfeld said the U.S.-led coalitions would win in Afghanistan and Iraq, but so far have had mixed results. He wrote that the United States "has made reasonable progress in capturing or killing the top 55 Iraqis" but has made "somewhat slower progress" tracking down top Taliban leaders who sheltered al-Qaida in Afghanistan.
In an internal memo, Rumsfeld said the U.S.-led coalitions would win in Afghanistan and Iraq, but so far have had mixed results. He wrote that the United States "has made reasonable progress in capturing or killing the top 55 Iraqis" but has made "somewhat slower progress" tracking down top Taliban leaders who sheltered al-Qaida in Afghanistan.
Rumsfeld is upset that this was leaked...
Official: Rumsfeld 'Livid' Over Memo Leak
QUOTE
"If I wanted it published, I would have written it as a press release, which I didn't," Rumsfeld said after a closed-door meeting with senators on Capitol Hill.
QUOTE
The memo raised eyebrows not because it appears to contradict the defense secretary's publicly optimistic statements about successes in the war on terror, but because it reveals some of Rumsfeld's concerns about whether the Defense Department has the capacity or will to fight the war.
"Is the U.S. winning or losing the global war on terrorism?" Rumsfeld asked his deputies in the first sentence of the memo.
"Is our current situation such that 'the harder we work, the behinder we get?' It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog," he later stated.
"Is the U.S. winning or losing the global war on terrorism?" Rumsfeld asked his deputies in the first sentence of the memo.
"Is our current situation such that 'the harder we work, the behinder we get?' It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog," he later stated.
Do you think this memo is really one of doublespeak, where officials are publicly optimistic, but privately worried? Or does it show that Rumsfeld is focusing on making sure the DoD is doing the necessary things to change and adapt so that we can win the global war on terror?
Given the recent cold air reported between Bush and Rumsfeld, I would imagine this is some sort of attempt to use perceived public opinion to pressure GW Bush into keeping 'Rummy' in office.
I don't know if Rumsfeld leaked this himself, but I wouldn't put it past him.
I don't know if Rumsfeld leaked this himself, but I wouldn't put it past him.
The President himself has stated repeatedly that the War on Terror would be a long-term affair. I don't see how this memo changes a thing. At least in the portions that were quoted, I don't see a contradiction in the memo and other public statements.
Much ado about nothing, IMHO.
Much ado about nothing, IMHO.
I think this is a media generated feeding frenzy. I so no new development except for a good chance to be a voyeur inside Rummyland. This is not the Pentagon Papers or evidence of a smoking gun in a scandal.
It encourages me to see people in the Bush administration at least attempting to critically analyze the progress of their efforts. I may be missing something, and I'm always ready to believe the worst about Rumsfeld, but I don't see a big deal here.
It encourages me to see people in the Bush administration at least attempting to critically analyze the progress of their efforts. I may be missing something, and I'm always ready to believe the worst about Rumsfeld, but I don't see a big deal here.
I agree. Much ado about nothing.
But it will probably be an entire chapter in Franken's next book.
But it will probably be an entire chapter in Franken's next book.
I was going to buy one of his books, but the only copy the bookstore had had already been colored in. 
Edit: Sorry Jaime!
Edit: Sorry Jaime!
Please stop with the one-liners, everyone. If you are not interested in debating the questions posed in a constructive manner, please refrain until you are.
DEBATE QUESTIONS:
Do you think this memo is really one of doublespeak, where officials are publicly optimistic, but privately worried?
Or does it show that Rumsfeld is focusing on making sure the DoD is doing the necessary things to change and adapt so that we can win the global war on terror?
DEBATE QUESTIONS:
Do you think this memo is really one of doublespeak, where officials are publicly optimistic, but privately worried?
Or does it show that Rumsfeld is focusing on making sure the DoD is doing the necessary things to change and adapt so that we can win the global war on terror?
I think it's both: doublespeak AND a challenge to the military to do more. And Rumsfeld is known for doing both as well.
The doublespeak side is worrisome, since the memo documents the same arguments that the Iraqi war opposition has been making about our being stuck in Iraq and that we haven't really rolled up the key leaders in Osama's gang (do they have gang colors?) after 2 years and billions of dollars. The memo will get much noise in the media because of politics, but it also contains a realistic assessment of what's going on, unlike the "Bush: We're Bad, Uh-huh!" speaking tour that's been front and center lately.
The doublespeak side is worrisome, since the memo documents the same arguments that the Iraqi war opposition has been making about our being stuck in Iraq and that we haven't really rolled up the key leaders in Osama's gang (do they have gang colors?) after 2 years and billions of dollars. The memo will get much noise in the media because of politics, but it also contains a realistic assessment of what's going on, unlike the "Bush: We're Bad, Uh-huh!" speaking tour that's been front and center lately.
Do you think this memo is really one of doublespeak, where officials are publicly optimistic, but privately worried? Or does it show that Rumsfeld is focusing on making sure the DoD is doing the necessary things to change and adapt so that we can win the global war on terror?
A copy of the full memo can be seen here.
It's possible it's a little of both, but I think that looking at the memo in total, and not out of context, it's more of the latter than the former.
I notice that this is sent to all of his advisors as things to think about in the coming days before their next staff meeting. He is asking them to think critically, and creatively about the future of this "war on terror" and it's effect on the DoD in terms of staffing, materiel, and methods in the years to come, not days or weeks. Smart thinking, actually.
A copy of the full memo can be seen here.
It's possible it's a little of both, but I think that looking at the memo in total, and not out of context, it's more of the latter than the former.
I notice that this is sent to all of his advisors as things to think about in the coming days before their next staff meeting. He is asking them to think critically, and creatively about the future of this "war on terror" and it's effect on the DoD in terms of staffing, materiel, and methods in the years to come, not days or weeks. Smart thinking, actually.
I have a number of points to make about Iraq:
1. Our effort to destroy Saddam was correct. He should have been gotten rid of in the first Gulf War. He is the kind of leader in that area that we cannot tolerate.
2. Bush is correct when he says that his administration is responding to the great issues of our day. Republican or Democrat, he deserves our support in this war.
3. Regarding Iraq: I do not think we should increase our numbers. I do not think we should worry so much about destroying the opposition. I don't think we can. What we should do is hold on to that country. Deploy troops when and where they can deal the enemy a blow. Otherwise, keep the number of targets available to the enemy to take a shot at to a minimum. Sending more will just create more targets. The final destruction of the militants in Iraq must be done by Iraqi leaders, themselves.
4. I do not, however, think we should sit down with the Baathists or the people that sustained Saddam. Some people think that would be a smart move. I think it would eventually blow up in our face.
Lets follow the policy we started. But militarily, lets protect our boys and dominate the country even if we cannot totally control it.
5. Lets get the Turks in there and other Islamic states. They will know how to deal with militants.
1. Our effort to destroy Saddam was correct. He should have been gotten rid of in the first Gulf War. He is the kind of leader in that area that we cannot tolerate.
2. Bush is correct when he says that his administration is responding to the great issues of our day. Republican or Democrat, he deserves our support in this war.
3. Regarding Iraq: I do not think we should increase our numbers. I do not think we should worry so much about destroying the opposition. I don't think we can. What we should do is hold on to that country. Deploy troops when and where they can deal the enemy a blow. Otherwise, keep the number of targets available to the enemy to take a shot at to a minimum. Sending more will just create more targets. The final destruction of the militants in Iraq must be done by Iraqi leaders, themselves.
4. I do not, however, think we should sit down with the Baathists or the people that sustained Saddam. Some people think that would be a smart move. I think it would eventually blow up in our face.
Lets follow the policy we started. But militarily, lets protect our boys and dominate the country even if we cannot totally control it.
5. Lets get the Turks in there and other Islamic states. They will know how to deal with militants.
hutinani - please try and address the question posed for debate in this thread.
DEBATE QUESTIONS:
Do you think this memo is really one of doublespeak, where officials are publicly optimistic, but privately worried?
Or does it show that Rumsfeld is focusing on making sure the DoD is doing the necessary things to change and adapt so that we can win the global war on terror?
DEBATE QUESTIONS:
Do you think this memo is really one of doublespeak, where officials are publicly optimistic, but privately worried?
Or does it show that Rumsfeld is focusing on making sure the DoD is doing the necessary things to change and adapt so that we can win the global war on terror?
Well, it sounds to me like this was somewhat intentional. I personally don't think that Rumsfeld is the type of person who would have something leak to the press by accident. Also, look at how he responded immediately. Pretty much he spat out right away, "Did I do this on purpose? Of course not! Why would I do that?"
And even if it wasn't intentional: What's the big deal? I don't think that's any crucial information. Most of the public already knew we didn't catch that many of Al Qaeda's people. There've been reports about things like that for quite some time as I recall, so it's nothing crucial.
And even if it wasn't intentional: What's the big deal? I don't think that's any crucial information. Most of the public already knew we didn't catch that many of Al Qaeda's people. There've been reports about things like that for quite some time as I recall, so it's nothing crucial.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.