Rumsfeld is a start. After all, he allowed or sponsored the Iraq invasion strategy in his offices and in his budget. If the American people need to hold their elected officials accountable, however, Rumsfeld is a nonstarter.
Adopting the character of Secretary of Defense quite competently, Rumsfeld conveys the pit-bull in the most critical ways: he's dogmatic, obedient, and loyal to the last bone. A superficial look at Rumsfeld's career might reveal the extent of his devotion to his country through the Republican Party, but it his loyalty to the office of the President that completes Rumsfeld as the ideal choice to lead the nation's military through times of war.
There should be no doubt about Rumsfeld's ruthlessness. He has certainly made an omelet out of the Iraq war casualties, and he's made the decisions that can be used to paint any civilian military leader heartless; but ruth has no place in war. And any one of the many reasons why Rumsfeld is no Churchill makes this effort to dislodge him so off target.
A pit-bull's master, in the end, must be held more accountable for the dog's recklessness, and, lest society lose perspective, it is not the military action in Iraq that should be blamed for Iraq's current condition: the invasion of Iraq was a political decision clearly derived from tortious conduct – yes, in which Rumsfeld was a willing participant – and if ever the US constitution is to be considered a living document, it is in its defense by American citizens, from retired Generals to retired elementary school teachers, equal in their rights as a nation of free people, holding elected politicians accountable for their actions. Lest I failed to mention, Rumsfeld was not elected.
Posted by Ghassan.
To reply to this post, click HERE.
Requires Microsoft Passport.
Tags: BotF | Rumsfeld