Secretary of Offense
In a press conference last week, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld illustrated why he should be fired for the bumbling manner in which he has handled the war in Iraq.
Speaking before reporters, Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman General Peter Pace were asked about whether US troops are responsible for preventing human rights abuses by Iraqi forces. General Pace answered: "It is absolutely the responsibility of every U.S. service member, if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to intervene to stop it." Before Pace could elaborate, Rumsfeld interrupted saying: "But I don't think you mean they have an obligation to physically stop it; it's to report it." Pace then replied: "If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it".
This is why the incidents at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere in Iraq were allowed to happen. Because guys like Rumsfeld didn’t clearly define what was and was not allowed, it lead to an atmosphere of anything goes mentality. I commend General Pace for standing up to his boss. He is a credit to the armed services. Sadly, I believe this incident will signal the end of his career in the DoD. We all know that not touting the administration line, or heaven forbid not agreeing with policy, is a big no-no in the Bush White House.
Later on in the press conference, Rumsfeld said he had an epiphany. Sadly it was not as to how best to conduct counterinsurgency operations. No, he thinks we shouldn’t call them “insurgents” anymore. He was referring to Zarqawi and his group. And indeed one wouldn’t really want to call these guys insurgents but then Ole Rummy goes on to make this statement.
Now the first part of his statement is rather vague. Is he refer to the terrorists or the insurgency as a whole? But then he makes it clear he is talking about those Iraqi’s that make of the bulk of the insurgency. I have news for the Secretary; the Iraqi’s do have a legitimate gripe. It’s called an occupation force of 160,000+ troops in their country. How would we feel if (in whatever alternate reality) the US were to be invaded and occupied? Would we lay down our arms and submit? Would we stop fighting simply because they say we aren’t a legitimate insurgency?
Many wonder how this man is still Secretary of Defense. Simple: Bush doesn't like admitting mistakes and to fire Rumsfeld right now would be a colossal embarrassment to the administration. Chances are they will wait for an opportune time (most likely during a period of relative calm) to announce Ole Rummy's retirement.
(Originally posted on Yahoo360)
Speaking before reporters, Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman General Peter Pace were asked about whether US troops are responsible for preventing human rights abuses by Iraqi forces. General Pace answered: "It is absolutely the responsibility of every U.S. service member, if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to intervene to stop it." Before Pace could elaborate, Rumsfeld interrupted saying: "But I don't think you mean they have an obligation to physically stop it; it's to report it." Pace then replied: "If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it".
This is why the incidents at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere in Iraq were allowed to happen. Because guys like Rumsfeld didn’t clearly define what was and was not allowed, it lead to an atmosphere of anything goes mentality. I commend General Pace for standing up to his boss. He is a credit to the armed services. Sadly, I believe this incident will signal the end of his career in the DoD. We all know that not touting the administration line, or heaven forbid not agreeing with policy, is a big no-no in the Bush White House.
Later on in the press conference, Rumsfeld said he had an epiphany. Sadly it was not as to how best to conduct counterinsurgency operations. No, he thinks we shouldn’t call them “insurgents” anymore. He was referring to Zarqawi and his group. And indeed one wouldn’t really want to call these guys insurgents but then Ole Rummy goes on to make this statement.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Yeah. I think that you can have a legitimate insurgency in a country that has popular support and has a cohesiveness and has a legitimate gripe. These people don't have a legitimate gripe. They've got a peaceful way to change that government through the constitution, through the elections.
Now the first part of his statement is rather vague. Is he refer to the terrorists or the insurgency as a whole? But then he makes it clear he is talking about those Iraqi’s that make of the bulk of the insurgency. I have news for the Secretary; the Iraqi’s do have a legitimate gripe. It’s called an occupation force of 160,000+ troops in their country. How would we feel if (in whatever alternate reality) the US were to be invaded and occupied? Would we lay down our arms and submit? Would we stop fighting simply because they say we aren’t a legitimate insurgency?
Many wonder how this man is still Secretary of Defense. Simple: Bush doesn't like admitting mistakes and to fire Rumsfeld right now would be a colossal embarrassment to the administration. Chances are they will wait for an opportune time (most likely during a period of relative calm) to announce Ole Rummy's retirement.
(Originally posted on Yahoo360)
Post a Comment