Rumsfeld's memo is good news for Americans.

Rumsfeld's memo which can be found here

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/executive/rumsfeld-memo.htm

is good news for Americans.

Now I think one fair response to the memo would be to combine a good deal of wryness with just a touch of bitter and ask,

'Can we now call Rumsfeld anti-patriotic for questioning the war on terrorism? Can we say he isn't supporting the president?'

But it is good news. It is a shame the WOT will be used by so many as a convenient political club.

But is nice to know even those who in public use it as a political club are in private asking probing questions about the very nature of the WOT. Yes, the very same questions they scorn others for asking. But still they are asking the questions.

I am loyal first and foremost to my progressive beliefs. Islamism is anti-ethical to those beliefs. Thus I am first and foremost pleased by Rumsfeld’s memo and secondarily annoyed by the hypocrisy.

BMA

"Islamism" being "Anti-ethical" to your "progressive beliefs?" That doesn't sound like it makes much sense to me.

Islamism. Reactionary. Not based on reason. Seeking a return to an idealized past. Against classical liberal values. Against modern liberal values.

Me. Progressive. I try and base my beliefs on reason. I seek a better future. I value classical liberal values. I value modern liberal values.

BMA

"With respect to the Ansar Al-Islam, we are just getting started."

the UN bombers, perhaps? Not Saddam loyalists, but an Anti-Saddam, Anti-Western faction within the "liberated" Kurdish population - and the ones with (loose) Al-Queda ties.

So we abandon the Kurds in the first Gulf War. Saddam kills kurds. We oust saddam, "liberate" the kurds, send in Turkey, then round up the Kurds & essentially pick up where Saddam left off? No wonder factions like this spring up. I'm not sympathising with these killers, but man, what a clusterfuck. Sorry you're just beginning to realize this, Rummy... could've been prevented by NOT STORMING INTO IRAQ.

I call myself a progressive as well, but I realize that different cultures in different parts of the world need to progress at our own pace. We can only lead by example. When we try to force our brand of ethos on them, it only leads to more misunderstanding, resentment, violence and clinging to hardline beliefs. Given the damage already done, we need to consider more seriously the possiblity of a Kurdish state. This could become our own little I/P for years to come.

'but I realize that different cultures in different parts of the world need to progress at our own pace.'

That sounds like you are channeling Edmund Burke.

Seriously, such conservative beliefs have their worth. In this case I just disagree. We are appealing to universal values. Values that naturally exist within a woman's spririt. That naturally flow through a man's viens. The Iraqi's want freedom. They want a liberal civil society and we are, in our stumbling way, creating the conditions that will allow them a good chanec of creating just such a society.

BMA

My point is that the Iraqis will create a government that reflective of their own values. How do you know they want a "liberal civil society"? - i'm not even sure what you mean by that. We should not assume what they want.

Islamic Law is pervasive in the culture, and it's influence will be part of their government - conciously or not - for good or for bad. I don't pretend to have a great understanding of Islam, but I know that - unlike our country that was founded on religious freedom - Iraq is Muslim. They may have fair elections and end up voting in a Shi'a Cleric. It's a likely scenario.

If we respect the people we're supposedly liberating, we must accept their religiously ingrained culture. We must deal with the ethnic divisions within it, instead of tossing out their religion completely & insisting on our brand of freedom & democracy.... or even worse, forcing the Bush brand of Christian values upon their culture.

I dunno if that's conservative or progressive. Labels are for Mayonaise.

But concepts are important. You really sound like a ghost of Burke arguing for the natural organic order.

The values I speak of are universal. They cut across cultures. They are the heart of liberalism.

As an aside, most of the Shia clergy speak of the need for a separation of church and state.

BMA

To me, the whole thing reeks of deliberate leaking. I think it's meant to put him in a favorable light--which is the effect it obviously had on you. But I see no questioning of basic premises in it. Is the US more or less secure after invading Iraq? Was it a mistake to get so far out of sync with allies who are essential to fighting terrorists? How did we get from having the entire world's sympathy and support after 9/11 to having even more people hate us than ever did before? Is THAT good or bad for our security? etc etc ad nauseam.

The question, "Should we be going even faster down the {wrong} path we're pursuing?" is not one that I, as a "progressive," think very highly of. The "leak" is meant to create an impression of Deep Thoughts among these guys. Even the most "critical" bit that keeps getting quoted is cotton candy: "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." That's been the party line for a while. There is NOTHING here that challenges the groupthink mentality that this administration has not just tolerated but made its absolute central operating principle.

This thing just looks like a more subtle part of the PR push to Think Positive On Iraq :loveya:

I find it odd how unskeptically you, as a "progressive," seem to have been taken in.

Does the memo make the Bush administration look good?

If so, how does it make the Bush administration look good?

If it makes the Bush administration look good because it shows that Rumsfeld is asking fundamental questions about the WOT doesn't that contradict your claim that nothing there challenges the groupthink mentality of the administration?

What you mean is Bush is evil. Conservatives are evil. Republicans are evil. Bad acts by these men are proof of their evil. Signs of good are clever ruses designed to hide their evil.

Politics as a fundamentalist secular religion.

If wasn't so scary, I would yawn.

Bush is badly mistaken about many things. Conservatives are badly mistaken about many things. Republicans are badly mistaken about many things. But for the most part I do not think their motives are bad or any more bad than any man’s motivations. They are just wrong.

I try very hard not to be selectively skeptical or selectively gullible. In this case without some evidence to the contrary I see no reason not to accept the memo at face value. It could very well be a massively cynical and deceptive propaganda ploy. But again without any evidence that it is, I will take it at face value.

On what, other than the presumption of guilt, the presumption that the administration is not mistaken but ill willed, do you base your belief that the memo is massively cynical and deceptive propaganda ploy?

Progressive. Reasoned. Beliefs.

BMA

I put it to you: where in the memo do you see anything challenging to the fundamental assumptions that have driven Rummy's Iraq policy thus far? I can think of lots of genuinely challenging questions, as in my previous post, but he doesn't come anywhere near any of them. Do I think he's evil? No. Do I think deliberate leaking happens? Um, every hear of Valerie Plame?

If it makes the Bush administration look good because it shows that Rumsfeld is asking fundamental questions about the WOT doesn't that contradict your claim that nothing there challenges the groupthink mentality of the administration?

"Asking fundamental questions" is precisely what it DOESN'T do, but it is being hyped as if it did. Hence my olfactory response. And the fact that it doesn't is the support for my claim re groupthink. Or perhaps you will show me where it does.

What you mean is Bush is evil.

Putting words in my mouth = projection, not "Progressive. Reasoned. Beliefs."

Bush Sr. just gave an award to Ted Kennedy.

CATO - usually siding with conservatives - has been bashing Bush Jr. &
the Iraq war (and other foreign policy)

The American Conservative has been bashing Bush Jr. & the Iraq war

There have been critical words from conservatives in mainstream media.

The old school sees the neocons as a ticking bomb.

Rummy is from Sr.'s set, not Jr.'s - I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this.

Examine it with suspiscion, but examine it.

...rather than what others are saying about it, and I see no evidence of fundamental questioning. I see what amounts to the question "Are we doing enough of what we're already doing, or do we need to do more?" The answer to which, of course, is quite predictable. I'm sure the people at the meeting were full of self-congratulation as to how wide-ranging their thinking was, but I see nothing in this memo that examines fundamental assumptions. "Iraq/Afghanistan will be a hard slog but we will win" is the party-line position, a fallback from the Abe Lincoln triumphalism, to be sure, but the neocons have been pointing to numerous speeches where Shrump said as much even before the war was well underway (hoping we'll ignore all those other statements by Wolfie and Cheney about how easy it was gonna be). The question of whether it's a hard slog that is WORTH the effort, that will ADD to our security rather than detract from it never arises.

Examine it with suspiscion, but examine it. That's precisely what I DID do, and the evidence I'm seeing is that many others are basing their opinions on what they think it says, rather than on what it in fact does say. On second and third examination, I think it is obvious that the main thrust is to lay the groundwork for Rummy's pet project of transforming the military. Nothing new about that. Here's him being "critical" of the War on Terra:

With respect to global terrorism, the record since Septermber 11th seems to be:

We are having mixed results with Al Qaida, although we have put considerable pressure on them — nonetheless, a great many remain at large.

USG has made reasonable progress in capturing or killing the top 55 Iraqis.

USG has made somewhat slower progress tracking down the Taliban — Omar, Hekmatyar, etc.

With respect to the Ansar Al-Islam, we are just getting started.

None of that is critical of basic assumptions--questions like, is the Iraq invasion on balance better for al quaeda or worse? I'd argue it's been a great big happy birthday cake of a boon to them. What these bullet points do is set up the need to rev up the effort to transform the military and hey, maybe invade a few more countries while we're at it. As Rummy puts it, "Are the changes we have and are making too modest and incremental? My impression is that we have not yet made truly bold moves..."

This sets the ground for doing more of what they're doing, not questioning it, with the added frisson of seeing "insider" stuff we're not "supposed" to see.

I'd be happy to view this "leak" as a major Blow Against Empire, but that's not what it is.

to have out there in an election year after all the $ spent and lives lost:

We are having mixed results with Al Qaida, although we have put considerable pressure on them — nonetheless, a great many remain at large.

They had it all - all three branches of government, and tons of money and bodies to throw around as they pleased, and we are still no safer than before. That is failure. Even if he has another motive, that is NOT an admission that is worth making, given Bush's poll numbers.

"We must redouble our efforts! The enemy is still at large! Those who stand in our way are to blame and they must be demolished!"

and are starting to pull away from the collective

the poll numbers don't support asking for more money and more sons and daughters NOW

this is a dangerous strategy - to admit failure and not have the means to do anything to make the new plan happen

assessments about how the WOT is progressing. You left out the parts that ask are we fighting this war the right way? Are are our current strategies designed to make us fall further and further behind the harder we work. That asks for non military solutions to terrorism.

Just becuase Iraq is not called into question, does not mean that questions regarding fundementally assumptions about the WOT are not being raised.

BMA

A lot of the memo just asks for an honest assessment of the WOT.

'The questions I posed to combatant commanders this week were: Are we winning or losing the Global War on Terror?'

'Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?'

That is the first step towards questioning some of the fundamental assumptions regarding a WOT. It is highly doubtful that people not willing to make such assessments would ever question basic assumptions. In general people who make such assessments are capable of questioning assumptions.

'Have we fashioned the right mix of rewards, amnesty, protection and confidence in the US?'

Does the US need to fashion a broad, integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists? The US is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists. The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' costs of millions.

Do we need a new organization?

How do we stop those who are financing the radical madrassa schools?

Is our current situation such that "the harder we work, the behinder we get"?'

'Should we create a private foundation to entice radical madradssas to a more moderate course?'

'What else should we be considering?'

Pretty fundamentally questions regarding how we are fighting the war. The question 'Is our current situation such that "the harder we work, the behinder we get"?' sounds like it could have been posed by any critic of the war's fundamental principles.

He deals directly with questions regarding confidence of others in the US. 'Have we fashioned the right mix of rewards, amnesty, protection and confidence in the US?'

These last bits -

'The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' costs of millions.

Do we need a new organization?

How do we stop those who are financing the radical madrassa schools?

Is our current situation such that "the harder we work, the behinder we get"?'

'Should we create a private foundation to entice radical madradssas to a more moderate course?'

'What else should we be considering?'

Wow. The entire focus is away from military operations as a solution to the problem. Everything is being called into question.

What you want? A self-flagellating memo saying we were wrong to invade Iraq?

It may not be ‘deep’ thought, but it sure is an honest request to think about and re-think the way we are fighting terrorism. I find that encouraging.

BMA

...that they have operated within all along. The sole exception is that bit you rightly emphasize: 'Is our current situation such that "the harder we work, the behinder we get"?' But it's an exception that proves the rule, and I sincerely doubt it got much more than a cursory examination in the actual discussion (if any) that took place.

What you want? A self-flagellating memo saying we were wrong to invade Iraq?

Well, yeah, more or less. There are some pretty big dots not being connected right in the memo itself:

we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror.

Really? In fact, there are some very significant reports out that are saying that Iraq is the biggest recruiting tool al quaeda could have ever dreamed of.

And of course the most glaring one: We are having mixed results with Al Qaida, although we have put considerable pressure on them — nonetheless, a great many remain at large.

Um, gee, do you suppose that sucking away resources, intelligence, focus from al qaeda in order to spend unlimited billions irrelevantly invading Iraq might have anything to do with that? Do you suppose any of the recent studies demonstrating just that will play any part in Rummy's analysis? I kinda doubt it, but I guess I'm less optimistic than some.

Yes, I DO want them to question whether it was smart to invade Iraq. They are, after all, charged with my security and well being and yours, and I think they are massively fucking it up because of their ideological preoccupation with Iraq. And the fact that even in what is supposedly a "secret," "insider" document, they come nowhere near such an analysis is apalling, if completely unsurprising.

To presuppose that such questioning is off the table is practically the definition of groupthink.

It is quite obvious that Rumsfeld is at a minimum asking for an honest assesment of the situation.

That alone is encouraging.

Again, just because it was not a self-flagellating memo saying we were wrong to invade Iraq, does not mean basic assumptions are not being questioned. I listed those assumptions. Regarding military efforts. Regarding confidence building. Regarding focusing in on political efforts.

Maybe more needs to be questioned. I am encouraged that much is being questioned.

The answer regarding the wisdom of invading Iraq will be years if not decades in the making. You already know the answer. Maybe Rumsfeld thinks he already knows it as well. It is too bad that neither of you will question your assumption.

In the mean time when I see either of you questioning other assumptions or honestly looking for answers to other questions I will be encouraged.

BMA

Repeated experience has shown that, when I think I'm being skeptical of these guys, I turn out not to have been nearly skeptical enough.

I take it you are aware of the endless litany of lies the particular people on Rummy's distribution list are responsible for in their mission to get us into a war in Iraq--a mission conceived well before 9/11, and even before Bush took power in 2000? I think we have LLLLLLOOOOOONNNNNGGGGG passed the point where a presumption of good faith (good Feith?) has any business in an analysis of the motives and methods of what insider John DiIulio so memorably called the "Mayberry Machievellis."

To extend that presumption is, at some stage, certainly reasonable. But how many times--and how hard--do you have to get smacked between the eyes before you start noticing the recurring nature of the phenomenon and adjust your expectations accordingly?

I note the distribution list for this supposedly hard-hitting, wide-ranging, skeptical memo: two pet generals plus Wolfie and Feith--the principal architects of the current policy. Groupthink consists of only listening to--and only inviting--opinions you know you already agree with. I see this memo as serving, not the Bush admin's ends per se, but Rummy's ends in particular. I think that's why the Flying Chimp is upset about it: Rummy playing his own game, "leaking" and making things look messy because he doesn't like Condi being put in charge--NOT because any real doubts or questions about the wisdom of current policy are in danger of being entertained or aired.

I am not incapable of keeping an open mind, but at some point you have to make some judgments about how things really are and what is really likely. At the very least, I commend to your attention, if you haven't already read it, Ron Susskind's http://www.ronsuskind.com/writing/esquire/esq_rove_0103.html ">Esquire piece on DiIulio and the inside machinations of this White House.

on empirical evidence.

I say this as someone who wishes you well. These biases shackle you and trivialize your arguments. They might be emotionally satisfying in the short term but are ultimately frustrating in the long term. Anyone who does not share your biases is unlikely to be convinced by your arguments.

You work harder and harder wallowing in more and more selective cynicism for less gain.

Originally you could not find any questions about the assumptions of the WOT in Rumsfeld's memo, it was just more of party line, yet Rumsfeld is putting forth this party line memo to make things messy. How does more unquestioning toeing of the party line make things messy? Now you are tacitly admitting that the memo does question the assumptions of the war but you are claiming that Rumsfeld is not genuine about questioning those assumptions. That it is just a cynical internal political ploy.

What tangled web you weave as you deceive only yourself.

Who do you expect to convince with this tap dance?

Fred Kaplan's straight forward critique in Slate, http://slate.msn.com/id/2090250/, is far more devastating than your convoluted wallow in selective cynicism.

I don't agree with all of your his but one of his main points is quite effective. Distilled that point is - WTF took you so long to ask these questions?

That is far more powerful than your increasingly convoluted inferences about the motives of Rumsfeld, which are by nature unknowable.

Give up the hate. Give up the bias. Then hit them right between the eyes. I think you will find that your punches are more accurate and powerful.

BMA

I mean, for shit's sake, the fucking article has a link to amazon to purchase "Losing bin Laden", which as you probably know is a conservative, blame-Clinton-because-its certainly-not-Bush's-fault bullshit book crammed with right wing talking points.

Now they are this:

Join CPAWS
Your donation will help protect and maintain Canadian wilderness.
cpaws.org

Literacy Cambodia
Help Educate Children. Learn More & Plan Your Trip of a Lifetime.
www.roomtoread.org