The Case for Rumsfeld

No doubt Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has an aggressive manner. No doubt he has made plenty of mistakes. No doubt he has humiliated dozens of generals. But resign?

We can understand why the MSM is parading the opponents of Secretary Rumsfeld through the chat shows. They will do anything to damage the Bush administration. It is not even
conscious; it is instinctive.

We can understand the frustrations of the generals. If only Rumsfeld had followed their advice. A Wall Street Journal editorial appreciates the many grounds that Generals Swannick, Zinni, and Batiste might have for wishing that they had been led by someone else.

But we the American people have different priorities. We want someone to think the deep thoughts about America’s grand strategy. We want someone to keep on the job in Iraq and deal with the larger geo-strategic issues arising out of global Islamism. And we also also want someone to transform the armed forces of the United States to deal with the challenges of the twenty-first century.

It’s fine to criticize the president and the secretary of defense. But, as perennial hawk Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. writes:

It bears mentioning that few, if any, of those demanding Mr. Rumsfeld's removal offer an alternative.

In particular, it bears mentioning that nobody has proposed an alternative strategy. Even Candidate John Kerry in 2004 merely proposed to the voters that he would execute the president’s strategy in Iraq better than the president.

Since nobody is proposing a radical change in US strategy, what’s the point of changing horses? Rumsfeld will be gone in a couple of years anyway. And then the new president and the new secretary of defense can change anything they want.