Rumsfeld vs. Rice on Iraq

We’re going to win in Iraq, says President Bush. But what does that mean?

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Rice have been contesting just that question, writes Rich Lowry.

[There] was a constant tension between Rice and Rumsfeld. She wanted to do more; he wanted to do less.

That is what comes out in Bob Woodward’s new book State of Denial.

According to Woodward, "Rumsfeld said strongly and repeatedly, the Iraqis need to be given the chance to fail and fall on their faces, and only then would they pick themselves up, dust themselves off and come up with solutions."

But Rice wanted to build “a classic counterinsurgency operation,” clearing out the insurgents and presenting Iraq on a platter to the new government.

For my part, I go with Rumsfeld. Every government must earn the right to hold a monopoly of force within its borders. Usually that means it must fight and win a civil war, or at least fight some sort of war.

The United States government earned the right to govern its territory by force of arms against the British and then against the South. The British government is the direct descendant of the power plays after its civil war in the seventeenth century.

And then there were the wars of German unification. Prussia earned the right to head a unified Germany by beating in war first the Austrians and then the French.

Right now, the Iraqi government is clearly a puppet of the United States. It must earn the right, by force of arms, to rule the territory of Iraq.

If “We” win in Iraq, it means nothing. The government of Iraq must win. Until then, nothing has been won.