November 09, 2006
Improved my morning...
You gotta read this. Blogger Chris Lynch invents an interview with Secretary Rumsfeld. But I HOPE people in the White House are laughing and saying, "Heh heh. Truer than he dreams..."
...ALR: But Mr. Secretary are you saying your tenure as Secretary of Defense was ended simply to control news cycles?
Rummy: Goodness no. When all is said and done I will be the longest serving Secretary of Defense in history. All Secretaries of Defense step down. This just happened to be the right time for me and if the President was able to time the announcement to take the wind out the sails of some blowhards well then that's just gravy. The important thing to me is that our brave men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are honored and protected and I think this resignation helps with those ends.
ALR: Again Mr. Secretary I apologize but I don't follow your reasoning.
Rummy: Well Chris you understand the process involved here correct? It will be a few months before Bob Gates even gets his confirmation hearing. The administration will be able to use the confirmation hearings and my farewell tour to reinforce the case of what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
ALR: Mr. Secretary can you elaborate on that a little more?
Rummy: Sure Chris. You see between now and the confirmation hearings I will be going back to Iraq on several occasions. The media normally just covers bad news from Iraq but this time they will have no choice. They will have to get soldiers reaction to my resignation and how they feel about their mission in Iraq. A great percentage of the soldiers really believe in their mission and the American people will see that. Oh and the confirmation hearings are a trap for the Democrats. You'd think they would have learned from the Justice Roberts hearings but I guess not.
ALR: Can you share with us what you foresee happening at the confirmation hearings?
Rummy: Oh its going to be great theater. The back seat drivers will finally have to go on record for what they think is the best course instead of always complaining that we just missed a turn....
Leftists don't really care about Rumsfeld himself, though I'm sure his candor and confidence and wit are a huge irritation. But mostly he, and our campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, are symbols of the idea that there are things worth fighting and even dying for. That there are things bigger than their bulbous egos. To the nihilist, the thought of young men and women volunteering to go in harm's way because they believe in service and duty is just insanity, and a very disturbing and irritating sort of insanity.
My own suspicion is that it's disturbing to them because serving is what we were made to do, and little voices inside us whisper that this is so. And I'd say that serving one's country in a post of danger is analogous to serving God [Ed: sounds like you are saying that...No, I am not!] and serving God is what we are really long for. What did Satan say? Non Serviam, I think it was. I will not serve! Our letter-day mini-Satans hate America's military for just that reason. Watch them when they say those bullshitting things about "supporting the troops." They never say or imply that serving our country is in itself noble or admirable. ..
Posted by John Weidner at November 9, 2006 11:43 AMNo... mostly I hate rummy because he is a symbol of how to lose a war. Seriously, don't put words in my mouth, don't argue against a strawliberal, just trust me on this: had Rummy done a good job Liberals wouldn't be so damned furious with him. Had we been winning in Iraq and Afghanistan*, Democrats wouldn't have won on Tuesday.
*you know the Taliban is back, right?
Posted by: Andrew Cory at November 9, 2006 01:43 PMI agree with Victor Davis Hanson on this one:
Here is the record of Donald Rumsfeld. (1) Tried to take a top-heavy Pentagon and prepare it for the wars of the postmodern world, in which on a minute’s notice thousands of American soldiers, with air and sea support, would have to be sent to some god-awful place to fight some savagery—and then be trashed live on CNN for doing it; (2) less than a month after 9/11 he organized the retaliation against al Qaeda in the heart of primordial Afghanistan that removed the Taliban in 7 weeks, when we were all warned that the U.S., like the British and Russians of old, would fail; (3) oversaw the removal of Saddam in 3 weeks—after the 1991 Gulf War and the 12-years of 350,000 sorties in the no-fly-zones, and various bombing strikes, had failed. (4) Ah, you say, then there is the disastrous 3-year insurgency—too few troops, Iraqi army let go, underestimated “dead-enders” etc.?
But Rumsfeld knew that in a counterinsurgency (cf. Vietnam 1965-71) massive deployments only ensure complacency, breed dependency, and create resentment, and that, in contrast, training indigenous forces, ensuring political autonomy, and providing air and commando support (e.g., Vietnam circa 1972-4) is the only answer—although that is a long process that can work only if political support at home allows the military to finish the job (cf. the turn-of-the-century Philippines, and the British in Malaysia). He was a good man, and we were lucky to have him in our hour of need.
Posted by: Ethan Hahn at November 9, 2006 02:32 PMSorry Andrew, but I'm not buying it. You maybe, you probably would be glad to see American victories.
But Strawliberal would not. (And there's nothing wrong with painting imaginary composite liberals, or conservatives, or what-have-you. It's a useful form of discourse.) He'd lack the excuse for outrage, and so would vent about something else, but his dislike of the military would be the same. And he would not be thrilled by an American victory, though he might be forced in the event to clench his teeth and say that "Perhaps it was a good thing, BUT..."
Pelosi was heard yesterday saying, "The point is this isn't a war to win. It's a situation to be solved."
(And I don't agree that the War on Terror has been mishandled, or is being lost. If your enemy keeps flinging his troops into a certain battle, it's probably not a sign that you're doing someting wrong, but that you are holding a position he can't afford to lose. Also guerilla warfare is about running away to fight again another day. The return of the Taliban is only to be expected, since they are never going to stand up and fight long enough to be destroyed.)
Posted by: John Weidner at November 9, 2006 03:14 PM
