The war against Rumsfeld (National Review editor defends him)

[Barrett808]

The war against Rumsfeld
By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Rich Lowry
Wednesday, January 12, 2005

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has managed both to be targeted by the Bush administration's usual Democrat critics and to lose the support of some Republican senators and conservative pundits. They contend that the Iraq war has been prosecuted incompetently, with Rumsfeld bearing the major responsibility.

The attacks depend upon a fiction -- that a perfectly run, low-casualty war is always possible, as long as we have proper military leadership. But waging war is unavoidably difficult, unpredictable and deadly. To think otherwise is certain to weaken public support for the use of force and therefore only undermines our ability to apply it when necessary.

The criticisms of Rumsfeld feed the fiction. They are wrong, not historical, and militarily ignorant.

...

The criticism that Rumsfeld sent troops to war without equipping them appropriately also is bogus. Humvees, the focus of much of this debate, weren't designed as front-line combat vehicles. They were built for light transport and became inadequate in Iraq only when insurgents began to rely heavily on roadside bombs. The Pentagon adjusted with speed.

Finally, there's the silliest anti-Rumsfeld argument -- that he is so obsessed with transforming the U.S. military into a futuristic force that he is skimping on today's war-fighting needs. This is rich coming from the same critics who hate it that the secretary famously said we had to fight the war in Iraq with the force we had at the time, not the force we might want.

(more)

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/s_292154.html

[Zenlitened]

1. Same meme, different subject

Criticize someone for being stupid and dangerous, and they'll immediately play the "victim" card.

Yup. Rumsfeld is being "persecuted." That must be it.

I mean, what's the alternative? Actually taking responsibility for one's own actions? Acknowledging the shortcomings of one's own party or side?

Why, that's crazy-talk!

;)

[bemildred]

2. This is a straw man argument, all the way.

The argument is that Dumbsfeldt is an incompetent asshole, not that
he ought to have been perfect. He has consistently ignored competent
military advice and reaped the predicted failures to ahieve tactical
and strategic results.