This just in from CNN:
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is stepping down, sources tell CNN.No doubt pressured by yesterday's dramatic swing in the balance of power, sources have told CNN that embattled Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, will resign. Fox News also confirmed the report but said Rumsfeld gave no prior indication or reason for his departure. The Fox article said Eric Ruff, the Pentagon press secretary, met with him today and was given no indication of his intentions.
Rumsfeld has been the target of many anti-war critics who attributed many of the perceived problems with the war in Iraq to his leadership. Boston.com referred to him as "one of the architects of the increasingly unpopular Iraq war."
MSNBC reported Robert Gates, former CIA director, will take Rumsfeld's place upon his departure.
Rumsfeld's image problems have been going on for some time now, and he has not been able to portray himself in the light desired by the veteran Republican. He was an easy target for Democrats and anti-war candidates. When the bullseye was painted on his head, everything from Abu Ghraib to his usage of a mechanical means to sign over 1,000 condolence letters to families of killed soldiers, contributed to his downfall.
President Bush had previously said Rumsfeld would serve out his term regardless of what happened on election day.
It may not have been completely his choice, but it was Rumsfeld's time to go.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Michael J. West
When the bullseye was painted on his head, everything from Abu Ghraib to his usage of a mechanical means to sign over 1,000 condolence letters to families of killed soldiers, contributed to his downfall.
Not to mention, of course, the frustration and disgust that many of his associates expressed with his leadership style.
2 - Jet in Columbus
and none too soon
3 - ss
Taking away Pelosi's favorite non-elected target before she can build up much of a head of steam.
If they would've reacted this quickly to the aftermath of Katrina, or the rising insurgency in Iraq, or even Foley, they might have stayed in power.
4 - Jet in Columbus
John, could I get permission from you to reprint this as an add-on to my article about Army Times calling for his resignation on my own blogsite?
I'll give you full writing credit and link it back here?
Jet
5 - Martin Lav
And yet Bush will get off scott free?
I say he resigns as well.
Impeach him!
6 - Deano
I'll admit to some mixed feelings regarding Rummy's departure. To an extent I think he forced the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs into revamping and restucturing their forces to develop a more mobile, more flexible military structure, one better suited to fighting the likely "brushfire" wars that are likely to dominate the next century. The changes developed have been radical, involved and in all probability, will have a significant long-term impact. Few would have happened without Rumsfeld's insistance.
Conversely, Rummy's refusal to allow reality to intrude into his worldview almost borders on criminal neglect. He deliberately ignored advice and evidence regarding the time and resources required to effectively secure Iraq, downplayed or sidelined the many, many questions being raised by his own generals, and was deliberately and provocatively obtuse when questioned or called up on his many "assumptions".
Accountability seems to be a highly flexible term to Rumsfeld.
7 - John Q. Public
Deano, you miss some crucial information when it comes to the changes that Rumsfeld made in the DoD.
A large part of those changes revolve around the hiring of private military contractors to take over much in the way of logistics and supplementing military personnel.
From refueling in-flight jets, to interrogators at Abu Grahib to getting a hot lunch to the troops.
Now, the main problem with this, as the General accouting Office is finding out more and more, is that these private military consultants are not neccessarily interested in getting the job done properly, but rather in increasing profits. whether that means advising course of action that will extend the conflict, or just not working too hard to resolve problems.
When the professional military judgments, strategies and tactics are being dictated not by the professional military force, but by outside contractors influencing policy with their own profits as a primary concern, you wind up with a SNAFU like Iraq.
8 - Martin Lav
Good comments Deano and John Q. couldn't argue with either.
As usual though....BushCo. is always too little too late. Although the military may be nimble and quick, policies and "strategeries" are not.
When Bush cleaned house after winning his second term he threw out the baby and saved the bath water.
9 - Deano
The logistical tail and the high costs of privatized suppliers is not the reason for the SNAFU in Iraq. The primary reason is that Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush were actively committed politically to NOT fielding a large force of troops doing "nation-building". That smacked of Clintonistic policies, a situation similar to Bosnia.
Bush etc. wanted a quick war, stabalize and turn over Iraq fast to a nominally "democratic' Iraqi government. They originally were talking a six-month deployment. Rumsfeld was committed to giving it to them - against the advice of several of his senior military leaders and ignoring the years of sometimes painful experience that Bosnia and, yes, Somolia had taught them.
Rumsfeld ignored both common-sense and advice and has bluntly refused to acknowledge or correct that mistake for the last three years of the occupation. For that alone his resignation is long overdue.
10 - Nancy
None of this would be an issue if Bush's brain/mind weren't set in concrete - like his head. Bush's refusal to face facts or reality only reinforced that of his subordinates. I don't feel a shred of sorry for either one of them; their obtuse stubbornness has cost US soldiers their LIVES - and that's criminal, & should be indictable.
11 - John Q. Public
Deano, you are correct in citing the stated assumption of the administration and their approach to the strategic problem of Iraq.
However, you miss my point, and if you check the public record you can find, that much of the strategy that was implemented came directly from DynCorp and KBR advisors hired by Rumsfeld to come up with their solution to the problem.
The Pentagon put up their own ides, basically the Powell doctrine type of approach.
The administration chose the advice of the private military corporations.
Which reminds me of the footage of Iraqi's looting Baghdad after those statues were toppled, and Rumsfeld, when asked about the looters saying "Freedom is messy" and dismissing concerns about dismantling the military, police and professional administrators who had been running the country.
Also notice the policy in Afghanistan, designed by the same contractors.
We will never know if the Pentagon types were correct, they never got the chance. but the facts and history appear to show that the plan that was followed in both cases were and are , seriously flawed.
12 - Martin Lav
"seriously flawed"
Is that short of a disaster?
13 - John Q. Public
I'm attempting to be polite, Martin, and I do not relish the thought of our military personnel being stuck in some sort of disaster.
To my mind, it is better to be rational and restrained, in order to promote bi-partisan solutions to problems, than to repeat the mistake of the rabid Republicans and their mouthpieces just to demonize otherwise good people who are trying to get the job done, even when I disagree with their viewpoints or methods.
14 - Martin Lav
Huh?
I agree, but then again, I'm a liberal and therefore, I can.
15 - Baronius
from “Rumsfeld’s Rules”:
- If you are not criticized, you may not be doing much.
- Don't think of yourself as indispensable or infallible.
- Be able to resign. It will improve your value to the president and do wonders for your performance.
16 - John Q. Public
Baronius, is there a part in there that says to "win the war"? The administration might want to read that over, or write it if it isn't there.
17 - Bliffle
Rumsfelds 'transformation' idea was pretty good, and long overdue, but by transforming into that kind of lightweight, fast reaction, flexible force for fighting and winning battles, you lose the Armys ability to stolidly occupy a country. Somebody else, someplace else, has to pick up that slack. the ideologic myopia of the neocons blinded them to that necessity, and Rumsfelds own greedy egoism disallowed him to surrender that function to someone else like Powell. And from there forward a disaster was certain.
18 - Silas Kain
George W. Bush MUST resign effective January 2. It is the will of the people and of God.
19 - JR
Now that Rumsfeld has stepped down, where is Bush going to find a medal big enough to pin on him?
20 - John Guilfoil
Jet-go for it
john
21 - Dave Nalle
Well, JR. Perhaps he could use Ted Kennedy's liver. From what I understand it's swollen to quite a large size and it's as hard as a rock.
Dave
22 - Martin Lav
Could always use the metal that was supposed to be used for the under-belly of the humvees that were sent to Iraq ill-equipped.
Ya think?
23 - Baronius
Q - Thank you; Powell! That was the example I was looking for. Colin Powell is exactly the kind of person who put his career before his honor. He should have been thrown out of the Cabinet Room physically. Rumsfeld served his president and his country well, and ultimately took a political fall for the sake of others. A vain man like Powell would never do such a thing.
24 - MCH
Or maybe he could use that AFOUA ribbon he was pictured wearing illegally in '70...
www.awolbush.com/awards.asp
25 - John Q. Public
Baronius, so you prefer blind loyalty about wrong policy to an honest answer that was correct from someone you allege was somehow disloyal after taking the administration's case to the U.N. and also falling on his sword when told to?