The Rumsfeld Memo

The New York Times has published an article recounting a "strategic options" memo authored by departing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.  The memo was reportedly completed two days prior to Rumsfeld's resignation.  Exactly how the Times obtained the classified memo is unclear.

First of all, I don't at all trust the journalists at the New York Times to be the arbiter of the the content, tenor or tone of the memorandum.   Having said that, several parts of the letter are discussed, such as the various policy options believed by Rumsfeld as available to the Administration.  According to the Times, Rumsfeld endorsed no particular option, but thought some to be better than others.  Of course, the Times had to somehow elevate the war critics by mentioning the following:

Another option calls for redeploying American troops from “vulnerable positions” in Baghdad and other cities to safer areas in Iraq or Kuwait, where they would act as a “quick reaction force.” That idea is similar to a plan suggested by Representative John P. Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, a plan that the White House has soundly rebuffed.

I think the Times is guilty of glossing over Murtha's full position on the war, as his initial recommendation was an immediate withdrawal and troop "redeployment."  Murtha's policy is available in the form of this press release dated November 17, 2005:

Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency.  They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence.  U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, Saddamists and foreign jihadists.  I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraqi security forces will be incentivized to take control.   A poll recently conducted shows that over 80% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, and about 45% of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified.  I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. 

I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy.  All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free.  Free from United States occupation.  I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for the good of a “free” Iraq. 

My plan calls: 

To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces. 
To create a quick reaction force in the region.
To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines. 
To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq 

Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily.  IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME.

It's pretty clear that Murtha wanted the troops pulled out and pulled out immediately because, in his view, there was nothing more to accomplish militarily in Iraq.  He did call for a "quick reaction force" in the region, but not within Iraq, as inferred by the Times.  I find it disingenuous that the Times would uphold as similar an idea floated by Rumsfeld calling for withdrawal from certain Iraqi cities or areas within certain Iraqi cities with Murtha's call for immediate troop withdrawal from the whole of Iraq.  But, then again, it's the New York Times, and this is the very reason their "journalism" is no longer reputable.

Then there's this line:

Nor did Mr. Rumsfeld seem confident that the administration would readily develop an effective alternative. To limit the political fallout from shifting course, he suggested the administration consider a campaign to lower public expectations.

Did the Times bother to contain an excerpt that demonstrates this alleged doubt?  I don't really think I need to answer that.  Needless to say, the Times never let's a subjective viewpoint get in the way of actual facts and content. 

In light of this memo and the resignation of Rumsfeld, can we assume that perhaps the Times is beginning a "we know we said Rumsfeld was the problem, but he wasn't really the biggest problem" campaign?  After all, the article seems to be portraying Rumsfeld as willing to game out various options (including those of White House critics), recognize when a policy is in need of renewal, communicate his thoughts to the White House, maintain concerns that the White House wasn't willing to listen to his advice yet all the while carry the Administration's water in his public pronouncements.  The Times doesn't publish stories without some purpose.  Aren't the aforementioned points really what the Times seems to be trying to convey?   I wouldn't think the essence of the article would be that Rumsfeld is acknowledging that things aren't going as well as planned in Iraq.  Most people have already come to that conclusion.  Besides, doesn't Rumsfeld's forced resignation essentially make that point anyway?

Having successfully pushed for his ouster, I wouldn't be surprised if certain quarters of the MSM attempted a restoration of Rumsfeld's reputation if they thought they could use it to continue attacking the Administration.  This would entail eventual revelations about what Rumsfeld "really" thought and suggested, only to have his ideas and sound advice spurned by Bush, Rice and Cheney.  If only they had listened to wizened old Don Rumsfeld!  This is just speculation on my part, but I simply wouldn't be surprised if it were to happen.  I've long ago concluded that the MSM has no shame, only an agenda.

 

Update:  It occurred to me that perhaps the memo was leaked by Rumsfeld allies at the Pentagon to counter the perceptions of Rumsfeld as stubborn, disinterested in the opinions of others and unwilling to adapt Pentagon policy on Iraq.  In this respect, the leak may have been a reaction to the Rumsfeld persona as portrayed by Bob Woodward in "State of Denial" -- in my view a book more sharply critical of Rumsfeld than anyone else. 

 

Update:  The actual text of the memo is now available.  As I suspected, nothing in the memo even remotely supports the Times' assertion that Rumsfeld didn't believe the "administration would readily develop an effective alternative."

 

Others Blogging:

Captains's Quarters 

Michelle Malkin 

Suitably Flip

The Political Pit Bull 

The Coffeespy