December 3, 2006
LIBERATION DAY:
Rumsfeld Memo on Iraq Proposed ‘Major’ Change (MICHAEL R. GORDON and DAVID S. CLOUD, 12/03/06, NY Times)
The memo’s discussion of possible troop reduction options offers a counterpoint to Mr. Rumsfeld’s frequent public suggestions that discussions about force levels are driven by requests from American military commanders.It also puts on the table several ideas for troop redeployments or withdrawals, even as there have been recent pronouncements from American commanders emphasizing the need to maintain troop levels for the time being.
The memorandum sometimes has a finger-wagging tone, as Mr. Rumsfeld says that the Iraqis must “pull up their socks,†and suggests that reconstruction aid should be withheld in violent areas to avoid rewarding “bad behavior.â€
Other options called for shrinking the number of bases, establishing benchmarks that would mark the Iraqis’ progress toward political, economic and security goals and conducting a “reverse embeds†program to attach Iraqi soldiers to American squads.
The memo was finished one day after President Bush interviewed Robert M. Gates, the president of Texas A&M University, as a potential successor to Mr. Rumsfeld and one day before the midterm elections.
Mr. Rumsfeld always, and correctly, viewed the Occupation as a distraction from his historic task of transforming the military, but he was willing to be a good soldier and back the President's stated mission. Once he was fired he could tell the truth. Posted by Orrin Judd at December 3, 2006 10:59 AM
Rumsfeld was a war profiteer just like everyone else.
Posted by: Macduff at December 3, 2006 5:39 PMWe wouldn't fight wars if we didn't profit by them.
Posted by: oj at December 3, 2006 5:45 PMOn the contrary, this memo was written before Bush decided to fire him. Some have speculated that this memo may have contributed to his firing. Bush apparently set up a Rumsfeld v Gates competition on plans and liked Gates's ideas better.
Posted by: pj at December 3, 2006 6:24 PMIt was written three years ago, for release when he left. Why should he be blamed for an occupation he opposed?
Posted by: oj at December 3, 2006 7:09 PMOJ:
I wouldn't smoke crack-cocaine if it didn't make me feel better. So crack-cocaine must make me better, right?
You certainly wouldn't write the sophomoric stuff you do if you weren't smoking crack. But you'll grow out of both.
Posted by: oj at December 3, 2006 8:29 PMOJ:
You would probably wouldn't have given me a sophomoric if I hadn't given you the chance to. Either way, your original logic is still fallacious.
Posted by: Macduff at December 3, 2006 8:52 PM"sophomoric response"
I'll try not to say anything funny around here anymore.
Substitute "cigarettes" for "crack-cocaine", and see if you can suppress your disdain long enough to type another answer that won't satisfy me.
Posted by: Macduff at December 3, 2006 9:08 PMYou certainly wouldn't write the sophomoric stuff you do if you weren't the type of person self-hating enough to smoke cigarettes. But you'll grow out of both.
Posted by: oj at December 3, 2006 9:14 PMWell, I guess we wouldn't go to war unless we really liked killing people and making money off it. But I'm hoping we grow out of both.
Posted by: Macduff at December 3, 2006 9:23 PMOf course we like war--that's why we fight them so often. We can't outgrow it--we're human.
Posted by: oj at December 3, 2006 9:25 PMYeah. We must have evolved that way.
Posted by: Macduff at December 3, 2006 9:51 PMIn fact, we *did* evolve that way. The ones who didn't fight and win wars were removed from the gene pool.
Those human beings that are now alive are the descendents of people who fought wars and won them.
Why is this so difficult for you to understand??
Posted by: ray at December 4, 2006 1:29 AMThat's absurd. There are still French and aboriginals.
Posted by: oj at December 4, 2006 7:14 AMOJ:
Nobody on the higher evolutionary levels wants to bother fighting the French. It's just too yucky. In 1940, even the Germans didn't really "fight" them, now did they?.
Posted by: jim hamlen at December 4, 2006 11:00 AM