- There was something unsettling about Donald Rumsfeld
recent tough-talk speech in Singapore in which he described his concern
over what he viewed as China's alarming weapons buildup. Rumsfeld speech
was the top story next day in the Los Angeles Times, my local paper. And
at the nearby Starbuck's I saw it was also the top story in the New York
Times.
-
- The specifics of Rumsfeld's speech were not very interesting
or informative. For that one needs to consult the recent issue of the Bulletin
of the Atomic Scientists and an article by Jeffrey Lewis, "The Ambiguous
Arsenal," which argues effectively that China's strategic weapons
buildup has not changed significantly over the last decade. Rumsfeld held
one trump card however. An updated intelligence estimate on China's defense
programs is "expected to be released soon," according to mainline
media speak. But since the Iraq intelligence debacle, who is going to take
that seriously? Thanks to Bush, Condi and Rumsfeld, we now live in a time
when the word "intelligence" is a guaranteed laugh-getter for
Jay Leno and David Letterman.
-
- In typical Neocon fashion, Rumsfeld's rhetoric was tough
and he got the attention he was looking for. Rumsfeld challenged China's
intentions, saying, "China appears to be expanding its missile forces,
allowing them to reach targets in many areas of the world, not just the
Pacific region, while also expanding its missile capabilities here in the
region. Since no nation threatens China, one must wonder: Why this growing
investment?"
-
- Despite his reference to China threatening unnamed countries
outside the Pacific region,
- his real focus was clearly Taiwan, and more specifically,
what would the U.S. do if China were to attack Taiwan since the U.S. has
a defense pact with Taiwan. This is certainly a legitimate concern. With
150,000 U.S. troops pinned down in Iraq, with military recruitment dwindling,
and no military draft in the works, what the hell is the United States
going to do if China plays rough on Taiwan?
-
- But my nagging thought as I read the story was: If only
this weren't Donald Rumsfeld speaking. Does anyone really believe anything
Rumsfeld says these days? We're talking here about the most failed secretary
of defense in memory, a man who has singlehandedly used and abused the
U.S. military for his own experimental aims, leading to the unnecessary
deaths of countless American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. He has presided
over the most disgraceful period in U.S. military history, with prisoner
abuse scandals that just keep coming day after day, shaming the United
States.
-
- The only "plan" Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld ever
had for the Iraq war - aside from doctoring the intelligence to fit their
aims-- was to demonstrate to the Muslim world, and particularly the Arabs,
that you shouldn't mess with the United States. And since we can't catch
Osama bin Laden, they reasoned, at least not quickly, the only way to do
this is to kill people that look like him. Which is to say, pull off a
quick and easy military victory over some opponent in the Middle East that
has a tough reputation but is really an over-the-hill palooka with no punch
left. After that, everything will fall into place and terrorism will just
go away. Dick Cheney assured Rumsfeld not to worry, that Iraq would be
a "cakewalk," so don't get carried away with planning. Only egghead
liberals plan.
-
- And what about General Tommy Franks? Where is he now?
There is a lesson here. Franks did what was asked of him-seize the country
with the army Rumsfeld gave him. Franks was smart enough to realize that
things were getting ugly fast so he quickly retired, got away from Washington,
wrote a book, went on a promotional tour, and became a hero and a celebrity.
-
- Rumsfeld wasn't so savvy. Knowing that George Bush never
fires anyone loyal, Rumsfeld decided to stay on for a second term. And
now he gets the mockery, derision and scorn he deserves - but which the
U.S. military does not deserve, but will continue to get as long as Rumsfeld
remains as secretary of defense.
-
- If ever a government official had zero credibility, it's
Donald Rumsfeld. He makes Robert McNamara look good. In a recent article
titled "The Rumsfeld Stain," Bob Herbert of the New York Times,
asks, "How does Donald Rumsfeld survive as defense secretary?"
Herbert writes that, on top of a litany of other malfeasances and abuses
in office, under Rumsfeld's watch, "troops responsible for guarding
and interrogating detainees somehow loosed their moorings to humanity,
and began behaving as sadists, perverts and criminals."
-
- Quite a legacy. We are at a point now where it could
be decades before Americans traveling abroad can again hold their heads
high.
-
- Donald Rumsfeld is indeed a "stain" on America.
But unlike Tommy Franks, there is no afterlife for Rumsfeld. He has passed
the point of no return. Perhaps you have to give him credit for one thing:
he's decided to go down with the ship.
-
- Gerald S. Rellick, Ph.D., worked in the defense sector
of the aerospace industry for 22 years. He now teaches in the California
Community College system.
|
