Why have Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's strongest fans, the neo-conservatives, turned on him with a fury to push him out of office?
It could of course just be a matter of cutting loose a figure who has run out of credibility and become a major embarrassment. Total U.S. deaths in Iraq since the invasion of March 2003 have topped 1,300, and nothing it appears can inexorably prevent them rising to at least 1,500 and almost certainly a lot higher after that.
Rumsfeld's manifold failure to give the U.S. occupation troops the armored protection they need becomes more documented, more evident and more embarrassing every day. Worst of all, the secretary of defense has given absolutely no sign of any new ideas or strategy to make the long haul easier.
But there is a lot more to it than that. Paleo-conservative columnist Pat Buchanan, a longtime critic of Rumsfeld and the neo-cons, argued in a column Wednesday that Rumsfeld's insistence on stripping down the size of the regular U.S. Army to make it "fast and agile" flew in the face of the neo-cons' desire to get the Army greatly expanded in size, even though this would almost certainly require the reintroduction of a national draft for young people for the first time since the tumultuous era of the Vietnam War.
Rumsfeld's never-concealed contempt for old guard Army generals and their traditional emphasis on lots of ground infantry with good protection and phalanxes of heavy armor has always been evident. But ironically, the very failure of his "fast and agile," macho, "strike like lightning and keep on the offensive" concepts in Iraq now makes him more desirable to President George W. Bush, not less.
For Bush, whatever his failings and lack of experience in dealing with the wider world and especially with the Middle East, he has throughout his national career shown an intuitive and exceptionally successful feel for the currents of U.S. domestic politics. He knows that the very idea of reintroducing the draft is political dynamite and that it flies in the face of pledges he made during his successful re-election campaign. Therefore, he does not want to do it. And even if at some point he is forced to do it, he wants to put it off as long as possible.
In fact, Pentagon sources have told United Press International that they believe the building manpower constraints and pressures on the U.S. armed forces because of the unexpected long-term commitment in Iraq are already so great that some form of selective service will have to be comprehensively introduced before the end of Bush's second term. But the current system, even though it is already breaking down, will be stretched out as long as possible to put off that evil day. The administration, these sources said, hopes that they will not be forced to seriously consider some kind of draft -- although it certainly will not be called that -- until after the 2006 midterm elections are safely out of the way. But that is by no means clear.
Certainly, if there is some kind of major confrontation with Iran over the next couple of years that is neither quickly defused by negotiation or does not lead to a rapid U.S. victory without any of the commitments and complications that Iraq brought in its wake, then the need to bring in some kind of national draft to rapidly boost the size of the armed forces could become a necessity overnight.
For now, however, it is Rumsfeld's very insistence in holding to his romantic and discredited theory that the U.S. Army can be "small, fast and agile" that particularly endears him to his president. As long as that fiction can be maintained, there is no need to bite the bullet of the draft, of selective service, or whatever soothing euphemism will be invented to describe it.
Yet it is Bush's very determination to "stand by his man" that suggests another reason why the neo-conservatives have so suddenly turned on Rumsfeld.
For throughout Bush's first term of office, the neo-cons were confident that if the president were re-elected, the old secretary of defense -- in his 70s and the oldest man to hold the post -- would step down and clear the way for their own intellectual leader and hero, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, to take over. Yet instead, Rumsfeld shows no sign of standing aside and Bush last week made clear that he wants him to stay.
There is a general assumption in the media and political Washington that Wolfowitz, the driving force behind the invasion and occupation of Iraq, is now too discredited and controversial to be successfully confirmed by the Senate as Rumsfeld's successor. This may indeed be the case. But what can certainly be said is that the neo-conservative inner circle inside the Beltway does not believe it. They are confident that he can be confirmed, and they may be right.
The first reason for this is that Wolfowitz is said still to enjoy Bush's confidence. The second reason is that the GOP will command a massive Senate majority of 55 to 44 (one senator is listed as an independent but generally votes with the Democrats) in the new Congress next year. And the third reason is that the Democrats cannot be expected to put up a united front to block Wolfowitz.
At least two Democratic senators look sure to back Wolfowitz. Zell Miller of Georgia, who is a Republican right-wing Bush loyalist in everything except his label, can be expected to support the president's pick, whoever he is. And Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, a longtime admirer of Wolfowitz, can be expected to do the same.
All the GOP would then need is to have only three or four more Democrats either join them or not bother to show up and the deed would be done. Indeed, apart from Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, it is difficult to think of any GOP senator who could be guaranteed to oppose a Wolfowitz nomination.
This could, of course, change if a Wolfowitz nomination ignited a popular storm of protest across the country, or if the president's top political strategist, Karl Rove, calculated that it would, or if, for that matter, Bush decided he wanted someone else instead of Wolfowitz if Rumsfeld really had to go.
But for now it is certainly the case that the neo-cons believe that they can get Wolfowitz both nominated and confirmed if or when Rumsfeld is persuaded to gracefully step down and receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his great achievements in Iraq. And up to now, whenever the neo-cons have wanted something really badly from George W. Bush and the Republican majority in Congress, they have always gotten it.
Why should this time be any different?
--
By Martin Sieff UPI Senior News Analyst Washington, DC, Dec. 23
(Please send comments to nationaldesk@upi.com.)
[from the conservative] Washington Times ©
No comments:
Post a Comment