What Rumsfeld Means
Steven Menashi :: 12/21/2004

David Ignatius seems to be missing something about the debate over Rumsfeld's future, calling him "a convenient scapegoat" for the administration's mistakes in Iraq. But why, on the heels of an electoral victory that vindicated the president's Iraq policy, would Republicans be trying to save face? For the victors, post-election recriminations are about the future rather than the past -- and Rumsfeld is associated with a particular post-election agenda. As Bill Kristol, who initiated the anti-Rumsfeld movement, said of the secretary: "His theory about the military is at odds with the president's geopolitical strategy. He wants this light, transformed military, but we've got to win a real war, which involves using a lot of troops and building a nation, and that's at the core of the president's strategy for rebuilding the Middle East." As Ignatius sees it, the debate over troop levels "is partly a rear-action battle against Rumsfeld's ideas about military 'transformation.' Advocates of the old, heavyweight Army have never forgiven Rummy for advocating lighter, more mobile forces, but Rumsfeld was correct." Evidently, however, not everyone agrees. As Andrew put it:

Rumsfeld came into the Pentagon with an admirable agenda of forcing the military to become leaner, to maximise the use of technology and to move away from the large numbers and heavy armaments of the past. But his wars showed that the old methods were still valid.