No, not the Donald with the crappy comb-over and massive ego trip, the one in government.

One can hardly read much of anything these days before coming across a criticism of US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld.  Undoubtedly, the Iraq war has not gone as was generally accepted it would, and it does make sense to focus the blame on the man in charge — so for a failed military campaign it would make sense to put the blame on the Secretary of Defence, no?  Well let’s step back in time for a second and remember the time before the US first (OK, second) rolled into Iraq.

People on the left of centre sometimes gloat that the administration confidently predicted a swift war lasting only a few weeks, while they on the other hand predicted a much longer struggle similar to the one we see now.  Indeed, sometimes that attitude is sickening as it seems they are so happy to be “right” despite the casualties and other hardships bestowed to the Iraqi people and those US soldiers in Iraq and their families.  Regardless — their gloating is hardly the case — indeed, neither “side” can claim a victory to the actual situation.

The White House said the war would be quick, and they were right — the actual military conflict lasted a mere few weeks.  “Mission Accomplished” really was something, it was the crest of an unprecedented military campaign that resulted in shockingly few casualties on either side.  People such as myself who predicted a long drawn out guerrilla war were flat out wrong, the Iraqi Amy was quickly destroyed and Saddam’s power eliminated in short order.  With a force outnumbered by 10:1, the US military used advanced technology and cunning strategy to win a war like had never been seen before — I am a pacifist and no fan of war by any means, but this was as close as you could imagine to a clean war.

But of course, that was not the whole story by any means.  To the same degree that the military conflict was a success, the occupation of Iraq was a failure.  Disastrous mistakes were made, which we know now thanks to the benefit of hindsight — but the magnitude of the Iraqi opposition to the occupation was once again unprecedented.  In they years following the end of the military conflict, Iraqis have taken to blowing up anything resembling authority — be it US, UN, Red Cross, their own civilian police, their country’s infrastructure, and even simply arbitrarily chosen Iraqi citizens who just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time (aka Allahu Akbar o’clock).

So: this brings us back to Donald Rumsfeld, the man of the hour.  What exactly are the mistakes he is accused of making?  The answer to that question is surprisingly hard to find a straight answer for.  The two main thrusts i’ve seen are “not enough troops” and “not enough planning for the occupation”.  I’ll address each criticism in turn.

The first argument of not enough troops present is clearly bogus, as established by the above recollection that the military campaign of the war went very smoothly — if anything the US probably had *more* troops than were needed for the campaign.  As for more troops for the occupation, the sort of unprecedented suicide attacks we’ve seen in the past three years are impossible to defend against, no matter how many troops you have they can still drive a truck into a market loaded with explosives and kill a bunch of people.

The second part of the criticism, that there was a failure to plan for the occupation — is one criticism that I certainly agree with.  But when you consider the nature of the question, is it really Rumsfeld that you are criticizing?  Who made the decisions to disband the Iraqi army, who decided that the Iraqis would welcome the US with flowers and kisses, who thought setting up a friendly democracy would be easy?  These are tactical decisions, command decisions.  If they were left in the hands of a military commander, the error is with the people who decided that military officers were best capable of deciding matters that hardly relate to the military.

What I am trying to say here is that the failure to plan for the occupation was not a failure of Rumsfeld, it was a failure of the Bush White House.  What Rumsfeld did was that he led an effort to transform the US military into a lean but mighty force that could take out a million man army in a few short weeks, and he did a spectacular job of it.  Should the man really be blamed for the fact that his superiors didn’t properly anticipate what would happen after he did his job?

It is no secret that I am not a fan of war, and my politics are very different from what I imagine Donald Rumsfeld’s to be.  But I do admire the man, he has done a good job and is taking blame for problems that ought to be directed elsewhere.  He is honest and he speaks his mind in a frank manner that shows me that he is confident that he is doing the right thing.

PS: Interestingly enough, his demeanour reminds me of a very different man who I admire in politics, former Vancouver mayor and Liberal Senator Larry Campbell.  Their politics are nothing alike but their confidence and frankness have a lot in common with each other.  If there is ever a movie to be made about Rumsfeld, it ought to be played by Nicholas Campbell, the actor who brilliantly portrayed Larry in Da Vinci’s Inquest.