[Mb-civic] Bush Speaks Out for Rumsfeld - Washington Post

[William Swiggard]

Bush Speaks Out for Rumsfeld
'My Full Support' For Defense Chief

By Peter Baker and Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, April 15, 2006; A01

President Bush interrupted his Easter vacation yesterday to offer an 
unequivocal vote of confidence in Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, 
in a move aimed at countering a growing wave of criticism from retired 
generals calling for the Pentagon chief to resign over his leadership of 
the Iraq war.

In an unusual statement issued from Camp David, where he had already 
retired for the weekend, Bush stepped directly into the debate over 
Rumsfeld's performance to offer his "strong support" and make it clear 
he will keep the embattled defense secretary. Rumsfeld separately 
declared that he will not go.

"I have seen firsthand how Don relies upon our military commanders in 
the field and at the Pentagon to make decisions about how best to 
complete these missions" of fighting terrorists while simultaneously 
transforming the military, Bush said. "Secretary Rumsfeld's energetic 
and steady leadership is exactly what is needed at this critical period. 
He has my full support and deepest appreciation."

The president's decision to interject himself so forcefully stands in 
contrast to his mild reaction to recent reports of dissatisfaction with 
Treasury Secretary John W. Snow and reflected a calculation by Bush and 
his advisers that attacks on Rumsfeld by prominent former military 
commanders strike at the heart of his presidency. As Bush's choice to 
run the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Rumsfeld serves as his proxy, and 
most of the judgments that have come under fire were shared by the 
president and Vice President Cheney as well.

Public support for the Iraq war and Bush's handling of it has been 
evaporating in recent polls as the administration tries to prevent that 
country from deteriorating into a broader sectarian conflict. White 
House officials trying to arrest Bush's political fall have concluded 
that Iraq, and the public perception of it, are central both to the 
president's contemporary public standing and his ultimate legacy.

The defense of Rumsfeld in effect was the first act of new White House 
Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten, who took over as Andrew H. Card Jr. 
left the West Wing yesterday afternoon for the final time as Bush's top 
aide. White House aides decided that press secretary Scott McClellan's 
statement of support Thursday was inadequate to stem the growing chorus 
of resignation calls from the military.

Rumsfeld, who twice offered Bush his resignation during the scandal over 
detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib, made no such offer this time. "I respect 
their views," he said in an interview taped Thursday and broadcast 
yesterday on Al-Arabiya television, "but obviously out of thousands and 
thousands of admirals and generals, if every time two or three people 
disagreed, we changed the secretary of defense of the United States, it 
would be like a merry-go-round."

The grievances aired by half a dozen retired flag officers in recent 
days resonated with many military veterans. "I admire those who have 
stepped forward, and I agree with the arguments they are making," 
retired Marine Lt. Gen. Paul K. Van Riper said in an interview 
yesterday. "I count myself in the same camp."

Van Riper, a lifelong Republican who voted for Bush in 2000 but did not 
vote in the 2004 election, said Rumsfeld has failed in a number of ways, 
including "disastrous" war planning and execution and fostering a poor 
command climate.

Retired Army Brig. Gen. Charles Brower, a military historian and deputy 
superintendent at Virginia Military Institute, said it is unusual to see 
such a group of retired generals issuing public criticism.

"Officers now feel that there is almost an obligation to speak more 
openly about policies that they disagreed with once they have retired," 
Brower said. "There is now a group of officers who feel an obligation to 
speak more aggressively, and I think that has to have been influenced by 
the Vietnam experience," during which miscalculations by the civilian 
leadership caused a military defeat and a years-long erosion in military 
morale.

"It's an important thing happening right now, an important phenomenon 
that's going on," Brower said.

What makes the recent criticism more threatening to the Bush 
administration is the sense that it represents an unspoken strain of 
thought among active-duty personnel. A poll of 944 troops serving in 
Iraq released by Zogby International and LeMoyne College did not ask 
about Rumsfeld but found that 72 percent think the United States should 
withdraw within a year and more than a quarter think it should leave 
immediately.

"That and other questions lead to the obvious conclusion that they're 
not sure they're doing anything positive over there anymore," said 
pollster John Zogby. "When it comes to the leadership, there seems to be 
a disconnect."

Rumsfeld's admirers, though, characterized the complaining generals as 
malcontents unhappy with the secretary's attempts to restructure the 
armed forces for the 21st century. "Look, he's trying to change an 
institution that is very set in its ways, and that's not easy," said 
Richard N. Perle, former chairman of the Defense Policy Board. "You've 
got some disgruntled former officers. It's no big deal."

Longtime Rumsfeld critics said the generals were speaking from genuine 
concern. "They really are acting out of patriotism," said William 
Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard. "This is not fun 
for them. They're reluctant to step forward in this way, and for good 
reason. . . . But I believe they're doing it because they believe that 
Rumsfeld is endangering the course of U.S. foreign policy."

Retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division 
in Iraq, said there was no coordination among the generals who have 
spoken out. "We have nothing to gain by this, absolutely nothing to gain 
by this," he said on ABC's "Good Morning America." "There's no political 
agenda at all. We've been loyal subordinates."

But analysts said that Bush cannot afford to let the generals' views go 
unanswered. "It's a referendum on the centerpiece of the Bush 
presidency," said Michael E. O'Hanlon, a defense scholar at the 
Brookings Institution, who surmised that the notion of Rumsfeld being 
pushed from office is "unthinkable to Bush."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401649.html?nav=hcmodule
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060415/df42218e/attachment.htm