Rumsfeld Should Stay

At the end of last week, six of individuals of the 4,700 retired U.S. military generals cause a small media frenzy by calling for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to step down. The combined 18th and 20th century media models instantly push the critics to center stage, spotlighting their latest variety act for the entertainment of the “Bush Lied” audience.

Former Madison Mayor Paul Soglin doesn’t miss the opportunity to demonstrate his anti-war street cred. Hizzoner posts his reactions to the general charges.

Cheney and Rumsfeld's Iraq Folly: Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld started with the delusion that since they were good people, and were doing what Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said was the right thing according to Jesus, they would inevitably prevail. Dissent in the ranks was quickly stifled; the best strategic and tactical minds were ignored.

The irony of this military dissent is that civilian control was conceived as a means of stopping crazed generals from leading the country into war. What an irony that in this case the military is the voice of reason.

There are those of us who don’t believe the global problems of failed societies, wealth and weapons, poverty and resentment merging with an ideology honoring and rewarding killing in the name of God, can be passively ignored. The case supporting Secretary Rumsfeld is argued by Elephants in Academia and concludes “Rumsfeld should stay”.

Why Rumsfeld Should Stay: It seems to me that at the root of this issue is the fact that civilians control our military. In some ways, the very command structure of the Pentagon is an oxymoron, because logic suggests that a military man should head the military. After all, the military is a culture unto itself with highly-specialized protocols and rituals, not to mention highly-specialized information and tactics, which are best understood by those on the inside. But the makeup of our DoD has since 1947 specified civilian leadership, which creates friction in the top tiers of the Pentagon. But that's okay because we don't really want these guys sitting around singing kumbaya together. Such deliberate conflict is designed to force the military to take civilian priorities into consideration and to ensure full oversight of the military--and the military resents it. How could they not? They're supposed to. That's the point. The only time they don't resent their civilian leadership is when that leadership is weak and so does not step on the military's toes.

You can read Soglin’s post in about a minute because it only requires you to react emotionally. Reading the defense of Rumsfeld takes more time, not just because it is longer but because it asks for critical thinking. The people who believe with all their hearts that Jesus made Bush start a war for oil which was wrong and which he lost, will not be swayed. Those of us with more common sense should consider every word.