McNamara, Rumsfeld and the Fog of War

Newsweek Web Exclusive

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

SPONSORED BY

From mid-2003 to Rumsfeld's departure at the end of 2006, then, administration policy in Iraq was broken-backed. The president had decreed a goal that demanded far more troops, playing a far more interventionist role, than his defense secretary was willing to implement. Primary blame for what ensued rests, of course, with President Bush, who never brought order to his dysfunctional national-security apparatus. But Rumsfeld must take his considerable share. Alone among Bush's appointees, Rumsfeld had the clout to force Bush to realize what he had set in motion, and to organize a coherent set of policies to achieve this. Rumsfeld's failure was that he did not. It's an ironic epitaph on Rumsfeld's handling of Iraq that—intent on avoiding the mistakes of Robert McNamara—he was ultimately guilty of the failure for which McNamara afterward so blamed himself: not telling truth to power.

« Prev Page

Member Comments

- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: Nath @ 08/17/2009 4:00:35 AM

There is a global awareness now on the need to fix Islam - but darkness prevails on the best method - a solution that is simple and sure will evolve from here.Sounds far fetched ? Just consider the peculiar case of 1 million deaths in the Iran Iraq war- this was no Jihad with Kafir and hence all those dead went to hell for no fault of theirs except that they had Saddam as "boss" - avoidable case of bad direction by leadership , which brought ruin to followers!

A nuclear attack on middle east from either US or Israel canoot be ruled out at all - it appears to be very central to planners of Islamic life. As all muslims prey 5 times a day for death in jihad and seat in heaven ; this is the most practical way for a benevoilent & merciful kafir like Bush to delivery a heavenly martyrdom in jihad to all muslims on equal footing.... so that at the Allah's brothel - stock of 72 goats/ martyr can be enjoyed equally by each muslim.
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: lfairban @ 07/21/2009 1:09:50 PM

The second paragraph on Page 1 contains the comment:

The U.S. intervention in Vietnam was to prop up South Vietnam against aggression by the North.

. . . without clarifying that this was US propaganda used to justify the invasion. Durring the 60's, the assertation was made that the 1954 Geneva agreement split the country into two political entities. IIRC, the "Pentagon Papers", reported that South Vietnam was an artifact of US foreign policy, and reprinted the '54 agreement that clearly states that it does not split the country into two political groups.

What we represented as a defense was theirfore actually an invasion of a sovereign nation.
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: lfairban @ 07/21/2009 1:07:55 PM

The second paragraph on Page 1 contains the comment:

"The U.S. intervention in Vietnam was to prop up South Vietnam against aggression by the North."

. . . without clarifying that this was US propaganda used to justify the invasion. Durring the 60's, the assertation was made that the 1954 Geneva agreement split the country into two political entities. IIRC, the "Pentagon Papers", reported that South Vietnam was an artifact of US foreign policy, and reprinted the '54 agreement that clearly states that it does not split the country into two political groups.

What we represented as a defense was theirfore actually an invasion of a sovereign nation.