Rumsfeld, Phony Generals, And Idiot Intel

Two looks at the crucifixion of Donald Rumsfeld warrant attention. This look at the military's responsibility for things that have gone wrong in Iraq shows the absurdity of claims that Rumsfeld somehow ignored his generals in assessing progress in Iraq, while this more general look what are derisively called quitter generals raises some good questions about just how much effort some military leaders put into actually trying to win in Iraq.

It must be emphasized again that yes, there are serious problems in Iraq, but there still has been too much real progress there to quit, and still too much potential to succeed to quit. That we have irresponsible politicians willing to cut and run is bad enough; why we have generals willing to cut and run is beyond me, but a reminder of the generals' revolt is in order to see where Rumsfeld got stabbed in the back, as it were, as also seen here.

Speaking of stabbing in the back, it appears the Cover Your Ass CIA got help from the New York Times, and the release of intelligence documents from the Saddam Hussein era of Iraq has stopped. This is wrong, because those documents show the assumptions the CIA usually made with regard to Iraq and how wrong those assumptions always were.

Adding to idiot intel is Congressional interference. The irresponsibility of leftist politicians shows in their recent jockeying following the elections and with liberal editorials that continue to get Iraq wrong. Interestingly, the stock market rose sharply immediately after the elections on the belief that a Congressional stalemate will mean less interference in the market - not necessarily a faulty analysis. One should hope that a Congressional stalemate will mean they don't interfere with defeating the enemy in the Middle East, as much as some powerful people on Congress clearly wish to do. We have to prove we have staying power because that's what wins.