January 26, 2008
A Serious Critique
Hugh Hewitt has made a lot of marginal complaints about Senator McCain (It's almost as if he might be pulling for Governor Romney a little bit), but I have to admit that this one is spot on. I'm glad he supported The Surge and General Petraeus, but his attacks of Secretary Rumsfeld go a little too far:
Only small-minded people think Rumsfeld is other than a great American and patriot, though of course a controversial one. He continues to deserve the respect and thanks of the American people.I thus wonder whenever Senator McCain snarls out "Rumsfeld" as he does in debate after debate if others beside me find it unsettling and off-putting that there is so much venom there? Rumsfeld was an opponent of McCain's and as a result the contempt the Arizona maverick has for the former SecDef is complete, but it is also unseemly and not in the best traditions of American politics, especially when Rumsfeld has left the field.
I think Rumsfeld was right about modernizing the military and was right about smaller footprints and greater use of smart weapons. I'll concede that he facilitated the plan to wait out the increasing factional violence after the Golden Dome of Samarra bombing, but I don't know that he wasn't getting bad data and advice from the field.
I do get uneasy when Senator McCain goes after a man who has given this country honorable and intelligent service.
Rumsfeld was made the tacit administration scapegoat for everything bad that happened in pre-Surge Iraq. I think he knows and accepts that, and I think McCain uses the man's name to complete his own image as the "war fightin' expert" amongst the candidates. I believe Mac was right that more troops were required for the job but to assert that he had some kind of crystal ball is ridiculous.
And for anyone to blame Rumsfeld for how long it took to passify Iraq without first considering the State Department's role is myopic at best.
Posted by: johngalt at January 27, 2008 4:37 PM | What do you think? [1]