politics

The Rummyosphere Responds

Following the Congressional midterm election and president Bush's sacking of Sec. of Defense Donald Runsfeld, the blogosphere debates the legacy of good old Rummy.
November 9, 2006

Following a crushing defeat for Republicans on Tuesday, President Bush announced yesterday the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his replacement with former CIA director Robert Gates. For many, Rumsfeld’s resignation amounts to a necessary step towards appeasing critics across the aisle and pursuing a more pragmatic strategy in Iraq.

Others questioned the timing.

“As the American Spectator‘s Andrew Cline memorably memo’d to Rumsfeld about the timing of his resignation: You’re supposed to leap in front of the bullet, not behind it,”writes Patterico’s Pontifications.

Afterwards, the conservative pundit had a few kinder words for the embattled outgoing secretary. “But the [Secretary of Defense] has presided over two amazing military victories, in Afghanistan and Iraq, and overseen the rebuilding of our military as the most capable and fearsome fighting force in the entire world-capable of overrunning any nation in the world, provided we have the will to win,” he added.

Over at Town Hall, blogger Hugh Hewitt disregards popular opinion in his own Rummy report card.

Notes Hewitt: “The highest compliment that can be paid the departing Secretary is that our enemies –our real, honest-to-goodness enemies– must be jubilant that he is leaving. Rumsfeld did not hesitate to order the professionals under his command to pursue, capture, or kill these killers. As a result, the enemy, far more than most Americans, they know just how capable a foe Rumsfeld has been.”

Sign up for CJR's daily email

Elsewhere, prominent pundits and Bush administration antagonists dolled out slightly lower marks.

“The truth is: it was Rumsfeld who little understood and was unfamiliar with the actual conflict he was tasked with managing,” writes Andrew Sullivan. “It was not too ‘complex for people to comprehend.’ It was relatively easy to comprehend. If you invade a post-totalitarian country and disband its military, you better have enough troops to keep order. We didn’t. Rumsfeld refused to send enough. When this was made clear to him and to everyone, he still refused. His arrogant belief in a military that didn’t need any actual soldiers was completely at odds with the actual task in Iraq. But he preferred to sit back as tens of thousands of Iraqis were murdered and thousands of U.S. troops died rather than to check his own ego.”

Still basking in the glow of their election-day triumph, some liberal bloggers expressed a guarded optimism over Gates’ possible impact.

Writes Bradford Plumer, “Watching the cable channels this afternoon, everyone seemed to think Robert Gates will make a more ‘moderate’ defense secretary than Donald Rumsfeld, and that President Bush has finally managed to muscle Dick Cheney aside in various intra-administration disputes on foreign policy. I’ll believe it when I see it–it’s probably way too early to write Cheney’s obituary. But here are a few semi-encouraging tidbits: Michael Rubin has complained that Gates, from his perch on the Baker-Hamilton Commission on Iraq, is recommending engagement with Iran. Good.”

Many, however, continue to see no light at the end of our Iraq tunnel.

“I am afraid there may be a great deal of disappointment and even more anger when the Iraqis gradually realize that Gates cannot provide security either,” writes Juan Cole at Informed Comment. “It is not clear, either, that the Democrats can bring the troops home any time soon. Disappointment and anger in Iraq turn into violence.”

Andrew Bielak was a CJR intern.