Never mind that Secretary Rumsfeld had been given contrary information as recently as when he was enroute to his townhall meeting with the troops. It is a cheap shot to denounce Rummy for answering as he did when, to the best of his knowledge, the Army was doing everything humanly possible to meet the current needs. Upon discovering otherwise, full production was ordered.
Mr. Rumsfeld?s observation about going to war with ?the army you have? is no less appropriate an answer to those who have assailed him for not assigning more U.S. troops to post-liberation Iraq. Had the 500,000 troops in-theater at the time of Desert Storm been used to overthrow Saddam Hussein in 1991, the aftermath of such an operation ? to say nothing of the sorry history of the Middle East during the intervening years ? may have been very different.
The first President Bush refused to do that, though, drawing notably on counsel from Colin Powell, Brent Scowcroft and Norman Schwartzkopf. And, having prematurely stopped that war, he and his successor, Bill Clinton, decided greatly to reduce the armed forces? size and armaments. These cuts left us unable, as a practical matter, to mount another Desert Storm. Even the deployment and sustaining in Iraq of a contingent half that size would have been highly problematic. Interestingly, few, if any, of those now venting their spleens about Secretary Rumsfeld?s ruminations on ?the army you have? opposed the cuts that have so limited our present options.
Given the bipartisan agreement that eliminating Saddam Hussein?s regime was justified and necessary, the second President Bush and his Defense Secretary were right, under the circumstances, to work to achieve that objective quickly and decisively, then to draw on allied forces and reconstituted and vetted Iraqi units to help maintain post-war security.
Don Rumsfeld may not be perfect, but neither are any of his critics. He is nonetheless arguably the finest Secretary of Defense this nation has ever had. His combination of vast expertise, unflagging energy and strategic vision would be desirable under any circumstances. In time of global war, though, they are truly indispensable.
Most of those seeking Mr. Rumsfeld?s dismissal hope George Bush will overlook the fact that the Secretary is his most faithful and capable Cabinet officer in the execution of the President?s policies. They argue some unidentified successor could do better, a false prospect often associated with generic alternatives. In the real world, there is no obvious better man for the job and, to his credit, in his press conference Monday, President Bush signaled that he thinks Don Rumsfeld is getting a bum rap and that he intends to hold onto his Secretary of Defense for the foreseeable future.