Rummy, we hardly knew ye - Max Boot - Los Angeles Times

David Seaton's News Links

Gee, the neocons are subtle folks, aren't they? Uber-neocon, Max Boot's article in the LA Times is like a transcript from a Stalinist show trial. I'll just give you a few phrases, but to indulge in the full cophragia flavor, follow the link*. (warning: set your chutzpah meter on 'high') DS
*Or try this more nuanced view from The NewYorker

Abstract: For a start, he is primarily associated with a cause — the democratization of Iraq — that he never gave much sign of believing in.(...) From the day that U.S. troops arrived in Baghdad, Rumsfeld was plotting to pull them out. It was this very resistance to a prolonged and massive troop commitment that probably doomed the mission from the start.(...) Another irony: Rumsfeld was a micromanager who took a hands-off attitude on the most important issues.(...) Yet he never accepted responsibility for the biggest decisions made in Iraq. Disbanding the Iraqi army? Talk to Ambassador L. Paul Bremer III. Not sending more troops? See Gens. Tommy Franks and John Abizaid. Rumsfeld won total responsibility for all facets of Operation Iraqi Freedom, but he never accepted the blame, except in the most perfunctory way, when everything went awry. On the other hand, he was happy to accept accolades for the toppling of the Taliban even though the basic strategy — using commandos backed by air power — came from the CIA, not Central Command. A third irony: For a man with abundant experience running large organizations, he proved to be a surprisingly poor manager — one who needlessly alienated generals and congressmen alike with his in-your-face manner. Given his track record, Rumsfeld's departure came at least two years too late. (I first called for his ouster on this page in May 2004.)