Rumsfeld steadfast as unyielding Iraq war defender

By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld,
the craftsman and unyielding defender of the Iraq war, was
recently asked how he thought history would treat him.

“You know, I don’t have the vaguest idea. But I’ll tell you
this: I don’t worry about it,” Rumsfeld said during an
appearance before the Washington press corps.

“I can tell you one thing for sure,” Rumsfeld added. “The
people writing the news today, tomorrow and the next day are
not writing history. It will take a little while, a little
perspective.”

The energetic 73-year-old Rumsfeld is inching closer to
passing Vietnam War era Pentagon chief Robert McNamara as the
longest-serving defense secretary.

Admirers see Rumsfeld as a patriot who reinvigorated a
military weakened by insufficient funding in the 1990s, devised
innovative war plans that toppled the Taliban leaders of
Afghanistan and President Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and remains
vigilant against the threat of terrorism.

Detractors see Rumsfeld as a reckless warmonger who botched
the Iraq occupation planning, failed to anticipate a bloody
insurgency, sent U.S. troops into combat without enough armor,
jeopardized the viability of the all-volunteer military and
sullied America’s reputation by sanctioning detainee abuse.

“He’s definitely one of the most intriguing secretaries of
defense we’ve ever had, not just because he’s one of the
longest lasting,” said Brookings Institution defense analyst
Michael O’Hanlon. “He is inherently a polarizing kind of guy in
a polarizing time.”

Much as Vietnam defined McNamara’s legacy, Iraq will define
Rumsfeld’s legacy, for better or worse, analysts said.

“I do think that this is Rumsfeld’s war, and I think
Rumsfeld thinks this is Rumsfeld’s war,” said Heritage
Foundation defense analyst James Carafano, who added that
Rumsfeld’s legacy largely depends upon whether the Iraqis are
able to grab ahold of their own country.

‘VERY DIFFICULT’

Rumsfeld acknowledged Iraq remains “clearly a very
difficult situation,” with worrisome sectarian violence and
political uncertainty. But he steadfastly defends the war in
which more than 2,300 U.S. troops have died as an action that
has helped make the United States safer.

“Three years into the operation in Iraq, I recognize that
well-meaning people can ask, ‘Why is it important that we
complete the mission?’ Similar questions have been asked about
our country’s efforts in other eras,” Rumsfeld said this week.

“But consider what the world would be like if, whenever
things seemed to go wrong or to have grown more difficult than
expected, the Americans and their leaders in that generation
had simply thrown in the towel rather than persevering.”

Defense analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute
drew parallels between Rumsfeld and McNamara, Pentagon chief
from 1961 to 1968, as two men who brought visions of
transforming the military but who were diverted by wars.

Rumsfeld envisioned a leaner military strengthened by high
technology and more elite special forces.

“It turns out that Rumsfeld’s technology-driven vision of
future war doesn’t have much to do with the challenge posed by
terrorists,” Thompson added. “How else can you explain the
world’s biggest, best-funded military getting tied down by a
handful of insurgents? The real tragedy of Rumsfeld’s failure
is that he has ended up giving every extremist in the world the
game plan for stalemating America.”

Rumsfeld has persevered, as one of a handful of President
George W. Bush’s original Cabinet secretaries still on the job,
joining Labor Secretary Elaine Chao and Transportation
Secretary Norman Mineta. Interior Secretary Gale Norton’s
resignation is effective this month.

Rumsfeld, who also held the post under President Gerald
Ford from 1975 to 1977, has said he twice offered his
resignation in 2004 amid the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal
only to have Bush turn him down.

“He’s stuck it out when lesser men would walk away,”
Carafano said. “I don’t care what you call that, hubris or
whatever. I truthfully think just changing the captain on the
ship wouldn’t have made any difference. If anything, it may
have slowed things down because at least that captain knows the
mistakes he made.”