The Rumsfeld Memo: Fired for Not Staying the Course or Too Little, Too Late

The recently leaked Rumsfeld Memo, with its admission that things were not going as planned in Iraq and offering a check list of possible changes is interesting, not so much in its contents, as in who leaked it and why?

The purpose of the leak and its origin are curious. Given the fact that the Memo was written on November 6th, the election was November 7th, and the Rumsfeld departure announced on November 8th, the purpose in leaking it now seems to serve only one of three possible motivations. 1) It's a "school-boyish" attempt by Rumsfeld himself, to show: "Gee...see, I really was thinking about these things." I discount that, because as much as I believe Rumsfeld had a tendency for detachment, I've never believed he was a complete idiot.

2) The State Department leaked it to show how little attention Iraq was really getting in Washington, if not in Iraq itself, the international community, the world press, and the mind of the American voter. My first reaction, after reading it, was: "Good Grief! These guys weren't discussing these possibilities until November 6th?" However, although this might be a probable source and motivation in the Powell State Department, I don't see the Rice State Department as the source of the leak.

This leaves me with 3) the White House, with the motivation suggested in the title: Was it leaked to show that on the day before the election, Rumsfeld's second thoughts were "too little, too late," as confirmed by the election results or was it a reminder to the Baker-Hamilton Commission and the forth coming, internal Pentagon re-evaluation, that those who suggest something other than staying the course are "history."

Which of the two motivations you choose depends to some degree on how you perceive the President. There is a saying about there being no worse a fanatic than a convert. Bush was, and perhaps still is, despite some "window dressing," a convert to the neo-conservative cause in foreign policy. In this interpretation, as a convert, the President has been "unfazed" by the clamor for a policy change, and remains on the "staying the course" trajectory. After all, who are we compared to a "message from God?" Leaking the memo was to show there is no future in this Administration, or in independent commissions, for the faint at heart and it's "staying the course," or get off the boat. But this interpretation suggests that Bush is more an "ideologue" and insane than I think he is. The neo-con conversion was "real" as long as it worked and allowed him to do what he wanted to do anyhow...sort of like the CEO who brings in outside consultants to justify his own behavior. So, I am going to opt for the second, "too little, too late" motivation.

The White House leak (if that's the source) with the too little, too late motivation falls in line with an understanding of the President as essentially a spoiled rich kid, who has inherited the family store and thinks he can run it because he has an MBA from Harvard. In this mode, he operates through staff, not through public opinion polls, the media, elections or anything else that might actually sway a true politician. He assigns responsibility and depends upon that person to carry the ball; in this case, Rumsfeld.

There are two factors, in this "CEO/Chairman of the Board scenario," that lead to "firing." The first has to do with the CEO's boss, the stockholders. If the stockholders (read the American voter) determine that a change of course is necessary, it's because the person appointed responsibility for that aspect of the business didn't get the job done. So, it's a question of, in this case, firing Rumsfeld or Bush resigning as CEO. The second factor is a nuance, connected to the first - i.e. the CEO/Chairman will support the person responsible only up to the point wherein that person shows strength and resolution, without self-doubt. The Rumsfeld Memo, coming a day before the "stockholders" voted, showed "self-doubt" and was a disservice to the Board, in being "too little, too late."

I would suggest that had the election gone the way the White House wanted and the Rumsfeld Memo had not been written, the President would be staying the course, not only in Iraq, but with Rumsfeld as well. I also suspect that Mr. Bush spoke the truth some weeks prior to the election in giving Rumsfeld his support and saying to reporters that he expected Rumsfeld to remain as Secretary of Defense for the remainder of his term. In other words, he lied about the lie.

So...we have a President with mediocre intelligence and intellectual interest, put into office because of his name and slick marketing, and who otherwise would have done well to become Commissioner of Major League Baseball. This is compounded by the fact that he seems to compensate for these faults by being stubborn...staying the course, for fear of admitting error and showing his obvious weaknesses, of which he is probably painfully aware.

Were he the CEO/Chairman of a large corporation, the stockholders would by now have insisted on his removal. Had he been on the ticket in November, he would have been "fired."

At the moment, I concur with the Democratic decision not to pursue impeachment. However, that decision may change depending upon the revelations of the forth coming congressional investigations. If "war is the continuance of politics by other means," impeachment is, similarly, the continuance of politics by other means. Or, in corporate terms, think of it as buying out his contract. Democrats would be wise not to take this course unless they are assured of the votes, which at the moment they are far, far from having. But, suppose the situation in Iraq worsens. Suppose the brutal "choice" becomes either getting our current troops out safely immediately or re-establishing the draft and sending 500,000 more troops into a situation that no one believes may be resolved in our national interest for several decades, if ever. And, suppose this is coupled with a series of "scandals" regarding Iraqi oil and government contracting in Iraq. Even if the President himself is not seen as being personally involved, "incompetence" may become grounds for impeachment.

I hope this is not the course of things to come. My personal feelings and votes in 2000 and 2004 have been vindicated pretty much by events. And, although I did not support Bush Junior or the vast majority of his policies, including the Iraqi invasion, I recognize that he is my President as well as those who have supported him. And, at this point, regardless of policies, an impeachment movement would almost certainly be linked to a dramatic rise in U.S. troop casualties in Iraq; that is foremost in my mind concerning Mr. Bush's future. So, I "hope" for a different outcome, other than the one which, in my mind, seems probable. But, we must all begin asking ourselves the question of whether U.S. forces are now dying in Iraq, not because of just the wrong policy, but for the "legacy" of an elected official who simply can't admit he's been wrong. And, if I come to that conclusion, I'd impeach him tomorrow.