It’s difficult to utter a more asinine phrase in wartime than what Donald Rumsfeld, the Pentagon Pillager, said the other day.
While discussing how the guerillas in Iraq are still a deadly threat to the technologically superior American forces, Rumsfeld climaxed with: “The final test will be, who’s going to outlast the other? And the answer is we’re going to outlast them.”
If Rumsfeld wasn’t looking at his shoes when he spoke those words, he should have been.
We’re going to outlast the Iraqis? The strongest army in the world is going to outlast a gang of ill-equipped, back-alley Arabs? Gee, where did Rumsfeld get all that confidence? From his muse no doubt.
And what brought on all this “outlasting” nonsense anyway? Now that we’re stuck in this war, are we determined to win it, or is this nothing more than an endurance test? Where did Rumsfeld ever come up with the idea that this war is like a “strong man” contest: to see who can hold a 1,000 lb weight over his head the longest? Or be the last couple standing on the marathon dance floor?
Furthermore, when Rumsfeld said “the remnants of the regime are going to school on us”, the reporters felt sure Rummie was on a golf course. That is, after all, what golfers say when they watch the player ahead of them for hints on how they should play their next shot.
To avoid any confusion about what he meant, Rumsfeld explained: “After U.S. tactical changes, they (the Iraqis) watch what takes place and then they make adjustments.” I guess by that he means “they’re going to school on us”, although I never thought about killing people in the context of getting an education.
Now, is it or is it not plausible that in attacking Iraq, our top brass (if they were even there) should have understood from the git-go that such corrective action by the enemy was bound to take place, and plan to counter that action before it ever happened?
Or is this yet another case of U.S. Intelligence not being smart enough to outthink and outflank a bunch of ragged, third-world, country bumpkins?
Even more disconcertingly, our government officials don’t even seem capable of reading the war off the same page. On a Nashville TV station, Secretary of State Colin Powell tells the people that the number of U.S. troops is likely to be reduced as Iraqi builds up its own forces.
Meanwhile, back in Washington, President Bush is telling us that we may be transferring power back to the Iraqis soon, but American troops will remain in Iraq until the country is free and peaceful. Making no bones about the time frame, Bush said, “We will stay there until the job is done.”
A bit of mixed signaling there, wouldn’t you say?
It is not difficult to suppose that if the same question were put to Rice, Wolfowitz, and Feith we would get three more answers, all different.
So much for continuity in warfare planning.
This, in essence, is the U.S. war strategy (?) that Bush defends when he meets with foreign leaders, such as Italian President Carlo Azeglio Ciampi, and Japan’s Prime Minister Yoriko Kawaguchi.
Is it any wonder then that the Italians are pulling some of their troops out of Iraq, and the Japanese have yet to bring in troops or send the billions in aid they had pledged, saying that the situation in Iraq remains too unstable.
But all is not lost.
Maybe if Rumsfeld, in all his delusional glory, suddenly announced that he was changing the game to soccer we would get more positive response from our so-called allies.
“Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”