Why Must Rumsfeld Go?
By Chad A. B. Wilson
Published November 11, 2006, 3:06 pm in Military / Foreign policy, Voting & Partisanship.
The Pelosi liberals have been calling for Rumsfeld to go for quite a while now. They even said that it would be one of the first things they would fight for once they were elected. As of Wednesday, November 11, they got their wish. Yep, George Bush finally accepted Rumsfeld's resignation (it was the third time he had turned it in, supposedly). I want to tease out some of the implications of this, including why I think Bush chose the day after the elections, and what it may mean for our policy in Iraq.
Does the Secretary of Defense Really Matter Anyway?
First, let's get something straight. The Secretary of Defense does not determine the course of all military or defense policy just as the Secretary of State does not determine our foreign policy. Changing the Secretary of Defense could mean absolutely nothing for our policy in Iraq. If the entire administration doesn't decide the change the course, then changing one cabinet member won't mean a thing. We can't take Rumsfeld's resignation as anything more than a gesture, in that case. It's not a white flag for Bush; it's not a symbol of defeat. It more like a peace offering, a fruit cake offered to his opponents who happened to take both the House and Senate. What he is saying is that he understands how the people voted, and he wants to make an offering to them.
For the next two years, we will probably see Bush et al. concentrating more on an exit strategy, but this would have happened whether Rumsfeld had resigned or not. If Bush doesn't get us out of Iraq, he will known as the President who got us into another war like Vietnam, a war that he couldn't find a way out of. And he doesn't want that. Bush wants to be remembered fondly, and conservatives feel strongly that history will be kind to him. The world will see that the invasion of Iraq was a great thing for humanity, these supporters say. But if he can't get us out, it may not make a difference. Vietnam, too, might have been remembered fondly if we had been able to win and not just have "peace with dignity." But the fact that it took several presidents to get us out of it meant that something went wrong. If Bush doesn't come up with an exit strategy with his old Secretary of Defense or his new one, it won't matter. He still has to do it.
So Rumsfeld's gone, and it's not because he controlled anything on his own. He didn't single-handedly screw anything up, either. He's not like Clinton and his "sexual relations." Those things were between Clinton and Lewinsky; they didn't involve an entire administration. Here, we're dealing with a man who symbolizes a policy, not necessarily a man who dictated policy.
Now I'm not saying that Rumsfeld wasn't important, because he was. He was the symbol of our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and he became somewhat of a celebrity as he gave press conferences on all of the goings-on. His removal symbolizes a shift even if it doesn't necessarily dictate a real change. Even if the new Secretary of Defense continues the same course as his predecessor, Rumsfeld's removal means that Bush understands his position after these important mid-term elections.
Why Post-Election?
But why didn't he understand that position a day or week before the election? That's the real question, isn't it? Why would he do this after the election instead of before? In order to answer that question, we have to determine what real difference it would have made if Rumsfeld had resigned before the election.
The vote in the mid-term election was a vote against the Bushite Republicans. I know this argument is being overstated by lots of Democrats out there, but it seems clear that the voters voiced their unhappiness with the state of the country. As much as the Republicans tried to make the election about local issues and not about Iraq, the people seemed to vote based on their unhappiness about Iraq anyway.
Therefore, if this is the case, Rumsfeld's resignation would have signaled to the voters that Bush and the Republicans understood people's unhappiness with the course in Iraq. Yes, Bush kept saying that they needed to "stay the course," but if he was concerned with keeping Republicans in power, wouldn't he have said that the course needed to be changed? If the Democrats wanted Rumsfeld's head, and the Democrats seemed poised to win the mid-term election, then Rumsfeld's removal would have been a clear signal that Bush understood the will of the people. By extension, then, his removal would say that the Republicans understood and were willing to change based on the will of the people. And this would have, presumably, changed their course of voting.
Because a lot of people wanted to support Bush, at least as far as I could tell. If he had given them a reason to trust him, I think they would have continued to follow him and vote Republican like they had for the past three (or five?) elections. But his refusal to accept Rumsfeld's resignation is another sign of his obstinacy. Or his pride, maybe. Bush just seemed convinced that his party would win. Or maybe he just refused to believe that they would lose. Either way, he wouldn't or didn't make a change until after the election.
Now I can’t say for sure whether Rumsfeld's resignation would have made a difference in the election, of course. I'm a pundit, not a prognosticator. But I think it may have. I know I would have seen it as Bush admitting that the course should be changed. That he understood what the people wanted and would make a change accordingly. But that's not this President. That's not even what people like about him. They like him because he is the decider. And that word means two things for Bush. First, he makes the decisions. But second, his decision is final. He's definitely not a flip-flopper like John Kerry. Once his decision is made, that's it. And some people like that about Bush. Or at least they used to.
It's All Just Politics Anyway...
Some would have seen Rumsfeld's resignation as a "political" tactic, however. (By the way, I hate the way the word "political" or any of its variations takes on negative connotations, similar to the word "rhetoric.") If he had accepted Rumsfeld's resignation before the election, it would have appeared that Bush was doing it solely to help his political party. That it is was simply a political move to gain or keep power. I don't think this would have mattered, though. Even if it is a political tactic, that's the entire point. Our leaders should do what we want them to, and if we change our minds, they should, too.
So why does he fire Rumsfeld at all? I mean, why does he, ahem, accept his resignation after the elections? Wouldn't our "decider" Bush have kept fighting to keep his man in power? Wouldn't he have fought the Democrats until they forced Rumsfeld out of there? No, that's not quite our Bush, either, I guess. He wants to be remembered fondly, and he doesn't want his people ousted. The Democrats said that getting rid of the Secretary of Defense would have been one of their top priorities once they gained majorities. Well, they gained majorities, and Bush just wanted to keep off the inevitable. It's generally better to quit then to be fired, especially from political positions. Think of Nixon, after all.
So Bush let Rumsfeld go before he got the boot. And part of it, I think, is that Bush didn't want to give the Democrats the pleasure of firing him. If that's one of their first priorities, then Bush simply takes the opportunity away from them. Now they've got nothing! Except, I guess, for minor things like social security, the minimum wage, and getting us out of Iraq.
Comments & Trackbacks
No Comments/Trackbacks for this post yet...
This post has 1 feedback awaiting moderation...
Leave a comment