Thursday, November 09, 2006
Did the Democratic victory cause Rumsfeld to resign?
I spent the day in London before catching the late flight to Lyon. The British papers take it for granted that the Democratic victory on Tuesday caused Donald Rumsfeld to resign. See the Financial Times ("Democratic Victory Fells Rumsfeld"), The Guardian ("George Bush sacrificed his right-hand man in the war in Iraq, Donald Rumsfeld, as his administration scrambled yesterday to find its footing after a bruising defeat in an election..."), and The Times ("The Defence Secretary became the biggest casualty of an election night “thumping” — Mr Bush’s description..."). I think they are wrong.
Donald Rumsfeld was going to go, regardless of the outcome on Tuesday. The looming report from James Baker's Iraq Study Group would have provided the air cover -- if not the political requirement -- for Rumsfeld to go regardless of the outcome of the election. I think that had the Republicans somehow held on the announcement might have been delayed until just before the ISG released its report, which is expected imminently, but that is a difference in days or a few weeks. The President has probably known that Rumsfeld was going to go since mid-June, when he endorsed the ISG. Rumsfeld has probably also known. The only question was timing, and even that was within a narrow window.
Whatever one thinks of Donald Rumsfeld personally or his performance as SecDef, it seems to those of us on the outside that he had lost the confidence of too many people, particularly in the military, to stay in the job for the full eight years. In addition, there were powerful additional reasons for him to go (some of which were, indeed, derivative of the Democratic victory), most of which are detailed in this must-read (and must-laugh) blog post.
CWCID: Glenn Reynolds.
11 Comments:
By 
, at
Thu Nov 09, 07:06:00 PM:
Goodness gracious, that was funny.
By 
Lanky_Bastard, at
Thu Nov 09, 09:27:00 PM:
Are you saying he would have been replaced even if the Republicans had held both houses? I have doubts.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Thu Nov 09, 11:54:00 PM:
lanky - and your doubts are based on -- ?
The remains a significant minority of military strategists who think that Rumsfeld will go down as one of the great change agents in the history of the military. History will answer that.
By TigerHawk, at
Fri Nov 10, 01:46:00 AM:
Yes, Lanky, I think so. The President's endorsement of the Iraq Study Group in June, given who is on it, put that in motion.
I will admit, I didn't predict the Rumsfeld resignation ex ante, but I did see James Baker speak at Princeton in the spring, and I remember thinking that the ISG was going to provide the excuse for a big change in Iraq policy at some point soon.
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Fri Nov 10, 03:13:00 AM:
Well, we have the SecDef thrown under the bus the day after a huge Democratic victory. It's not necessarily cause and effect there, but it looks that way to me.
Add in that Bush said a week ago Rummy would last 2 more years...I guess he could have been lying, but it looks to me like someone changed his mind.
By , at
Fri Nov 10, 04:08:00 AM:
I cringe many times at the quality, or lack of, in the UK press. More details and responses would be nice in relation to this article.
Frightening in its implications, long predicted by authors quoted in this forum, but Maggie Beckett shouldn't expect too much help from "mainstream" muslims.
We have been warned so many times.................
By , at
Fri Nov 10, 04:38:00 AM:
Here is another article by an author whose reputation exceeds his mental capacity
The final detail says it all "Lord Lamont was Chancellor of the Exchequer, 1990/1993" - He made an absolute bollocks of that job too.
By , at
Fri Nov 10, 05:44:00 AM:
It has to be said, that for a "leader Article", this article is very short on details and analytics.
There is consistantly more details and better analysis in the TH forum.
By , at
Fri Nov 10, 06:54:00 AM:
And for todays final touch of insanity in this septic isle.
Surely there is a disconnect somewhere.
If I were a jurer, my instincts would say "guilty" as I would assume that since the defence wished to cover its identity, it must be lying. Or rather to take the opposite view of whatever the mask was arguing.
Perhaps all jurers should adopt that stance, then we would face calls for Islamic jurors to try muslim defendants, whatever the crime, and viola, sharia law by default <:-(
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Nov 10, 11:23:00 PM:
"Add in that Bush said a week ago Rummy would last 2 more years...I guess he could have been lying, but it looks to me like someone changed his mind."
Holy crap. You mean Bush isn't a liar?!
By , at
Sat Nov 11, 05:06:00 PM:
I think people read too much into the Runfeld departure. Rumsfeld probably feels it is best.
First, he is getting pretty old. That doesn't disqualify him but it doesn't help him get through the day.
And he knows he won't get anything more done. The Congress isn't going to let him change the DOD. And they aren't going to let Bush continue in Iraq.
The effort in Afghanistan will probably be killed by reducing funding. Who can imagine that NATO won't pull out of there?
Tony Blair was our only supporter making a strong military effort. He is leaving office. That ends that.
Rumsfeld is personally better off leaving. He had no chance to make things better and his successor will have only the smallest.
