All living things die. Some lived more wholesome lives than others. I doubt Rumsfeld was one of them but, condolences to his family.
I thought some of his pre-9/11 initiatives to reform the Pentagon were interesting. Sadly he was, in the words of Michael Corleone, "not a wartime consigliere"
Just because Hitler isn't pictured turning on the ovens doesn't mean he wasn't responsible for the policies that lead to the holocaust.
the one who authorized it. some of those who actually carried out torture were punished, but as usual the ones who authorized it were not held accountable (rummy, cheney, yoo, ect). very similar to january 6th. the rioters/insurrectionists are being charged and arrested, but those who incited them are not facing any consequences.
Cheney still the great satan for landing us in bizarro future. Rummy and Wolfowitz were dumb Lieutenants in the grand scheme of things. Did NOT keep us safe (let alone Iraqis and Afghanis) and ruined a few generations in their wake. Rest in pieces like depleted uranium shells in the sands of Babylon
https://thefederalist.com/2021/07/01/the-chaotic-genius-of-donald-rumsfeld/ excerpt To critique Rumsfeld from a military perspective, he was a true American patriot but also the archetype of disaster in the republic in the modern era – an outstanding tactician and an overmatched strategist, a bright mind undone by the larger surrounding elements of the moment. Like McNamara, his mistakes got sucked into a field of partisan disagreement, when the real issue was the justifiable skepticism of expertise. And at the end of the day, that didn’t matter. The mistakes were still made. The intelligence still lied. The war still failed. In today’s politics, we have two narratives to explain things: One is good vs. bad, the other is smart vs. stupid. Part of the reason those of us who hold to classical liberal values have a hard time breaking through is that we usually find neither of these narratives satisfactory in actually explaining government failure. Elite immorality and lazy bureaucratic incompetence is real. But the real insight of conservatism – which Rumsfeld demonstrated – is that even if you have the best of intentions, the noblest of characters, and the sharpest of minds, our government still ****s up most of what it tries to do.
Jim Joyner: https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/donald-rumsfeld-1932-2021/ excerpt: I had to opportunity to meet Rumsfeld once, a decade ago. I was invited to his private office by Urbahn, along with a handful of other bloggers with a military or foreign policy background, for a meeting with Henry Kissinger to discuss his just-released book, On China. They were both, as one would expect of folks with their longevity in Washington, charming and gracious. Rumsfeld stayed around and talked with us a bit after Kissinger’s departure and discussed various issues in the news at the time. In particular, I recall one of the attendees declaring their support for the then-Bradley Manning and the Wikileaks project, on the grounds that we overclassify information. I agree that the problem existed but argued that, surely, the solution was not making disgruntled privates the declassification authority. Rumsfeld enthusiastically agreed. My view of Rumsfeld is much more forgiving than that of his harshest critics. Still, his second term at the Pentagon was clearly a failure. We started two wars on his watch and they were still running when he was relieved six years in. Indeed, they’re arguably still going on 15 years later. It is, however, absurd to blame the wars themselves and their costs on Rumsfeld. President Bush was, as he infamously put it, “The Decider.” Further, both wars were enthusiastically backed by strong, bipartisan majorities in Congress. Even the Iraq War, which is widely and rightly considered a debacle of our own choosing, was supported by the 2004, 2016, and 2020 Democratic nominees for President—including the current occupant of the Oval Office. Rumsfeld agreed to a second stint at the Pentagon to lead a transformation of the Department away from the smaller version of the Cold War force the brass was fighting to keep and to prepare it for great power competition. His vision for a lighter, smaller, more nimble and technically advanced force made absolute sense but was fought by generals and admirals wistful for the old days and power brokers in Congress who saw legacy systems as jobs programs for their states and districts. His imperious style was ultimately self-defeating but it was understandable in that context. The problem, of course, is that Rumfeld’s visions of a future fight met the reality of two current fights. His “go small” plan brilliantly succeeded in his immediate goals in Iraq: defeating Saddam’s forces, ousting the Baathist regime, and installing a successor government. The problem, as Army Chief of Eric Shinseki famously predicted, was that it would be far too small to handle the Phase 4 mission of reconstructing Iraq—and, especially, in defeating the insurgency that sprung up. It’ll likely be years before we know the full story but my longstanding view is that Rumsfeld simply had a different war aim in mind than Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. I think that, in both Afghanistan and Iraq, Rumsfeld envisioned rapid regime change and then handing the keys off to a friendly successor government. Instead, we began impossibly ambitious transformation projects that bogged us down in what became known as “forever wars.” But, certainly, Rumsfeld (and others in the administration) was far too slow in adjusting the strategy and force posture to that new reality. The post Donald Rumsfeld, 1932-2021 first appeared on Outside the Beltway.
