thedrifter
11-09-06, 07:40 AM
CHANGING COURSE
Rumsfeld out
Iraq strategy, Pentagon policy will be shaken up, analysts say
- Matthew B. Stannard, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, November 9, 2006
The resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld will reverberate through the U.S. military, shaking up not only the strategy in Iraq but also the long-term U.S. military posture around the world, analysts say.
"The implications of Rumsfeld's departure go way, way beyond the conduct of today's war," wrote Noah Shachtman, editor of DefenseTech.org, which focuses on military technology. "The shape of America's military for decades to come is at stake."
That impact might not be felt immediately, military analysts say. Neither are there likely to be the immediate changes in Iraq demanded by critics and by voters whose anger helped drive Rumsfeld from office.
"I don't imagine the new secretary is going to have an enormous amount of elbow room," said James Jay Carafano, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation. "There's only so many things you can practically do."
Nevertheless, even President Bush, while announcing Rumsfeld's resignation Wednesday, hinted that the leadership shuffle might signal changes in Iraq strategy -- and soon.
"He himself understands that Iraq is not working well enough, fast enough," Bush said of Rumsfeld. "As you know, we're constantly changing tactics. And that requires constant assessment."
In fact, some analysts had been expecting changes from the White House, especially in view of a hotly anticipated report from the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and retired Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton that is reviewing U.S. options in Iraq.
Bush mentioned the panel four times during his press conference Wednesday and noted that the man he has picked to be Rumsfeld's replacement, Robert Gates, is a member of the commission.
"At this point ... the forthcoming ISG report soars in significance," wrote George Friedman of the private intelligence consultancy Stratfor. "For the administration, it would be politically unworkable to appoint a member of the panel as secretary of defense and then ignore the policies recommended."
But the ultimate decisions on whether to follow the panel's recommendations -- and on how to shape overall policy in Iraq -- lies with Bush, said Harlan Ullman, senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
"If the president wants to change policy, then we'll have different policies out of the Pentagon irrespective of who is secretary of defense," he said. "Rumsfeld was not driving the ship -- George Bush was."
Ullman also is skeptical that a new secretary of defense, or Baker's study group, will measurably improve the situation in Iraq, at least in the near future.
"We have no good choices in Iraq. They are all bad to worst," he said. "If we are to change course, which I have been arguing for three years is essential, we need detailed specifics. And to think that the Iraq Study Group ... will come up with the right answers that will be immediately accepted, I think that is a bit of wishful thinking."
Other analysts, however, said that even if changing the military's second in command doesn't create many new options for the war, it could at least open up new paths of communication between the civilian leadership and military officers.
Many in the top brass were angered by what they perceived as Rumsfeld's imperious personality and his enthusiasm for military technology and air power at the expense of what they considered the concerns of soldiers in the field, ranging from adequate troop numbers to sufficient battle and training equipment.
"If the new secretary comes in and says, 'The very first moral decision we have to make is take care of the soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen we're sending to Iraq' ... I think that would be a very positive impact," said retired Marine Col. Thomas X. Hammes.
To some experts, Gates' up-through-the-ranks experience at the CIA suggests the possibility of a more open mind with better interpersonal skills and respect for human intelligence and the needs of troops.
"Gates is a professional, career CIA guy, a lot of top level government experience," said Robert Hodierne, senior managing editor for the Military Times chain of newspapers, which called for Rumsfeld's resignation in an editorial Monday. "I think (troops) will probably greet his arrival with optimism or at least equanimity." The Military Times chain is owned by the Gannett Co.
Beyond the immediate issue of Iraq -- and Afghanistan, where the Taliban have re-emerged as serious menace -- are larger questions of how the United States will fight the longer term battle against terrorists, rogue nations and nonstate actors that many analysts believe have supplanted traditional nation state warfare as one of this century's biggest threats.
Rumsfeld's answer to that call was dubbed "Transformation," which he described in a 2002 speech as a necessary response to the events of Sept. 11.
"Our challenge in the 21st century is to defend our cities and our infrastructure from new forms of attack while projecting force over long distances to fight new and perhaps distant adversaries," he said. "Our goal is not simply to fight and win wars, it is to try to prevent wars."
But many analysts said that despite the cutting edge rhetoric and early successes such as the tight integration of U.S. Special Forces with Northern Alliance fighters in Afghanistan, Rumsfeld focused too much on gee-whiz technology and heavy air power instead of human intelligence and boots on the ground.
"All of 'Transformation' was about building a force that was superb at fighting the Soviet Union in the Sahara Desert," Hammes said. "Unfortunately, that's no longer the kind of war we are in or will be in for the next 10 to 15 years."
Part of that emphasis came from a concern shared by Rumsfeld and others in the administration about China, which they saw as an emergent military threat and a "near peer" to the United States, said Thomas Barnett, author of "The Pentagon's New Map" and "Blueprint for Action."
"The fixation on China, which was strong with this administration when it came in and certainly remained strong with the China hawks under Rumsfeld and with Rumsfeld himself became the excuse for over-feeding the war force and starving the occupation force," he said. "The Air Force and the Navy probably get happier than they need to be ... and the Army and the Marines are left hanging."
Gates, a former director of the CIA, might bring a different perspective to that equation, in the view of some analysts -- with possible ramifications in Iraq and beyond.
"He should have an understanding of the incredible importance of human intelligence in counterinsurgency," Hammes said. "I'm not talking torturing and chasing terrorists and hunting them down but understanding cultures and motivations and that kind of thing to help us understand things both in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the wider war."
Gates' ability to make change is unclear. Some of it, analysts said, depends on his relationship with top military leaders and whether Rumsfeld actually was ignoring their advice, as some retired officers have complained, or if the problem lay with the officers' failure to offer good advice in the first place.
Of course, some of that strife came from Rumsfeld's efforts to reshape the military's enormous and expensive bureaucracy, a challenge some analysts noted exists whoever is in the secretary's seat.
"Rumsfeld put the marker down for military transformation and in over five years in office was able to achieve virtually none of his goals, despite the confidence of the president and a willingness to push very, very hard," said John Arquilla, an associate professor of defense analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey. "It proves the point that even a secretary of defense is a very small cog in a very big machine."
A separate question is time. Can Gates make any real difference, in Iraq or in the military at large in the time Bush has left? Outside of helping to form a new Iraq strategy and influencing future military spending, some analysts doubt that he will be able to achieve much in the time allotted, except perhaps to help lay a foundation for future change.
"This is a lame duck administration with two years left in office. There is no great transformation that's going to take place in the military in two years," Carafano said. "It takes two years to learn how to find the men's room."
Those limits lead some analysts to conclude that Rumsfeld's ouster had far more to do with politics -- the Democratic thumping of Bush on Tuesday combined with weakening Republican support for the embattled secretary -- than with a significant change in military strategy.
"We've been trying to figure out for three years how to improve our Iraq policy. They've been trying to figure out for 12 hours how to respond to the election debacle," said Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution. "Rumsfeld falls into the latter category more than the former category."
But to some analysts who have become increasingly pessimistic as the war in Iraq has spiraled toward chaos, any change at this point carries the fresh scent of hope.
"It represents a rejection of the Rummy mantra that by 'staying the course,' we're winning," said Graham Allison, an assistant secretary of defense under President Bill Clinton. "Does this represent a decision about what the alternative is? I don't think so, except at least it's rejected one grand error."
E-mail Matthew B. Stannard at mstannard@sfchronicle.com.
Ellie
Rumsfeld out
Iraq strategy, Pentagon policy will be shaken up, analysts say
- Matthew B. Stannard, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, November 9, 2006
The resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld will reverberate through the U.S. military, shaking up not only the strategy in Iraq but also the long-term U.S. military posture around the world, analysts say.
"The implications of Rumsfeld's departure go way, way beyond the conduct of today's war," wrote Noah Shachtman, editor of DefenseTech.org, which focuses on military technology. "The shape of America's military for decades to come is at stake."
That impact might not be felt immediately, military analysts say. Neither are there likely to be the immediate changes in Iraq demanded by critics and by voters whose anger helped drive Rumsfeld from office.
"I don't imagine the new secretary is going to have an enormous amount of elbow room," said James Jay Carafano, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation. "There's only so many things you can practically do."
Nevertheless, even President Bush, while announcing Rumsfeld's resignation Wednesday, hinted that the leadership shuffle might signal changes in Iraq strategy -- and soon.
"He himself understands that Iraq is not working well enough, fast enough," Bush said of Rumsfeld. "As you know, we're constantly changing tactics. And that requires constant assessment."
In fact, some analysts had been expecting changes from the White House, especially in view of a hotly anticipated report from the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and retired Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton that is reviewing U.S. options in Iraq.
Bush mentioned the panel four times during his press conference Wednesday and noted that the man he has picked to be Rumsfeld's replacement, Robert Gates, is a member of the commission.
"At this point ... the forthcoming ISG report soars in significance," wrote George Friedman of the private intelligence consultancy Stratfor. "For the administration, it would be politically unworkable to appoint a member of the panel as secretary of defense and then ignore the policies recommended."
But the ultimate decisions on whether to follow the panel's recommendations -- and on how to shape overall policy in Iraq -- lies with Bush, said Harlan Ullman, senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
"If the president wants to change policy, then we'll have different policies out of the Pentagon irrespective of who is secretary of defense," he said. "Rumsfeld was not driving the ship -- George Bush was."
Ullman also is skeptical that a new secretary of defense, or Baker's study group, will measurably improve the situation in Iraq, at least in the near future.
"We have no good choices in Iraq. They are all bad to worst," he said. "If we are to change course, which I have been arguing for three years is essential, we need detailed specifics. And to think that the Iraq Study Group ... will come up with the right answers that will be immediately accepted, I think that is a bit of wishful thinking."
Other analysts, however, said that even if changing the military's second in command doesn't create many new options for the war, it could at least open up new paths of communication between the civilian leadership and military officers.
Many in the top brass were angered by what they perceived as Rumsfeld's imperious personality and his enthusiasm for military technology and air power at the expense of what they considered the concerns of soldiers in the field, ranging from adequate troop numbers to sufficient battle and training equipment.
"If the new secretary comes in and says, 'The very first moral decision we have to make is take care of the soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen we're sending to Iraq' ... I think that would be a very positive impact," said retired Marine Col. Thomas X. Hammes.
To some experts, Gates' up-through-the-ranks experience at the CIA suggests the possibility of a more open mind with better interpersonal skills and respect for human intelligence and the needs of troops.
"Gates is a professional, career CIA guy, a lot of top level government experience," said Robert Hodierne, senior managing editor for the Military Times chain of newspapers, which called for Rumsfeld's resignation in an editorial Monday. "I think (troops) will probably greet his arrival with optimism or at least equanimity." The Military Times chain is owned by the Gannett Co.
Beyond the immediate issue of Iraq -- and Afghanistan, where the Taliban have re-emerged as serious menace -- are larger questions of how the United States will fight the longer term battle against terrorists, rogue nations and nonstate actors that many analysts believe have supplanted traditional nation state warfare as one of this century's biggest threats.
Rumsfeld's answer to that call was dubbed "Transformation," which he described in a 2002 speech as a necessary response to the events of Sept. 11.
"Our challenge in the 21st century is to defend our cities and our infrastructure from new forms of attack while projecting force over long distances to fight new and perhaps distant adversaries," he said. "Our goal is not simply to fight and win wars, it is to try to prevent wars."
But many analysts said that despite the cutting edge rhetoric and early successes such as the tight integration of U.S. Special Forces with Northern Alliance fighters in Afghanistan, Rumsfeld focused too much on gee-whiz technology and heavy air power instead of human intelligence and boots on the ground.
"All of 'Transformation' was about building a force that was superb at fighting the Soviet Union in the Sahara Desert," Hammes said. "Unfortunately, that's no longer the kind of war we are in or will be in for the next 10 to 15 years."
Part of that emphasis came from a concern shared by Rumsfeld and others in the administration about China, which they saw as an emergent military threat and a "near peer" to the United States, said Thomas Barnett, author of "The Pentagon's New Map" and "Blueprint for Action."
"The fixation on China, which was strong with this administration when it came in and certainly remained strong with the China hawks under Rumsfeld and with Rumsfeld himself became the excuse for over-feeding the war force and starving the occupation force," he said. "The Air Force and the Navy probably get happier than they need to be ... and the Army and the Marines are left hanging."
Gates, a former director of the CIA, might bring a different perspective to that equation, in the view of some analysts -- with possible ramifications in Iraq and beyond.
"He should have an understanding of the incredible importance of human intelligence in counterinsurgency," Hammes said. "I'm not talking torturing and chasing terrorists and hunting them down but understanding cultures and motivations and that kind of thing to help us understand things both in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the wider war."
Gates' ability to make change is unclear. Some of it, analysts said, depends on his relationship with top military leaders and whether Rumsfeld actually was ignoring their advice, as some retired officers have complained, or if the problem lay with the officers' failure to offer good advice in the first place.
Of course, some of that strife came from Rumsfeld's efforts to reshape the military's enormous and expensive bureaucracy, a challenge some analysts noted exists whoever is in the secretary's seat.
"Rumsfeld put the marker down for military transformation and in over five years in office was able to achieve virtually none of his goals, despite the confidence of the president and a willingness to push very, very hard," said John Arquilla, an associate professor of defense analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey. "It proves the point that even a secretary of defense is a very small cog in a very big machine."
A separate question is time. Can Gates make any real difference, in Iraq or in the military at large in the time Bush has left? Outside of helping to form a new Iraq strategy and influencing future military spending, some analysts doubt that he will be able to achieve much in the time allotted, except perhaps to help lay a foundation for future change.
"This is a lame duck administration with two years left in office. There is no great transformation that's going to take place in the military in two years," Carafano said. "It takes two years to learn how to find the men's room."
Those limits lead some analysts to conclude that Rumsfeld's ouster had far more to do with politics -- the Democratic thumping of Bush on Tuesday combined with weakening Republican support for the embattled secretary -- than with a significant change in military strategy.
"We've been trying to figure out for three years how to improve our Iraq policy. They've been trying to figure out for 12 hours how to respond to the election debacle," said Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution. "Rumsfeld falls into the latter category more than the former category."
But to some analysts who have become increasingly pessimistic as the war in Iraq has spiraled toward chaos, any change at this point carries the fresh scent of hope.
"It represents a rejection of the Rummy mantra that by 'staying the course,' we're winning," said Graham Allison, an assistant secretary of defense under President Bill Clinton. "Does this represent a decision about what the alternative is? I don't think so, except at least it's rejected one grand error."
E-mail Matthew B. Stannard at mstannard@sfchronicle.com.
Ellie