Replace Rumsfeld with Lindsey Graham
The Democratic Party is planning to target Rumsfeld in its fall election push, calling for a congressional vote of no confidence in the Defense Secretary. [Washington Post] This is a great strategy, and more importantly, it is the right thing to do. But if the Democrats in Congress really want to send a message, they should recommend a bulletproof candidate to replace Rumsfeld.
What if, instead of just complaining about Rumsfeld, Harry Reid & Co. called on Bush to replace Rumsfeld with someone specific, like Lindsey Graham? Graham's a conservative Republican from South Carolina, he's a former military judge, and he's been a consistent supporter of the war in Iraq. But unlike Rumsfeld, Graham believes in the Geneva Conventions, he isn't a neocon, and he doesn't go around comparing his critics to Nazi appeasers.
As part of New York Magazine's recent "What If 9/11 Never Happened?" issue, Andrew Sullivan imagined Gore winning in 2004 and naming Graham as Defense Secretary as part of a coalition cabinet. [New York] If the Democrats in Congress forced their Republican counterparts to imagine how much better off we would be if Graham had been in charge of the Department of Defense for the last 6 years, they might actually be able to force Rumsfeld out.
"Democrats Target Rumsfeld" [Washington Post]
"What If 9/11 Never Happened?" [New York]
"Swing Conservative" [Washington Monthly]
UPDATED 9/6/06:
Andrew Sullivan discussed this post yesterday, and then Matthew Yglesias responded, arguing that putting the blame on Rumsfeld is missing the larger point:
This Rumsfeld-obsession plays a genuinely pernicious role in our national discourse. The basic reality of the matter is that between September 2001 and Spring 2003 the bulk of the American political and media establishments endorsed the key elements of the Bush foreign policy. Over the subsequent 18 months or so, it became obvious to the bulk of this establishment that the Bush foreign policy was a moral and practical disaster. Rather than conclude that they were operating from mistaken premises and that they should come up with some new, authentically different ideas, the predominant impulse has simply been to say "we could have gotten away with it to if it wasn't for that meddling Rumsfeld!"
Well, no. Rumsfeld's ideas were bad ones. But the bad ideas -- the policies, Bush's policies, The Washington Post's policies, Andrew Sullivan's policies, etc. -- are the issue here, not Rumsfeld personally.
Yglesias makes a great point when he says that it is the policies that matter. But I would counter that the way organizations usually admit that they have made a mistake is to fire the person who is most responsible for the mistake. That's how you admit to making a mistake in the business world, in the sports world, and, at least historically, in Washington, D.C.
I was against the Iraq War from day one (which, based on the notes I got under FOIA earlier this year, was at least as early as September 11, 2001). That said, I still think there is a huge difference between planning, fradulently selling, and supervising a poorly thought out $300 billion ground war in the middle of the desert, like Rumsfeld did, and mistakenly believing that it was a good idea, as much of the American media and political establishments did.
Throw in the fact that Rumsfeld and his aides are largely responsible for many of violations of the Geneva Conventions that took place in American military prisons during the last six years, and it is nothing short of inconceivable that this man is still holding office in a democratic country.
What if, instead of just complaining about Rumsfeld, Harry Reid & Co. called on Bush to replace Rumsfeld with someone specific, like Lindsey Graham? Graham's a conservative Republican from South Carolina, he's a former military judge, and he's been a consistent supporter of the war in Iraq. But unlike Rumsfeld, Graham believes in the Geneva Conventions, he isn't a neocon, and he doesn't go around comparing his critics to Nazi appeasers.
As part of New York Magazine's recent "What If 9/11 Never Happened?" issue, Andrew Sullivan imagined Gore winning in 2004 and naming Graham as Defense Secretary as part of a coalition cabinet. [New York] If the Democrats in Congress forced their Republican counterparts to imagine how much better off we would be if Graham had been in charge of the Department of Defense for the last 6 years, they might actually be able to force Rumsfeld out.
"Democrats Target Rumsfeld" [Washington Post]
"What If 9/11 Never Happened?" [New York]
"Swing Conservative" [Washington Monthly]
UPDATED 9/6/06:
Andrew Sullivan discussed this post yesterday, and then Matthew Yglesias responded, arguing that putting the blame on Rumsfeld is missing the larger point:
This Rumsfeld-obsession plays a genuinely pernicious role in our national discourse. The basic reality of the matter is that between September 2001 and Spring 2003 the bulk of the American political and media establishments endorsed the key elements of the Bush foreign policy. Over the subsequent 18 months or so, it became obvious to the bulk of this establishment that the Bush foreign policy was a moral and practical disaster. Rather than conclude that they were operating from mistaken premises and that they should come up with some new, authentically different ideas, the predominant impulse has simply been to say "we could have gotten away with it to if it wasn't for that meddling Rumsfeld!"
Well, no. Rumsfeld's ideas were bad ones. But the bad ideas -- the policies, Bush's policies, The Washington Post's policies, Andrew Sullivan's policies, etc. -- are the issue here, not Rumsfeld personally.
Yglesias makes a great point when he says that it is the policies that matter. But I would counter that the way organizations usually admit that they have made a mistake is to fire the person who is most responsible for the mistake. That's how you admit to making a mistake in the business world, in the sports world, and, at least historically, in Washington, D.C.
I was against the Iraq War from day one (which, based on the notes I got under FOIA earlier this year, was at least as early as September 11, 2001). That said, I still think there is a huge difference between planning, fradulently selling, and supervising a poorly thought out $300 billion ground war in the middle of the desert, like Rumsfeld did, and mistakenly believing that it was a good idea, as much of the American media and political establishments did.
Throw in the fact that Rumsfeld and his aides are largely responsible for many of violations of the Geneva Conventions that took place in American military prisons during the last six years, and it is nothing short of inconceivable that this man is still holding office in a democratic country.
posted at 7:17:00 PM | permalink
<< Home