THE RUMSFELD MEMO: CONFUSED?

WARSHINGTON--Has anyone considered that Donald Rumsfeld himself leaked this memo? The Bush administration has no-motive to do this, so it was either someone close to Rumsfeld (unlikely to be Cheney), or the man-himself. It's astonishing to say it, but I think he was actually surprised and hurt by his firing. Yes, firing. Say it: 'fi-ring.' He didn't resign, that was the public-facade, just like with Colin Powell, another possible-leaker. The NYT is somehow confused that this memo contradicts Rumsfeld's public-pronouncements of 'stay-the-course'. It's only confusing if one believes he was the real mastermind behind the war, as the real-culprits are Cheney and Bush (but really, their backers, our faceless-dictatorship). Read the limits of the debate--the aims are never questioned, which is to 'win' in Iraq, perhaps occupying the country until 2010.

It could be that Rumsfeld's assistant Defense Sec., Stephen A. Cambone, leaked the memo in an act of loyalty to his soon-to-be former-boss. Rumsfeld 'resigned' on November 8th, two-days after he submitted the classified report. No-worries: Iraq's U.S. Ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, provided some cover for the Bush administration when he stated, 'others made recommendations.' However, 'Khalilzad did not say who else had made recommendations or what has been suggested.' (http://www.cbs47.tv/news/national/story.aspx?content_id=8526DEEE-A84F-4292-98B2-D11A3162DF7D) Perhaps it was individuals within the Iraq Study Group? Surely, it wouldn't be someone within the Bush administration, or they would be fired (resign).

One item on Rumsfeld's 'options-list' that likely won't find any support from the Bush-Cheney-Rice-Congressional axis is the drawing-down of American bases from 55 to a paltry 5. Many of these bases were constructed as permanent-facilities, something the NYT article omits. Considering that most 'mainstream' (right-wing) Democrats genuinely support the war-aims of PNAC, there won't be much vocal-support on their end, either. But a few items are staggering in their ineptness: send more troops. Never mind that members of the High Command were threatened with firing when they suggested this in 2003 and 2004, we need more troops. Meanwhile, the war's critics, and the ill-fated Iraq Study Group headed by James Baker, are suggesting a draw-down of troops (full-recommendations coming on Wednesday) and a timetable for withdrawal (using the 'riddim-method').

Most-striking in the memo is simply about shaping public-perceptions: 'Announce that whatever new approach the U.S. decides on, the U.S. is doing so on a trial basis. This will give us the ability to readjust and move to another course, if necessary, and therefore not “lose.” ' In-short, minimize the political-damage to the Bush administration, the only real option left. It's just more of the American sports-mentality--losing is unacceptable, or at-least being perceived as a loser. Yet, Rumsfeld himself admits in the memo that the war is basically-lost. Most of his suggestions must have been photocopied from Robert McNamara's old dossiers, as he suggests approaches that resemble a 'Vietnamization' of the war, putting Iraqi defense forces in-charge of the conflict.

One approach is already being implemented, namely, to 'Move a large fraction of all U.S. Forces into Baghdad to attempt to control it.' So far, this approach has been tried and is failing-miserably, as an American base within Baghdad was recently hit by mortar-rounds. Meanwhile, there is no security within Baghdad, and dozens of Iraqis are being found executed daily (by us?). There have even been a number of successful-bombings and strikes within the 'Green zone' in recent-weeks. My personal-favorite: 'Set a firm withdrawal date to leave. Declare that with Saddam gone and Iraq a sovereign nation, the Iraqi people can govern themselves. Tell Iran and Syria to stay out.' A number of suggestions imply that the Bush administration declare victory, and leave. This has been suggested by Rep. John Murtha and others for at least a year. Let the investigations commence, starting in January.


The New York Times Blarf:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/03/world/middleeast/03mtext.html

Full-text of the memo:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Full_text_of_classified_memo_written_1202.html