Opaque Lucidity

Cause For Dismissal?

The New York Times has released a memo from Donald Rumsfeld to the White House in which the SecDef calls for a major change in our Iraq strategy. Some of the ideas seem to be straight from the mouths of Democrats, who are now poised to take control of both the House and the Senate. Was this the reason Rumsfeld got the ax?

It has often been said that this White House takes disloyalty very seriously. If the Secretary had broken with the White House over Iraq, even behind closed doors, then it is very likely that this was the cause of his dismissal. My first thought was that his firing was sort of a sacrifice at the altar of public opinion, since the Left and their fellow travelers in the media have done such a good job of portraying Rumsfeld as Grand Moff Tarkin. But now I believe that the Secretary may have lost faith in this nation's ability to succeed in Iraq by "staying the course".

If this is the case (and I have no evidence other than my own instincts), then the situation is indeed grave. The commanders on the ground in Iraq know that most of the terrorist insurgency could be taken care of in short order; however, the loss of civilian life in the effort would be great. What keeps us from securing Iraq is our own respect for life. Yes, many civilians have died, but if we had entered the country as we would have in, say, 1945, millions of people would now be dead as a direct result of the invasion. We talk of atomic weapons, but more people died in Tokyo due to fire bombing than died in Hiroshima.

So what is the answer? I don't know. I am reluctant to talk about Iraq these days because I never want to seem as if I don't support the men and women there who are doing the fighting and dying because I don't believe you can damn the mission and support the troops. Whatever the reasons for the invasion, we broke the place and now we have to fix it. I just don't think the American public is willing to pay the price for that anymore. I'm not sure what that says about us.