The Rumsfeld memo

I never really knew what to make of Donald Rumsfeld.

Equally detested by all sorts of liberals and conservatives. Arrogant, acerbic, stubborn, headstrong. Indeed, watching him interact with members of the press on television, I was often struck by the headmaster chastising his charges dynamic at work — and how the press routinely and sheepishly acceded to it.

I have to admit I was kind of in awe of the guy. I mean here you have someone of scary vitality for a man in his 70s. Razor sharp. Peerless devotion to his country. Impeccable work ethic in full display even right after the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon, when he rolled up his sleeves and assisted in the search for survivors.

Ultimately history will judge what kind of defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld was. Then we’ll see if the New York Times was correct in calling him as bad or worse than Robert S. McNamara of the Vietnam era. Or whether he was worthy of the praise of a Victor Hanson or an Austin Bay.

In the meantime, I find the Rumsfeld memo — leaked to the New York Times and published this weekend — interesting for several reasons.

According to the Times, the memo “acknowledged that the Bush administration’s strategy in Iraq was not working and called for a major course correction.”

The Times claims the memo “suggests frustration with the pace of turning over responsibility to the Iraqi authorities” and “calls for examination of ideas that roughly parallel troop withdrawal proposals presented by some of the White House’s sharpest Democratic critics.”

You can read the full text of the memo here.

You’ll note that nowhere does Rumsfeld call the situation in Iraq a “quagmire” a la Ted Kennedy et al. Nowhere does he call for a redeployment to Okinawa a la John Murtha. Nowhere does he call for engagement with Iran and Syria a la the pragmatic minds of the Iraq Study Group.

Instead what we get from Rumsfeld is a frank acknowledgment that “what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough” and then 21 — count ‘em, 21 — “Illustrative New Courses of Action.” Fifteen of these he labels “Above the Line” and six “less attractive options.”

The one most closely resembling what many Democrats have proposed is this:

“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.”

You’ll note that this sits near the bottom of the less attractive options.

Among the “Above the Line” ideas is this:

“Stop rewarding bad behavior, as was done in Fallujah when they pushed in reconstruction funds, and start rewarding good behavior. Put our reconstruction efforts in those parts of Iraq that are behaving, and invest and create havens of opportunity to reward them for their good behavior. As the old saying goes, ‘If you want more of something, reward it; if you want less of something, penalize it.’ No more reconstruction assistance in areas where there is violence.”

And this:

“Position substantial U.S. forces near the Iranian and Syrian borders to reduce infiltration and, importantly, reduce Iranian influence on the Iraqi Government.”

And this:

“Significantly increase U.S. trainers and embeds, and transfer more U.S. equipment to Iraqi Security forces (ISF), to further accelerate their capabilities by refocusing the assignment of some significant portion of the U.S. troops currently in Iraq.”

Now I have no idea who leaked the Rumsfeld memo to the New York Times. But I hope whoever did left an extra copy on George Bush’s desk.