Rumsfeld: Criticism ‘goes with territory’
09/29/2006
By Frank Sesno
CNN
WASHINGTON (CNN)—Outside, they’re calling for his head. Politicians, authors and columnists, and a few former generals. They are an angry, noisy bunch. They say he should have quit or been fired long ago. They say he’s to blame for what is happening now in Iraq, didn’t listen, and must be held to account.
The man they’re talking about, of course, is Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, a living, breathing lightning rod for criticism and frustration over the war in Iraq.
His critics say he ignored advice and warnings from experienced generals and went to war without a plan for the hardest part of the war—post-Saddam Iraq. They say his management style steamrolled dissent from those who were convinced that more U.S. troops were needed on the ground. They say, in effect, the insurgency in Iraq is his fault.
But the 74-year-old Rumsfeld—who is just three months away from becoming the longest-serving secretary of defense in U.S. history—isn’t paying attention to the clamor. For him, the criticism outside is like noise from the highway, annoying but something you get used to.
“It goes with the territory,” he tells me with a shrug. “I don’t think there’s ever been a conflict in the history of our country where people, where critics didn’t disagree with what was being done. And, that’s fair enough.”
We meet in an imposing conference room in the secretary’s corridor, where we talk about war, terrorism, public opinion and Rumsfeld’s controversial management style. Later, he takes me across the hall to his newly renovated office, outfitted with his chest-high desk (he likes to stand when he works) and blast-proof windows. He shows me portraits of Winston Churchill and Dwight Eisenhower, and the plaque of Teddy Roosevelt he picked up at a flea market in Michigan. It’s clear he sees himself as taking his place among these office mates—at a crossroads of history, shaping the future.
He grows animated when I ask about declining public support for the war—a critical topic because it not only reflects on his leadership, but the sustainability of the effort itself.
Rumsfeld knows a democracy cannot wage a long war if the public is lost. He knows it from personal experience, because he served in Richard Nixon’s White House when Vietnam divided the nation and poisoned its politics. Rumsfeld argues that Iraq is different—because it is the front lines of the larger war on global terrorism. Despite the public opinion polls, he thinks the public knows it. And again, he invokes history.
“On big things over time,” he says, “the American people have been right. If they weren’t they would’ve tossed in the towel during the Revolutionary War and we wouldn’t have a country.”
Rumsfeld rarely acknowledges mistakes. He is sure of himself—always has been. But he carefully concedes one very important point: The insurgency in Iraq that has bloodied its citizens and U.S. forces for more than three years was not something that he or his advisers properly anticipated.
“I think that anyone who looks at it with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight has to say that there was not an anticipation that the level of insurgency would be anything approximating what it is,” he tells me. It is an extraordinary, reluctant acknowledgement coming from someone who seldom looks back, admits mistakes or second-guesses.
Iraqi people will deal with insurgency
As for the future, Rumsfeld is steadfast—he says America has to stay the course—but hardly reassuring.
“Insurgencies are historically very difficult things,” he says. “They take time. They take anywhere from 5,8,10,12,15 years.” He cites Algeria and the Philippines as examples—frightening comparisons to anyone thinking about where this is all heading, and especially striking, considering Rumsfeld’s original blueprint for Iraq. The war-plan back in 2003 was to invade fast, topple Saddam fast and draw down fast. That plan is a distant memory.
Rumsfeld says he does not see Americans fighting for the duration of Iraq’s insurgency.
“That insurgency is going to be dealt with in Iraq by the Iraqi people by the success of that government ... over time it isn’t going to be dealt with by foreigners,” he tells me.
“Our task now,” he says, is to build and train Iraqi security forces so they can “achieve their goal of a reasonably stable environment so that they can move forward as a country.”
These are modest goals compared to the Bush administration’s once-lofty vision of transforming Iraq into a pro-Western beacon of democracy that would transform the Middle East. Hardly surprising since Iraq may be on the verge of civil war, attacks and violence are up, and the recently released National Intelligence Estimate says the U.S. occupation has become a “cause celebre” for a new generation of terrorists.
But Donald Rumsfeld outwardly shows neither strain nor disappointment. He betrays no doubts about the mission or his leadership. He says America has no choice but to fight and win what he calls the “long war” on global terrorism, of which Iraq is a part. He still works 12 hours a day and is as combative as ever. He is not giving an inch.
In a rare display of exasperation during our meeting, he says, “I’ve watched polling go from zero to 55 percent to 12 percent in six weeks. What’s important is what’s right. What’s important is what makes sense and over time. The American people find their way to right decisions.”
And Donald Rumsfeld believes he’s made the right decisions.