The words leapt off the screen as I was scanning the headlines:
Rumsfeld Questions War on Terror
Hark! I thought. A reasonable voice ... in the Pentagon ... from Machiavelli's reincarnated form no less?
As I feared, it was too good to be true. Secretary Rumsfeld is in fact questioning the so-called "War on Terror," but unfortunately he is doing so with an eye to expand its scope and further dull its focus to the point where it permeates virtually every aspect of American, and possibly global, life.
Some excerpts from Sec. Rumsfeld's recent widely-circulated Pentagon memo (what the DoD personnel *lovingly* call a "snowflake," due to the Secretary's tendency to bury the Pentagon three feet deep in Post-Its since he came to office):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The United States “has made reasonable progress in capturing or killing the top 55 Iraqis” but has made “somewhat slower progress” tracking down top Taliban leaders who sheltered al-Qaida figures in Afghanistan.
“It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog.”
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
(wtf is a 'slog?')
At a later press conference, Rumsfeld continued the train of thought:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
“Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?”
“The big question is the broader one about the global war on terror. It’s gonna take time. And it’s not simply a Defense Department matter.”
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What that means one might think is open to speculation, but the Secretary connects the dots for us:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
“It is not possible to change DoD fast enough to successfully fight the global war on terror. An alternative might be to try to fashion a new institution, either within DoD or elsewhere — one that seamlessly focuses the capabilities of several departments and agencies on this key problem."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Perhaps someone should mention to Secretary Rumsfeld the Department of Homeland Security, a laughable reshuffling of 22 extant federal agencies into one massive, elephantine bureacracy masquerading as something new and different to fight terror ...
Secretary Rumsfeld, a peculiarly candid man in an administration of obsfuscaters and concealers, even has some stern criticisms of sort for the current efforts at combatting terrorism:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
“The US is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists.”
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, candid, if a little contradictory.
And one observation which one cannot help but hope might come back and wake the Secretary up at night, possibly give him a clue about the mismanagement going on in Washington of what should be an important and high-priority issue:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
“The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists’ costs of millions.”
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But somehow I fear that as is usually the case with any government program, large or small, the hideous amounts of wastefulness which yield little result will only spark the call for more, more, more of the same.
Original story is here.
Phaedrus
Rumsfeld Questions War on Terror
Hark! I thought. A reasonable voice ... in the Pentagon ... from Machiavelli's reincarnated form no less?
As I feared, it was too good to be true. Secretary Rumsfeld is in fact questioning the so-called "War on Terror," but unfortunately he is doing so with an eye to expand its scope and further dull its focus to the point where it permeates virtually every aspect of American, and possibly global, life.
Some excerpts from Sec. Rumsfeld's recent widely-circulated Pentagon memo (what the DoD personnel *lovingly* call a "snowflake," due to the Secretary's tendency to bury the Pentagon three feet deep in Post-Its since he came to office):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The United States “has made reasonable progress in capturing or killing the top 55 Iraqis” but has made “somewhat slower progress” tracking down top Taliban leaders who sheltered al-Qaida figures in Afghanistan.
“It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog.”
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
(wtf is a 'slog?')
At a later press conference, Rumsfeld continued the train of thought:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
“Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?”
“The big question is the broader one about the global war on terror. It’s gonna take time. And it’s not simply a Defense Department matter.”
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What that means one might think is open to speculation, but the Secretary connects the dots for us:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
“It is not possible to change DoD fast enough to successfully fight the global war on terror. An alternative might be to try to fashion a new institution, either within DoD or elsewhere — one that seamlessly focuses the capabilities of several departments and agencies on this key problem."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Perhaps someone should mention to Secretary Rumsfeld the Department of Homeland Security, a laughable reshuffling of 22 extant federal agencies into one massive, elephantine bureacracy masquerading as something new and different to fight terror ...
Secretary Rumsfeld, a peculiarly candid man in an administration of obsfuscaters and concealers, even has some stern criticisms of sort for the current efforts at combatting terrorism:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
“The US is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists.”
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, candid, if a little contradictory.
And one observation which one cannot help but hope might come back and wake the Secretary up at night, possibly give him a clue about the mismanagement going on in Washington of what should be an important and high-priority issue:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
“The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists’ costs of millions.”
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But somehow I fear that as is usually the case with any government program, large or small, the hideous amounts of wastefulness which yield little result will only spark the call for more, more, more of the same.
Original story is here.
Phaedrus
