MotherJones.com | MoJo Blog - Social Issues and Political Commentary: Question for Rumsfeld: How Many More Catastrophes? And Victory for Whom?

« Blackwater Update: How They Got Those Contracts | Blog Index | GOP Take Note: New Immigrant Voters Don't Respond Well to Offensive Comments »


Advertisement
recent entries Condi Busted on Her Own Personal State of Denial Which Is Worse: The U.S. Torturing British Residents or Britain Not Taking Them Back? Salacious Exchanges With Underage Male Pages Foley Now In Deeper Trouble Environmental Damage: Another Reason Why a Border Fence is a Bad Idea Supreme Court Declines to Take Up Sex Toys Texas to DC: Don't Fence Me In Update--PERA Has Passed In the House of Representatives Woodward, Kissinger, Vietnam--Let's Do The Time Warp Again They've known about Foley for almost a YEAR?

Question for Rumsfeld: How Many More Catastrophes? And Victory for Whom?

Donald Rumsfeld, deploying an analogy as cliched as it is scurrilous (at least in this case), likens critics of the Bush administration to those who opted for appeasement in the face of the Nazi threat.

"I recount this history because once again we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism," he said.

"Can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?" he asked.

"Can we truly afford to return to the destructive view that America — not the enemy — is the real source of the world's troubles?"

We needn't waste time tackling the substance, such as it is, of this slur. Far more interesting is Rumsfeld's later invocation of Clemenceau.

"You know from experience that in every war — personally — there have been mistakes and setbacks and casualties," he said. "War is," as Clemenceau said, `A series of catastrophes that results in victory."

This represents a sort of progress, I suppose: at least it recognizes, if obliquely, that the Iraq campaign has been catastrophic. But it also shows he's learned very little. That kind of self-serving, open-ended utopianism -- "just wait, you'll see" -- is precisely the habit of mind that got us into this mess. It could be that these catastrophes will lead to victory. But how many more catastrophes (avoidable and not)? At what cost? And victory for whom? (pace James Fallows, that's still a live question, in my opinion.) The corollary to Clemenceau's glib maxim is that one side has to lose.

Rumsfeld's optimism--to the extent that it's sincere--no doubt serves a psychological function as he contemplates a conscience-haunted retirement. But it also demonstrates that his hubris--one pulverized country and tens of thousands of lives later-- still knows no limits.

Posted by Julian Brookes on 08/29/06 at 11:19 AM | E-mail | Print

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://161.58.185.225/mb/mb-backtracks.cgi/1616

Comments

It appears that Rumsfeld is a male. As such, his life is made up primarily of fantasies, and he didn’t get to his position in life by being self-reflective or cynical. As Dilbert’s boss said: “Leadership is 90% optimism”. All great societies are created on the fantasies of the peasant males. Rumsfeld, and the Republicans, are simply repeating the same fantasy that worked on the peasants for that last six years. Do the liberals have an optimist fantasy that can be substituted?

Posted by: john on 08/29/06 at 12:32 PM

Do you have one, John? I'm sure we'd all like to hear it.

Posted by: Julian Brookes on 08/29/06 at 12:34 PM

Bringing in the 'males live in a fantasy' angle might score you a few points at bars [where I'm sure you're very popular due to your cuddly personality]but it just doesn't wash here.

Posted by: paul miller on 08/29/06 at 4:34 PM

Bush has also admitted that the Iraq campaign has been catastrophic. Since he's adamant that nothing on the American side will change while he's President, he has obviouly given up on making any progress in the next two years.

Posted by: Rick Person on 08/30/06 at 10:40 AM

Secretary Rumsfeld indicates that we face a threat from a 'new kind of fascism,' but even a casual look at the administration shows we have already lost THAT battle

Posted by: Denis Smith on 08/30/06 at 2:46 PM

Rumsfeld is just trying to brainwash all of us who already know that this war is a fiasco!

Ron Wilson
Balad, Iraq

Posted by: RON WILSON, BALAD, IRAQ on 08/31/06 at 6:21 AM

It seems that the American public feel very happy with the current situation, for what can an outsider conclude by seeing that after five, six? years of lies, manipulation, pusillanimity, stupidity, crime, contempt for the law, etc, etc, a great many people still support an individual like Bush and his gang?

Posted by: Jaime Galarza on 09/01/06 at 5:42 PM

When historians write the history of this period, they will have to say that a great portion of the American public went along with this administration's policies. They will say that they supported Bush's crimes in Iraq as well as the crimes committed by proxy. They will have to say that Bush and his gang stepped over the rights of his own citizens ...and nothing happened. Didn't the same happen in Germany from 1939 to 1945?

Posted by: Jaime Galarza on 09/01/06 at 5:48 PM

Yes, Jaime, it did, which is why we should all be s--ting our pants. Complacency is our worst enemy -more than Bush.

Posted by: paul miller on 09/01/06 at 6:41 PM

History? LOL!!! You think there will be anyone left to record a history after bus&co. are done? Don't you remember when bush was asked how he thought history would judge him?
He said, "History? Who cares? We'll all be dead."

Posted by: Gonnuts on 09/01/06 at 9:07 PM

Yes, everyone, we are of a mind. Now, can we agree to bring full consciousness to diffusing the next move, the bombardment of Iran, BEFORE it happens. Can we knock the chess-pieces off the table before Rumsfield, Cheney & Co. make their next move?

Posted by: sihlok on 09/01/06 at 9:28 PM