"The threat by Donald Rumsfeld, US defence secretary, could mark the beginning of a campaign to move Nato headquarters to another country, particularly as the US is still smarting over Belgium's stance against US policy over Iraq.

The US is one of the largest contributors to the new headquarters. The site was chosen a few months ago and is expected to cost Û200m-Û400m ($235m-$470m, £141m-£282m).

Mr Rumsfeld, who was attending a meeting of Nato defence ministers, said as long as Belgium refused to resolve the issue, the administration 'was not prepared to send either civilian or military officials to Nato if they were going to be harassed' by the courts. 'It does not make sense to have a new headquarters [in Brussels] if you cannot come to meetings,' he said."

"[M]any diplomats say his language was divisive and served to deepen resentments and harden positions.

While the alliance's defense ministers and their NATO ambassadors have worked hard to ease lingering tensions over the fractious Iraq debate, some said Mr. Rumsfeld seemed determined to keep those tensions alive.

'When the French or German ministers spoke, he would make a show of not paying attention, reading notes or talking to his neighbors," one senior European diplomat said. "He went out of his way to show he doesn't care.'"

"In an exercise in brute diplomacy which is causing more acute friction with the European Union following the rows over Iraq, the US administration is threatening to cut off tens of millions of dollars in aid to the countries of the Balkans unless they reach bilateral agreements with the US on the ICC by the end of this month.

The American campaign, which is having mixed results, is creating bitterness and cynicism in the countries being intimidated, particularly in the successor states of former Yugoslavia which perpetrated and suffered the worst war crimes seen in Europe since the Nazis. They are all under intense international pressure, not least from the Americans, to cooperate with the war crimes tribunal for former Yugoslavia in the Hague.

'Blatant hypocrisy,' said Human Rights Watch in New York on Tuesday of the US policy towards former Yugoslavia."

Roasting Rummy
While Rumsfeld was in Europe taking shots at the Belgians, the Army's outgoing top officer was taking a few oblique parting shots at Rumsfeld. Gen. Eric Shinseki, who clashed with Rumsfeld repeatedly over troop strength and weapons programs, didn't mention the absent Pentagon boss once during his final remarks as Army chief of staff.

Which might have been diplomatic, given what Shinseki did say.

Without referring to Rumsfeld, Shinseki alluded to the tensions which marked his four-year term as chief of staff -- tensions which, Robert Burns of the Associated Press writes, were rooted in Rumsfeld's belief that top commanders were resisting his civilian authority.

"'We understand that leadership is not an exclusive function of the uniformed services,' Shinseki said to an audience that included members of Congress and military officers from countries across the globe. 'So when some suggest that we in the Army don't understand the importance of civilian control of the military, well, that's just not helpful -- and it isn't true.'"

		Thursday, June 12 Wednesday, June 11 Tuesday, June 10 Monday, June 9 Friday, June 6

"You must love those you lead before you can be an effective leader... You can certainly command without that sense of commitment, but you cannot lead without it. And without leadership, command is a hollow experience, a vacuum often filled with mistrust and arrogance."

That is a word frequently associated with Rumsfeld, of course. And the secretary's recent actions have done nothing to diminish that reputation -- or repair the evident rift between his office and the Army's uniformed leadership. As Rupert Cornwell of The Independent reports, Rumsfeld's decision to pass over every serving senior Army officer and pick a retired special operations general as Shinseki's replacement is sure to rub nerves raw.

"'Rumsfeld is effectively telling all three and four-star army generals, they're not good enough,' one officer was quoted as saying."

Rumsfeld's pick, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, is a friend of the Pentagon boss who led the US special operations forces for three years. Rumsfeld has already tapped Schoomaker once, asking the retired commander for advice before the attack on Afghanistan. And some hawkish Washington pundits are suggesting that Rumsfeld's choice of Schoomaker is an indication of how the secretary plans to remake the Army.

But Schoomaker was apparently not the first person Rumsfeld asked. Multiple reports suggest that Gen. Tommy Franks, fresh from his command in Iraq, turned Rumsfeld down, as did Shinseki's second-in-command, Gen. John Keane. Wayne Madsen, writing for CounterPunch, argues that the multiple rejections say far more about Rumsfeld than they do about the high-profile job.

"The job that every flag rank officer covets was systematically turned down by Army commanders around the world: General B.B. Bell of the US Army European Command, General James Campbell of the US Army Pacific Command, General Larry Ellis of the US Army Forces Command, and General Philip Kensinger, commander of the US Army's Special Operations Command.

The deputy head of CENTCOM, Lt. Gen. John Abazaid, an Arab-American, also turned down Rumsfeld. Shinseki, Franks, Keane, and Abazaid could not stand the thought of putting up with Rumsfeld and his chickenhawk advisers on a daily basis."

That's also the conclusion reached by one of Madsen's ideological opposites. Conservative think-tanker and military reform advocate William S. Lind, writing on Military.com, says that the Army's two top jobs -- Shinseki's and Keane's -- have become posts no commander wants to take.

"Both current incumbents leave this summer, and instead of the usual line of hopefuls standing hat in hand, the eligibles have headed for the hills. Rumor has it they may have to recruit the hall porter and the charwoman.

The interesting question is why. Part of the answer is Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld. To put it plainly, Rumsfeld treats people like crap. Working for him is like working for Leona Helmsley, except that Leona is less self-centered. Unless you are one of his sycophants, equipped with a good set of knee-pads and plenty of lip balm, you can expect to be booted down the stairs on a regular basis."

Comments: