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.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.