Rummy’s falling ‘snowflakes’
To the benefit of all humanity, Donald Rumsfeld is no longer the Secretary of Defense. But once in a while, we gain some insights into just how peculiar a man ol’ Rummy really was during his lengthy — he was the longest serving Defense Secretary in U.S. history — tenure at the Pentagon.
Consider, for example, his constant stream of memos, which came to be known as “snowflakes. Rumsfeld produced up to 60 memos a day, and the WaPo obtained a whole bunch of them. There aren’t any shocking new revelations, per se, but we do get a sense of an intolerant man with unusually thin skin.
In a series of internal musings and memos to his staff, then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld argued that Muslims avoid “physical labor” and wrote of the need to “keep elevating the threat,” “link Iraq to Iran” and develop “bumper sticker statements” to rally public support for an increasingly unpopular war. […]
Under siege in April 2006, when a series of retired generals denounced him and called for his resignation in newspaper op-ed pieces, Rumsfeld produced a memo after a conference call with military analysts. “Talk about Somalia, the Philippines, etc. Make the American people realize they are surrounded in the world by violent extremists,” he wrote.
People will “rally” to sacrifice, he noted after the meeting. “They are looking for leadership. Sacrifice = Victory.”
The meeting also led Rumsfeld to write that he needed a team to help him “go out and push people back, rather than simply defending” Iraq policy and strategy. “I am always on the defense. They say I do it well, but you can’t win on the defense,” he wrote. “We can’t just keep taking hits.”
By “hits,” of course, Rumsfeld wasn’t referring to attacks on U.S. troops. He meant he personally couldn’t “keep taking” public criticism. Rummy was feeling rather sorry for himself.
One of the more notable points from the WaPo article is that Rumsfeld, despite leading the Pentagon during two wars, took a very personal interest in newspaper columns that critiqued his job performance.
He was even personally involved in the Defense Department’s message development.
As public discontent and congressional questioning grew in 2006, his final year at the Pentagon, a series of snowflakes revealed a man determined to counter the chorus of media criticism in one- or two-line zingers to staff members about specific articles.
“I think you ought to get a letter off about Ralph Peters’ op-ed in the New York Post. It is terrible,” he writes on Feb. 6, 2006. In a Feb. 2 New York Post column, Peters decried “chronic troop shortages in Iraq” while the Pentagon buys “high-tech toys that have no missions.” […]
On March 20, Rumsfeld ordered a point-by-point analysis of the seven “mistakes” columnist Trudy Rubin wrote about in the Philadelphia Inquirer and a response to her essay — which he wanted to see before it was sent out. Rubin wrote that the war had “gone sour.”
The Secretary of Defense didn’t have better things to do than coordinate a response to a columnist from the Philadelphia Inquirer? Seriously?
Apparently, the snowflakes were still falling even after Rumsfeld was thrown under the bus, the day after the midterm elections.
A November 2006 editorial in the New York Times that said the Army was ruined “is disgraceful,” Rumsfeld wrote to Smith. The editorial said that “one welcome dividend” of Rumsfeld’s departure was that the United States would “now have a chance to rebuild the Army he spent most of his tenure running down.”
Rumsfeld later reprimanded his staff, writing, “I read the letter we sent in rebuttal. I thought it rather weak and not signed at the level it should have been.” He then instructed staffers to prepare an article about the Army. “We need to get that story out,” he wrote on Nov. 28, 2006, a Tuesday. He ordered a draft by Friday.
As Jason Zengerle put it, “There’s something almost kind of poignant about this one. By this point, after all, Rummy had been fired. He was just biding his time at the Pentagon until Bob Gates got confirmed. But there he was still imperiously chewing out his staff and complaining that they weren’t sufficiently supporting him. You can almost imagine Rummy’s underlings not even bothering to read his memos and just tossing them straight in the trash.”
One gets the feeling Rummy was waging a far more well planned war against media coverage of Iraq than he was with the actual war in Iraq.
But his remark about “bumper sticker statements” sure says an awful lot about how the Pentagon has been executing their actions during this conflict. I’m not sure any nation has specifically fought such an extended conflict purely as a PR exercise before.
Wow. “Sacrifice = Victory”
Didn’t Rummy get Shrub’s memo that there would be no sacrifices for anyone except today’s soldiers and tomorrow’s children?
Sacrifices are for the next president to ask for. Go shopping, people!
Rumsfeld = Enemy of the State. Feel sorry for anyone who had that dickhead for a boss.
The army continues to do more PR and political involvement than just doing their jobs…being of service to and protecting the people and the constitution of the United States.
They act like they have the right to serve only this president. What happens when they get a democratic president with a whole set of new policies. What will their PR machine be doing then..claiming that republicans are emboldening the enemy, that the surge was a mistake…or will their moths finally be shut as they should be now.
Does it bother anyone that the DoD and the pentagon did not have a troop withdrawal plan in place and that they refuse to tell Clinton (on the armed services committee) what their plans were for withdrawal. I mean when did the military become a political arm of the president?
When the Cheney gang took over.
[Rumsfeld] wrote of the need to “keep elevating the threat,” “link Iraq to Iran” and develop “bumper sticker statements”
Yet, when Edwards used the term in reference to the misAdmin’s efforts at “war”, you’d have thought — from the general reaction — that he’d poked a stick into a hornets’ nest… Nothing’s as good as consistency, eh?
“Does it bother anyone that the DoD and the pentagon did not have a troop withdrawal plan in place and that they refuse to tell Clinton (on the armed services committee) what their plans were for withdrawal. I mean when did the military become a political arm of the president?” —bjobotts
It would bother me a lot if they DID have a withdrawal plan. An army does not go to war with plans for failure. Why is it that people with so little military experience or knowledge are always the loudest when it comes to American wars? I mean it’s not like they personally will be doing any of the fighting and dying. Opinions? Sure, they’ve got loads of them and never mind if they keep the enemy’s hopes of victory encouraged. But actually putting on an American uniform, picking up an American rifle and going off to kill or be killed? Hell, no! Wouldn’t think of it even if Adolph Hitler was back with a new “final solution”. Keep those opinions coming though. We loved ’em in Vietnam and our sons really are lovin ’em in Iraq.
So, Doug, when do you ship off for Iraq? I mean, you must be a tough guy, right?
Or is hurling insults online your way of supporting the war effort?
Just one of those typical rightwing coward who lacks the guts to actually fight in the war he supports …
re: Doug’s comment
“Why is it that people with so little military experience or knowledge are always the loudest when it comes to American wars? I mean it’s not like they personally will be doing any of the fighting and dying.”
Sound familiar? Doesn’t that describe the liars who got us into this war in the first place?
Sacrifice = Victory
War = Peace
Freedom = Slavery
Ignorance = Strength
7.
On November 2nd, 2007 at 9:52 am, Mark D said:
“So, Doug, when do you ship off for Iraq? I mean, you must be a tough guy, right?”
No, Mark. Just a guy who tries not to bullshit himself. I did mine from 1963 to 1966. My son (a major in the Army) has done his tour in Iraq and is going back again as many, many guys have had to do because so many guys like you would rather run your mouths than stand with your brothers. Rationalize all you want but the amount of rage coming from so many non-combatants stems from their sense of guilt for sending others to do their dirty work for them while they sit home in the US enjoying the fruits of other peoples sense of honor. It’s OK Mark, we’ll go. We’ll stand. We always have, Just keep those angry letters coming though. Maybe you can force a surrender and then you’ll be able to put the whole unpleasant business behind you and get on with running the country just like the whiners from Vietnam did.
Ahh yes … good ‘ol Dougie is one of them super-duper tough guys who calls out anyone who doesn’t enlist.
Of course, he ignores some of the possible reasons why … like, say, a degenerative retina condition that could keep someone from living their dream and being a Naval aviator (or serving in any branch, for that matter) … and instead posts a nice little treatise based in no reality whatsoever.
Hate to break it to you, Dougie, but I guranfuckingtee I’ve done more to help military families than Bush, Cheney, Bill Kristol, you, and every other wingnut put together.
You see, in the past four years, I’ve written more than 30 articles and two books about how military families can better manage their money. I’ve advised them on how to set up a budget, why they should avoid payday lenders, and even how they can become millionaires by retirement through prudent investing in the TSP.
Hell, during a visit to our office at Fort Riley, an Army spouse hugged me after the manager pointed to me and said, “He’s the guy who wrote that article about paying off holiday debt.” She was lost in a sea of bills and my advice helped her develop a strategy that paid them off.
And since the DoD has stated that financial problems are one of the top factors affecting operational readiness, I’d have to say my work (which has been read by more than 1 million people) has done an amazing amount of good for the families who give up so much for their country.
Meanwhile, you … well, not sure what you do to really support the cause. Sorry, but insulting those with whom you disagree politically, questioning their patriotism, and acting like you’re morally superior to everyone who has a different world view doesn’t actually count.
But it seems as though that’s pretty much all you can muster, which brings into doubt a single thing you’ve posted about your service.
Besides, if you really cared more about our troops and less about being a hack and a shill, you’d:
a.) point out a single post here where CB or a non-troll ever insulted the troops;
b.) be pissed that the Commander-in-Chief didn’t have the balls to go to Vietnam and, instead, had his daddy get him a cushy job he didn’t even show up for; and
c.) realize that we live in a country where the military is civilian-led and taxpayer-financed, thus giving every single citizen the right to say whatever the hell they want about the military we control and pay for.
Now why don’t you support the troops the way your boy Bush said to: go shopping.
I’d suggest you start by buying a clue.
On November 2nd, 2007 at 12:32 pm, Mark D said:
Ahh yes … good ‘ol Dougie is one of them super-duper tough guys who calls out anyone who doesn’t enlist.
Of course, he ignores some of the possible reasons why … like, say, a degenerative retina condition that could keep someone from living their dream and being a Naval aviator (or serving in any branch, for that matter) … and instead posts a nice little treatise based in no reality whatsoever.
Hate to break it to you, Dougie, but I guranfuckingtee I’ve done more to help military families than Bush, Cheney, Bill Kristol, you, and every other wingnut put together.
You see, in the past four years, I’ve written more than 30 articles and two books about how military families can better manage their money. I’ve advised them on how to set up a budget, why they should avoid payday lenders, and even how they can become millionaires by retirement through prudent investing in the TSP.
Keep the rationalizations coming, Mark. I promise you that there isn’t one I havn’t heard since Vietnam. And I guess you wrote all those articles and books for free, huh Mark? Making a living off of soldiers just ain’t cutting it as “service”, Mark. No matter what you may tell yourself. Now I have no problem with someone who is medically unable to serve, but I have a huge problem with those who won’t serve but are happy to encourage our enemies. The left NEVER likes hearing that that is precisely what they are doing, but the truth just smiles. Domestic opposition is taken into account by everyone we fight or even may fight. Why give up killing American kids when the US Congress may just surrender any day because a lot of guilt-ridden lefties are making a lot of noise? Just because you may have a right to say something doesn’t make it the right thing to do. If even one additional soldier dies because the left dragged this war out with it’s whining, then the excercise of the right of free speech becomes something a lot more dangerous to our troops and their families. How many articles will it take to make up for even one additional dead soldier ? Responsibility in how you excercise your rights is fundamental to our democracy.
Doug:”amount of rage coming from so many non-combatants stems from their sense of guilt for sending others to do their dirty work for them while they sit home in the US enjoying the fruits of other peoples sense of honor.”
That’s Bush and Cheney, although they have no sense of guilt. And how is criticizing Rumsfeld criticicizing the military? Even Bush fired the incompetent fool.
Did you even read the content of this post? Maybe if Rummy spent more time on the war and less time on PR, we wouldn’t be there still.
Wait- now it all makes sense! Doug, are you Rumsfeld?