Bush's Backing of Rumsfeld Shocks and Angers Arabs

[adios]

This is as predicted. A few excerpts:

"After the torture and vile acts by the American army, President Bush goes out and congratulates Rumsfeld. It's just incredible. I am in total shock," said Omar Belhouchet, editor of the influential Algerian national daily El Watan.


And Cheney said Rumsfelf is the best Secretary of Defense the US has ever had. What the hell is going on?

"After Mr. Bush's decision to keep Rumsfeld, all their apologies seem like lip service," Dubai-based political analyst Jawad al-Anani told Reuters. "Mr. Rumsfeld would have certainly lost his job if the prisoners were American."


"The United States is spending so much money by setting up Alhurra television and Radio Sawa to improve its image in the Arab world...How can it reconcile that with keeping a man who has insulted every Arab through the abuses of Iraqi prisoners," added Anani, a former Jordanian foreign minister.

I think this is a totally understandable reaction.

"I cannot believe the United States reacts the way an authoritarian regimes would. Bush should have done the honorable thing and fired Rumsfeld," he said.

Yes I can understand this viewpoint as well. Torture and prisoner abuse characteristics of the regime we replaced. This doesn't look to me like the isolated acts of a few low level US military personal either.

The Wall Street Journal posted a link to the full Red Cross report today. Some excellent coverage and commentary in todays WSJ. Shameful conduct really, I feel very bad about it and it seems to get worse everyday. A national disgrace.

Bush's Backing of Rumsfeld Shocks and Angers Arabs (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&ncid=574&e=3&u=/nm/20040510/wl_nm/iraq_abuse_rumsfeld_reaction_dc_2)

Bush's Backing of Rumsfeld Shocks and Angers Arabs

1 hour, 11 minutes ago Add World - Reuters to My Yahoo!


By Firouz Sedarat

DUBAI (Reuters) - Arab commentators reacted with shock and disbelief on Monday over President Bush (news - web sites)'s robust backing of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld against calls for his resignation.


Critics had called for him to quit after the furor over the abuse of Iraqi prisoners but analysts, editors and ordinary Arabs were united in their condemnation of Bush who said the United States owed Rumsfeld a "debt of gratitude."

"After the torture and vile acts by the American army, President Bush goes out and congratulates Rumsfeld. It's just incredible. I am in total shock," said Omar Belhouchet, editor of the influential Algerian national daily El Watan.


"Bush's praise for Rumsfeld will discredit the United States...and further damage its reputation, which is already at a historic low in the Arab world," he added.


Analysts have said the damage from images seen worldwide of U.S. soldiers abusing naked Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison would be indelible, incalculable and a gift to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden (news - web sites).


What people saw, they said, was the true image of the occupation: humiliation of an occupied people, contempt for Islam, sadism and racism.


"After Mr. Bush's decision to keep Rumsfeld, all their apologies seem like lip service," Dubai-based political analyst Jawad al-Anani told Reuters. "Mr. Rumsfeld would have certainly lost his job if the prisoners were American."


"The United States is spending so much money by setting up Alhurra television and Radio Sawa to improve its image in the Arab world...How can it reconcile that with keeping a man who has insulted every Arab through the abuses of Iraqi prisoners," added Anani, a former Jordanian foreign minister.


University of Algiers professor Mahmoud Belhimeur agreed.


"I cannot believe the United States reacts the way an authoritarian regimes would. Bush should have done the honorable thing and fired Rumsfeld," he said.


RUMSFELD "SYMBOL" OF IRAQ WAR


But Michael Cox, professor of international relations at the London School of Economics, said the repercussions of firing the defense secretary would have been very significant for Bush.


"This has been Rumsfeld's war, and I suppose the political symbolism of trying to get rid of Rumsfeld would be huge."


Cox said he could not entirely rule out that Rumsfeld could go, if U.S. public opinion turned. But he added it would seem out of character for Rumsfeld to go quietly.


"'I want to spend more time with my family' doesn't sound too credible with Mr. Rumsfeld. With Mr. Powell maybe, but not Rumsfeld," he said.


A Saudi businessman, who asked not to be named, said keeping Rusmfeld would be seen as Washington's quiet approval of the abuse.


"This just confirms that what is happening in Iraq (news - web sites) in general, and especially what is happening in Abu Ghraib is sanctioned by the American administration and that is a hell of a position to be in.





"I see no advantage in keeping Rumsfeld. Bush should be building bridges with the outside world."

Mustapha Ramid, a prominent Moroccan opposition member of parliament said: "It's normal for Bush to back Rumsfeld. The contrary would have been a real surprise. This shows that Bush takes responsibility for what's happening in Iraq."

(Additional reporting by Paul de Bendern in Algiers, Souhail Karam in Rabat, Dominic Evans in Riyadh, Peter Graff in London)

[Boris]

I think no matter what Bush does it will piss-off the Arabs. I am not certain about the abuse allegations. It is very troubling that Rumsfeld gets praise while that female private is going to be court martialed. Our fighting men and women should not be scapegoated. That is certain to decrease morale. The photos I've seen with the woman laughing a the naked guy's wiener does not constitute abuse. In fact in of the photos she looks impressed. Those prisoners should feel lucky they don't get thrown in a US prison.

[Gamblor]

I wonder what happened to all the people in Saddam's prisons. In fact, I wonder what it's like in the prisons in all of those "outraged" Arab countries.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder what happened to all the people in Saddam's prisons. In fact, I wonder what it's like in the prisons in all of those "outraged" Arab countries.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a good point, but remember the age old phrase "two wrongs don't make a right". Listen the Bush Admin needs to do something about this. Courtmarshaling the 5-6 "responsible" for this won't do anything. I think the truth will come out and ultimately Rummy needs to be fired. His after war planning in Iraq is terrible, and now with these pictures coming out, only puts our troops in more danger.

BTW, whoever took the photos should be beaten in public, what a [censored] moron.

[Gamblor]

This is a good point, but remember the age old phrase "two wrongs don't make a right".

Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

That being said, I want the officers, the perpetrators and anyone else concievably involved tarred and feathered in public. Photographs will be taken.

Rumsfeld, well, I don't know if he can really be held accountable.

Should the CEO be fired if some rogue employees rob a bank?

[MMMMMM]

I think a very important question is what Rumsfeld could have done about it earlier, if anything, and what he knew: if little or nothing, then I can't see blaming him too much. I haven't followed specifically the news about what he knew and when, and what was already being done about it, but an investigation was already taking place even if it wasn't fully public as now.

It sure sounds like the new photos will be far, far worse than the old--maybne even some actual torture and/or rape. If so, that should prove quite incendiary.

The USA, the world, and the Arab world, should not automatically presume Rumsfeld is primarily at fault here. I am skeptical of any calls for anyone to resign any position in any organization, if it is merely to placate some people. That said, full steam ahead with the investigation and prosecutions where truly warranted.

I actually think Rumsfeld has done a good job overall with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and some of the problems we see now with instability or insurrection may in part be due to not having followed his pre-war advice fully. Anyway, further developments, and analysis, will hopefully give us a clearer picture of all these things. Hopefully too the partisanship in the USA, and posturing on the world stage, will be kept to a minimum, but of course that is far too much to ask.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder what it's like in the prisons in all of those "outraged" Arab countries.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's just sarcasm being used to cover up the fact that you don't have an argument for what it actually is like in those prisons.

[Gamblor]

Human Rights in Arab Countries (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mf16.html)

Arab Prisons are no hotels (http://middleeastinfo.org/forum1788)

Stop running your mouth off.

[HDPM]

"Should the CEO be fired if some rogue employees rob a bank?"


I think when all is said and done, it won't be attributed to a few rogue employees. Based on what I have read, I think this will probably be attributed to a terrible unit that was given a job it couldn't handle, leadership that knew or should have known the unit was lousy, people high in the chain of command condoning abuse and torture, unaccountable contractors having control over the units with poor leadership, and a lot more basic human sadism than we like to admit. The soldiers are going to say they were following orders. Which they well may have been. That won't be a defense, but it will get more people in trouble. They won't admit to liking what they did, but I bet many enjoyed their work. More than we care to know. We'll see. Maybe I am wrong, but this whole thing cannot be glossed over. Of course the human rights violations in the Arab countries are horrific, but that in no way excuses our conduct.

BTW, I think supporters of Israel should be very concerned and worried about this. America is going to be hurt badly by these revelations and is going to change its policy in the middle east probably. It is very possible that Bush will lose the election and our middle east policy will change. Probably to Israel's detriment. This Iraq problem could very well have lasting and deep impact. It shouldn't be discounted in any way. If it doesn't have long term impact,, we dodged a bullet.

[jokerswild]

9-11 intel failures? No one held accountable
WMD lies? He chastizes the only guy who told the truth: Clarke.
Torturing Iraqi's? No one held accountable.

Iraq is a mess. This will be what history remembers Bush for most. A mess in which the USA invaded a country that did nothing at all to the USA.

[sam h]

What I should have referred to is sarcasm in lieu of an argument. If you have sources that you think support your point, that's great, so go ahead and make an argument rather than just posts laced with sarcasm and righteousness.

[nicky g]

"BTW, I think supporters of Israel should be very concerned and worried about this. America is going to be hurt badly by these revelations and is going to change its policy in the middle east probably. It is very possible that Bush will lose the election and our middle east policy will change. Probably to Israel's detriment"

I don't think there's any danger of this. Have you ever heard Kerry on Israel? If anything he's a stauncher supporter than Bush. For example he supported the wall while the government was officially condemning it. The Democrats have historically been more blindly pro-Israel than the Republicans. It was Bush senior that threatened Shamir (I think) with sever economic consequences if he didn't come to the negotiationg table at Madrid. The current Bush just seems weak and easily persuaded by whoever he's had dinner with that evening, I don't think he partciularly gives a damn either way. Of course his administration and broader entourage is packed with genuine loonies and people who seem to be serving purely Israeli rather than US interests, such as Perle, but if Kerry wins his own tilt will go some way towards making up for this. The fact is that though the Republican party has indeed become much more pro-Israel than it used to be, the historically pro-Israel Democratic party hasn't become any less so.

[adios]

A column by conservative Robert Novak on Rumsfeld. Very interesting read. My sense is that Rumsfeld is not really a popular guy inside the Pentagon and this more or less supports that viewpoint. I found this paragraph particularly interesting:

The solution to Bush's dilemma was hinted at when he promised Rumsfeld would ''stay in my Cabinet.'' That triggered speculation: Would Rumsfeld switch jobs with National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice? Would he replace the beleaguered George Tenet at the CIA? Whatever the solution, it was hard to find anyone outside Don Rumsfeld's E-ring at the Pentagon who felt he should remain there.


Few friends rush to aid Rumsfeld (http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak10.html)


Few friends rush to aid Rumsfeld

May 10, 2004

BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST Advertisement

Amid the political firestorm after the Army confirmed maltreatment of Iraqi prisoners, Donald Rumsfeld was provided no cover. It was not surprising that partisan Democrats went for the secretary of defense's throat. The shocker was how few friends of the Bush administration jumped to his aid. There were reasons that transcended the atrocities at Abu Ghraib.

While the White House officially vowed Rumsfeld's retention, there was no reinforcement in his natural political constituency. Last week, I talked to Republican members of Congress, GOP fund-raisers and contributors, defense consultants and even one senior official of a coalition partner. The clear consensus was that Rumsfeld had to go. ''There must be a neck cut,'' said the foreign official, ''and there is only one neck of choice.''

Rumsfeld is paying the price for the way he has run the Department of Defense for more than three years, but the price is also being paid by George W. Bush. From the first months of the Bush administration, I have heard complaints by old military hands that the new secretary's arrogance and insularity were creating a dysfunctional Pentagon. That climate not only limits the government's ability to deal with the prisoner scandal but also may have been its cause.

Rumsfeld is a man of extraordinary talents. When I first covered him almost 40 years ago, he was a House member from Chicago's North Shore whose future seemed limitless. But he alienated the party's Old Guard leadership, the reason he left Congress in 1969 to head the Nixon administration's poverty program.

The Rumsfeld style was apparent when he was still in his 30s and President Richard Nixon named him ambassador to NATO. On his first day in Brussels, Belgium, he publicly humiliated a young briefing officer with a barrage of questions he was not prepared to answer. It was a management technique that he perfected in high federal office and as a successful corporate CEO.

In 2001, a few months after Rumsfeld was brought back for a second hitch at the Pentagon, an old friend of his gave me a disturbing report. A former senior government official who was now a defense industry consultant, he told me Rumsfeld was a disaster waiting to happen. Rumsfeld, insulated by his inner circle, was at war against the uniformed military, the civilian bureaucracy, and both houses of Congress.

This same former official last week told me the Iraqi prisoners fiasco was the inevitable outgrowth of Rumsfeld's management style. ''If it had not happened with this,'' he told me, ''there would have been a different disaster.''

The ''kill the messenger'' syndrome, other Pentagon sources say, clogs up avenues of information.

To well-informed outsiders, Rumsfeld's fate seems assured. Stratfor, the private intelligence service, reported last week: ''The amazing thing is not that the White House is preparing Rumsfeld for hanging but that it has taken so long.'' The report added that Rumsfeld ''consistently managed to get the strategic and organizational questions wrong.''

That harsh view is widely shared inside the Pentagon.

The problem for Bush is that sacking his war minister in time of war is not the same as dismissing a feckless secretary of the treasury. As Rumsfeld's aides circled the wagons last week, his supporters accurately conveyed the adverse fallout with this argument.

The Democrats demanding Rumsfeld's scalp are really aiming at Bush. Rumsfeld's scalp would signify that the war in Iraq is a failure and, by extension, so is Bush. When Rep. Charles Rangel is ahead of the Democratic lynch mob in calling for Rumsfeld's impeachment if necessary, he is pursuing his relentless opposition to U.S. foreign policy.

The solution to Bush's dilemma was hinted at when he promised Rumsfeld would ''stay in my Cabinet.'' That triggered speculation: Would Rumsfeld switch jobs with National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice? Would he replace the beleaguered George Tenet at the CIA? Whatever the solution, it was hard to find anyone outside Don Rumsfeld's E-ring at the Pentagon who felt he should remain there.

[andyfox]

Methinks Novak is reading too much into the "stay in my cabinet" phrasing. {Although Novak is an insider, so who knows.) Bush and Cheney have been praising Rumsfeld as a Secretary of Defense, that he's done a great job in that office and that Americans owe Rumsfeld a debt of gratitude. I don't think at this point they can kick him sideways or slightly downwards and call it gratitude.

I think they're gonna sink or swim with Rummy at DOD, and my guess is they sink.

Kerry should ask Powell to stay on as Secretary of State and ask John McCain to be Secretary of Defense. Two Republicans in the top two cabinet posts would be unusual, to say the least, but these are unusual times.

[elwoodblues]

It's a little premature to say that no one has been held accountable (at least for the prisoner situation).

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Methinks Novak is reading too much into the "stay in my cabinet" phrasing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps it's wishful thinking on Novak's part. Does anyone else think that people, especially those outside of the US, might have a little problem with the credibility of the military investigating itself in this matter?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think there's any danger of this. Have you ever heard Kerry on Israel?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you know of any issue or policy that Kerry hasn't flip-flopped on? I can't believe you put much faith in Kerry rhetoric. I do think a Kerry administration would be supportive of Israel though.