Rumsfeld, a Force for Change, Did Not Change With the Times Amid Iraq Tumult (MICHAEL R. GORDON, 11/09/06, NY Times)
At the Pentagon, Mr. Rumsfeld’s program was called “transformation,” and it acquired the status of an official ideology. Mr. Rumsfeld was enamored of missile defense and space-based systems, issues he had worked on during his years out of office. Like many conservatives, he was wary about the Army leadership, which he considered to be too wedded to heavy forces and too slow to change.
In his trademark blunt style, Mr. Rumsfeld convened a Pentagon “town hall” meeting on Sept. 10, 2001. “The topic today is an adversary that poses a threat, a serious threat, to the security of the United States of America,” he pronounced. “It’s the Pentagon bureaucracy.”
After the terror attacks in Washington and New York the next day, Mr. Rumsfeld focused on the new war on terrorism. [...]
Iraq, of course, is just part of Mr. Rumsfeld’s legacy. In terms of his management style, he clearly succeeded in consolidating his authority as defense secretary. More than any of his predecessors, Mr. Rumsfeld influenced the appointment of three- and four-star officers, installing military leaders whom he could count on to carry out his agenda. But senior officers complained that his insistence on loyalty came at a cost: a dearth of senior officers willing to offer independent advice.
In terms of his transformation agenda, Mr. Rumsfeld enjoyed, at best, mixed success. He overhauled the cold-war-era system of military bases around the world, a decision that has led to the reduction in American forces in Europe and Korea. He also insisted on greater cooperation among the military services.
“On the positive side he brought the armed forces to a much higher degree of joint thinking and integration,” said Barry M. Blechman, a member of the Defense Policy Board, which advises Mr. Rumsfeld, and the president of DFI International, a consulting firm.
Still, despite Mr. Rumsfeld’s avowed intention to challenge orthodox Pentagon thinking, few major weapons programs were canceled and the military’s force structure and spending patterns were not radically altered.
“At the end of the day you would have to say that for Rumsfeld, transformation was more promise than reality,” said Andrew F. Krepinevich Jr., the executive director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “He made a start, but these things take time, and it is clear now that Iraq has denied him that time.”
The bitter irony is that had he succeeded in sending fewer troops and withdrawing them quicker he’d have avoided the mess and had greater ability to focus on what he’d correctly identified as the real enemy.
“transformation was more promise than reality”
The same can be said of every single beaurocracy in and around D.C.
In fact, the most striking thing about the beaurocracy is how rapidly it
has grown during the Bush years. The final irony is that the GOP has all
of those new government employees and hangers on to thank for the loss of
the VA Sen. seat and the Senate. VA is probably going the way of MD –
solidly blue — for this reason.
That’s false, of course, but part of why the Right is so mad is because they don’t understand the transformation;
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0903/090403p1.htm
You miss the point. Even Clinton shrunk the “federal payroll,” but
government grows at an accelerating pace. Your article demonstrates
a 10% increase from 1999 to 2002, and that is about when things really
started to get out of hand. If you think the employees of the “private
contractors” and other assorted hangers-on think, work, or vote
differently from your average GS-9, Sen. Allen can tell you otherwise.
Yes, private employees aren’t Civil Service.
Form over substance. More of Al Gore “Reinventing Government.”
Yes, it started with the last Third Way administration and will continue regardless of who wins in ’08.
Rumsfeld should have found a deputy to be the public face of the war.
It is ironic that the military is now learning all the good
lessons about ‘modern’ war in Iraq. Eric Shinseki would have sent 1000 tanks into Baghdad in April 2003, and they would
still be there (and many of them would be rusting hulks).
The other irony in the argument about troop levels and/or withdrawal is that the Dems spent the last three years carping
about Rumsfeld, and demanding that he be replaced by someone who “listens to the troops”. Uhh, someone like Les Aspin?
Or Bill Cohen? The last thing a Democratic President wants is a SecDef who “listens to the troops”.