Tags:
Journalism of Courage
It doesn8217;t matter whether Donald Rumsfeld jumped or was pushed. After the political hammering the Republicans got in Tuesday8217;s US mid-term elections, Rumsfeld could surely not have stayed on at the Pentagon. George W. Bush has been under political pressure, from both his friends and foes, to dump Rumsfeld and change course in Iraq. In fact, Rumsfeld should have gone quite some time ago, when the Abu Ghraib scandal on the awful American treatment of Iraqi prisoners came to light, or last year when it became clear Iraq was sinking into anarchy. Bush8217;s reluctance to change horses mid-stream and his well-known loyalty to political associates, helped shield Rumsfeld for too long. Having failed to win the war in Iraq he had launched, Rumsfeld had to finally go. In war, as an American saying goes, winning is not the only thing, it is everything.
Whether they liked him or not, neither America nor the world could ignore Rumsfeld for a moment. His self-confidence bordering on arrogance, his insatiable appetite for bureaucratic infighting, and ruthless suppression of dissent from the armed forces earned him many enemies. His unconcealed condescension to the press corps made him an infuriating, if occasionally endearing, adversary. When asked about the US inability to find weapons of mass destruction, the very reason for invading Iraq, Rumsfeld came back with a gem: 8220;Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.8221; However, despite his failure in Iraq, Rumsfeld8217;s reputation for new thinking in military affairs is certain to endure. His rejection of traditional alliances such as NATO in favour of ad hoc coalitions and insistence on transforming the doctrine and organisation of American armed forces were controversial, but will remain relevant in future debates on international security.
