provenance: unknown

« The fog of politics  |  Saving Private Lynch »

Rummie's ducks and dodges

You'll note, if you're careful, a certain ambiguity in what Donald Rumsfeld actually said this past weekend (quoted in the New York Times) about troop deployments in Iraq:

This has been planned, that was what his plan was. I haven't signed a new deployment order in days. These are deployments that were, people were alerted months ago, they brought on active duty, they were trained, they have been loading their ships, they've been sending the ships over there, they've been loading themselves into airplanes and flying over there, and it's a steady stream of people.

But the truth comes out, somewhat less ambiguously, in the Washington Post today:

The Pentagon has reacted to unexpectedly stiff Iraqi resistance by boosting U.S. forces in Iraq ahead of their scheduled deployment dates, a defense official said.

Thanks, Rummie, you're a big help.

April 1, 2003 1:33 PM

Comments (and TrackBacks)

I heard a tidbit on NPR to this effect last week sometime. I coulda sworn it was before the weekend, and Rumsfeld claimed the new forces were always planned, although "Pentagon officials admitted" that the other forces were intended as peacekeeping forces to relieve the existing forces after the war was complete.

Posted by Dave A on April 1, 2003 7:40 PM


Yup, the 130k person deployment was part of the over all plan. But, let's say it were not... just for pretend's sake.

Who here thinks it's important to inform the US public of this fact? Is it crucial to your understanding of the war? Of course. Is it, potentially, significant to the current status of our efforts? Of course.

But, is it important for the Iraqi administration to know this as well? Of course, but that doesn't mean we should be informing them of this fact, lest it hearten their resolve, and disolve the resistance amidst their flanks.

That's the point of the War Secretary's ambigiouity, in relying upon what wasn't explained. It's called "defense."

And the other is called aiding the enemy.

I fear for American democracy, if this is how you pretend to defend the State's self-interest.

Really, this is called "war", not play-war.

.rob

Posted by rob adams on April 2, 2003 12:28 PM

That's the point of the War Secretary's ambigiouity, in relying upon what wasn't explained. It's called "defense."

I don't buy that for a second. Rumsfeld is misleading the public because it's in his political interests. If the politics weren't relevant, he could honestly say something like, I cannot discuss the specifics of the war plan out of concern for national security. In other words, he can choose to not answer the question.

Instead, he is choosing to answer the question deceptively. Are you telling me I am a threat to American democracy because I become concerned when I discover that public officials are lying to me?

Posted by M on April 2, 2003 12:36 PM


Post a comment

Name:


Email address: (optional)


URL: (optional)


Comment:


Remember info?


Copyright ©2001-2003 Matt Pfeffer

NAVIGATE

. Home
. Web Editing
. Stray Voices
. Writings
. About
. Archive