The Donald

Has it occurred to anyone what a phenomenally bad job Donald Rumsfeld has to be doing, for his commanders to complain about him?

This was actually brought up in Hersh's New Yorker article that I mentioned a few days ago, buried in one paragraph maybe halfway through. The civilian leadership at the Pentagon, or OSD (Office of the Secretary of Defense) is pushing very hard to keep tactical nuclear weapons on the table as an option against Iran. And the military leadership in the Pentagon is institutionally opposed to this. As much as some of us on the left think that the military always wants to light off its biggest firecrackers given the chance, those with their fingers on the button (actually a series of keys) are very cautious about even talking about nuclear usage.

This is a connection that I hadn't seen until tonight, when it hit me. The Pentagon leadership is clearly unhappy with Donald Rumsfeld, who is pushing nuclear first use (a highly aggressive doctrine in the world of strategic policy) against Iran in "contingency plans." The Joint Chiefs have actually discussed a public dissent against the OSD (all deniable, of course.)

And now a chorus of Pentagon officials (all recently departed) speak out about how Donald Rumsfeld is doing a bad job? Maybe these two things aren't a coincidence. The war planning against Iran is clearly kicking into high gear, and there are serious concerns in the military about its course (and the ways it might be fought.) Maybe these anti-Rumsfeld voices might have been pushed by current Pentagon brass to try to weaken him, interfering with Rumsfeld's ability to plan a nuclear attack.

It definitely got me thinking.