In an interview published this morning in the New York Whines, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld states it is far too early to define his legacy.
"...Hold off on it. There will be plenty of time. I don't think of myself as a short-timer," said Mr. Rumsfeld.
The Secretary has given no indication that he is backing off from his program initiatives to restructure the American military as a leaner, more focused force and rein in the Defense Department's budget.
He has indicated that 'everything is on the table', at this summer's congressionally mandated Quadrennial Defense Review, due in early 2006. This can include the further reorganization of command structure, deployment policies and "big ticket" items such as the F/A-22 Raptor air superiority fighter, the DD(X) destroyer and new aircraft carriers.
Of course, it's new "fair and balanced" policy notwithstanding the Times sees Flak in the air.
"One set of overwhelming questions remains: whether the American public and the Congress are exhausted by Iraq and Afghanistan, and whether enough money will be available for transformation to a high-tech military while still supporting a conventional force to combat zones"
Hmm, do I get the impression that maybe they don't think (or wish) that there will be substantial victory in the current active theaters by 2008. Maybe so Hellery can secure "Peace" by a bug-out and jump up and down on the Republicans in horrid glee.
Or do they think that the administration is reshaping policy to fight a non-conventional war. Could that mean the Nuclear Option? Oh. Sorry, that must mean Special Operations Command.
A Flak flinger weighs in:
"He doesn't have the money to do it," said Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, a senior Democrap on the on the House Appropriations Commitee.
Right, move on, nothing to see, no Vote here. Let's wait and see if a base in his district is mentioned for closure.
On the whole, this article manages to get through about 48 column inches with only about ten incidents of bushwhacking, but a number of those could actually be termed investigative journalism. I said that? I am shocked, Shocked. For those, and I hope they are many, who wish to read it all; go here to the original.
Addendum: Curiously, much of the negative slope in this piece makes reference to Mr. Rumsfed's reported abrasiveness and manner rather than metrical policy issues. Is someone doing a Bolton here?
Or maybe he just doesn't give enough Barneys. "snork"
H/T to Tom v G via SondraK (for a good time, see "Barneys").
Comments