Dartblog

The episodes of South Park of the last fortnight concerned a partisan censor who wanted the television show Family Guy—in the real world another animated comedy but in this South Park episode a doppelganger for Park itself—taken off the air. He didn’t like it; wanted it dashed. But of course, there are many such people and they don’t have veto rights over television networks and the broadly-measured opinion of the viewing throngs. So the censor protested the show’s planned animated depiction of the Muslim prophet Mohammed, saying it was disrespectful and insensitive. If he could get that one episode pulled from the air queue, he reasoned, then it would lead to a chain of events that would eventually founder the program all together.

Once one episode is pulled because a rabbling minority dislikes it, so will the next. Nothing may be said but that on which the whole world agrees. Nothing may be said.

The story reminded me of one of Donald H. Rumsfeld’s glorious quotable quips. Asked by yet another reportorial intermediary for the Democratic Party how he responds to the existence of so many critics—namely, again, the Democratic Party—the Secretary of Defense of the United States of America said, “If you are not criticized, you may not be doing much.”

Well, that gave the stringer his quietus, and made the pages of not a few quotation books.

And here is Donald Rumsfeld, a man whose epitaph will almost certainly be, “I don’t care; I’m still here,” under seige from six former armed forces generals who evidently disagree with his grand strategy in the Iraq War. (The secretary of defense is, recall, a civillian, and his job isn’t to determine the proper bearing for echo squadron or which weapons or tactics its members should use in a given situation. And he most certainly does not decide the proper level of body armor.) And, for some reason, these six generals, whose cohort is a thousand or so strong, have made the front pages of The News.

And consider if you will this Reuters piece. Reuters is one of many news outlets whose reporters are today tasked with making the subtle yet peril-wrought leap from Six Men Share Opinion to There’s A Massive National Movement to Unseat Rumsfeld. The only way to do that is to associated some more folks with the cause. Six people, no matter their qualifications, don’t outweigh the tens of thousands on active duty, reserve duty, or the happily retired, who love the curmudgeon and nor do those six outweigh their several hundred peer-generals, who probably have too much politesse to call for the firing of a war leader during war but who enough polls have shown support the administration anyway. But no broad constituency supports the ouster of Donald Rumsfeld. Or, at least, none did until yesterday, when the Democratic Party, after viewing the aforementioned South Park episode, thought it’d be a capital move to attempt to remove one administration official in the hopes that it’ll weaken the glue for all future administration officials. Perhaps the endgame is the I-word, even.

And so let’s return to this Reuters piece. It gives only two people a real chance to respond to the six generals’ assertion: Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, a Democrat, and, for balance, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, a Democrat. Says Dodd to Retuers:

“We need a new direction in Iraq,” he said. “We’re looking at some incompetency in addition to the arrogance issues that have been raised. … (Secretary of State) Condoleezza Rice talked about a thousand tactical mistakes the other day in Iraq the other day. That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement.”

Dodd there doesn’t exactly endorse anything the generals have said—he probably doesn’t know what they’ve said, only that they’re now “friendlies”—and simply tweaks some words Secretary of State Rice said several weeks ago which have already been over-hoed. The key is that Dodd hasn’t actually said anything new. He’s rolly-polly with old anti-war tropes that have been around since before the Baghdad incursion. Nothing new; nothing substantive. But for sweet icing to this story, there are Governor Richardson’s comments:

“My view is that the secretary should step aside,” New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a potential Democratic presidential candidate, told CBS’s “Face the Nation” program. “Besides the fact that the Iraq war has been mismanaged … we should listen to what these generals are saying.” […]

“What you’re seeing is deep frustration in the military,” he said, “deep frustration within our troops who are not getting enough armor. … It is obvious that Secretary Rumsfeld did not listen to them. … That’s why we’re in this morass.”

Donald Rumsfeld “should listen to what these generals are saying.” And that line really gives away the game. Of course Rumsfeld should listen to any constructive thing military professionals have to say. Are they advocating the oil-spot strategy? Should SAM expenditures be halved in favor of roving translators? The Secretary of Defense should consider in earnest. But inasmuch as these six had already lost the strategy battle when it was being waged, inasmuch as the war is indeed being won, if uncleanly, and inasmuch as these six have not actually advised as to what changes they’d like made—they are keen fellows, and would not, as Richardson embarrassingly implies, advocate for more body armor—but have simply called for their former boss to be canned, the simple existence of their dissent does not recommend the ouster of the secretary of defense. And they are six in number. The silence from the greater retired general community overwhelms.