Rumsfeld on the war on terror: “it is not a ‘war on terror.'” Declaring a war on terror after September 11th would have been like declaring a war on airplanes after Pearl Harbor. It’s just dumb.
Comments are closed.
Open source, procurement, and gov tech.
Rumsfeld on the war on terror: “it is not a ‘war on terror.'” Declaring a war on terror after September 11th would have been like declaring a war on airplanes after Pearl Harbor. It’s just dumb.
Comments are closed.
His pronouncement that it isn’t a war on terror, is just a small part of the overall interview. The full interview gives leaves me with the impression that he really seems to know what he’s talking about.
“I personally believe that the consequences of allowing the situation in Iraq to be turned over to terrorists would be so severe not simply because o fIraq’s oil, water, wealth and geographic position, population size and history, but also because Iraq would become a haven to plan attacks on the moderate countries in the region and the United States. (It would diminish)the ability of the United States to provide protection for the American people.”
I am no fan of Rumsfeld, but I agree with this sentiment. Did we screw up by invading Iraq? You bet. Have we made a bad situation worse? No doubt. Can we run off and leave this strategic region available to some crazies with a Qur’an stuffed down their pants? No way. We stay, we get some backup, we fight. Is someone responsible? Yes Sir! Is Impeachment back on the table. Oh yeah!
Rumsfeld was wise to recast the rhetoric as a long war, versus the semantically frustrating “war on terror” label. There were hints before the invasion that the mission would be long but people who knew better were too busy selling the war to level with the American people. Interestingly enough, Rumsfeld makes a sensible case for actions, but most of what I remember him saying during his tenure was evasive. I wish he could have been more liberated to talk straight with us while he was the Secretary of Defense.