Donald Rumsfeld is opposed to action in #Syria. DONALD RUMSFELD. That's like being told by @iowahawkblog that you drink too much. #RedFlag
— Michael James Barton (@MichaelJames357) September 3, 2013
Donald Rumsfeld is opposed to action in #Syria. DONALD RUMSFELD. That's like being told by @iowahawkblog that you drink too much. #RedFlag
— Michael James Barton (@MichaelJames357) September 3, 2013
2 comments:
I disagree. As often is the case, popular history can obscure as much as illustrate.
Recall that before 9/11 upended Bush's foreign policy frame, Rumsfeld's project as SecDef was to reduce American military commitments abroad - not only of the ad hoc open-ended military missions that had multiplied under Clinton, but long-entrenched military missions such as US Forces-Korea. Then, after 9/11, Rumsfeld was the main proponent of the light footprint strategy, which was effective in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but less ineffective in the post-wars, which by their nature needed to be human-heavy more than tech-heavy.
So, Rumsfeld's stance can be interpreted in two valid ways. One, it's consistent with his pre-9/11 stance on limiting US mission creep and his post-9/11 pattern of limiting the application of US military force. And/or two, his stance is consistent with serving under a President who rationally matched means in order to effectively achieve defined goals, and Rumsfeld recognizes that Obama's proposed action applies US military force in an ad hoc, open-ended ineffective manner, like Clinton's military actions.
I think the quip is more a wink at Iowahawk, that hilarious Internet wit, than any serious consideration of Rumsfeld, though.
Post a Comment