« Words of wisdom from a 'Small Town' man | Main | Blogstreet's Most Influential Blogs »

October 23, 2003

The Rumsfeld Memo

If you haven't seen it yet, here is the text of the Rumsfeld Memo. There still seems to be a bit of debate about whether the memo was leaked or intentionally released to the press. A variety of sites from about the Blogosphere (Instapundit, Tacitus, Tbogg, and IsThatLegal for starters) are all busily commenting on their various theories about how the memos got into the newspaper, what damage may occure from the leak (if it was, in fact, leaked), who might have leaked it, and why all the people who were so upset about Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative being leaked aren't calling for an investigation on this one. Personally, I'd need to be sure that there is a leak before demanding an investigation into it, but at this point, I'm honestly not sure what I think happened.

As to why Rumsfeld might want to see this memo given to the press (even if it was done in such a way as to make it look like a leak, which is yet another possiblity), speculation centers on the idea that some of the questions he asks are what might be termed "big" questions, and that in asking them, it makes Rumsfeld look more in touch and aware of what is actually happening, and that he is competent to handle running the War on Terror, no matter what the State Department might say. It might also have been a way for him to try and show up Condi Rice, now that she's been given more authority over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, by demonstrating the kinds of questions and concerns he has, compared to whatever Condi may have said or done to this point. Right now, though, that's all still just speculation.

What I find interesting is that the memo itself is now available on the Defense Department's Milink website as a .PDF file, which lends support to the non-leak theory (though, apparently, the memo was not posted until after the USA Today story that first reported the memo had been published and circulated). The accompanying article at Milink seems primarily focused on countering the view from USA Today that the memo indicates that things are going badly:

A story about the memo appeared in today's issue of USA Today. The story characterizes the questions Rumsfeld raised as an admission that the United States is losing the war on terror. "The secretary's not saying anything like what the memo's been characterized (as saying)," Di Rita said during a press conference.

The spokesman said the secretary is asking the "big questions" that any government agency should be asking itself.

Batting for the "it was a leak" team, a FOX News report indicates that Rumsfeld is "livid" about the apparent leak, which, of course, supports the idea that it wasn't released intentionally by the Department of Defense.

The original USA Today story, however, doesn't offer any indication of how it came about that they got a copy of the memo. As others have noted, though, this is USA Today we're talking about. They're not exactly known for in-depth hard-hitting investigative journalism. In any event, if it is a leak there may be some at least some reason for officials to be concerned about the possible impact it might have. Jonathan S. Landay of Knight-Ridder newspapers quoted one unnamed official as saying:

"This (memo) gives bin Laden his next tape. Nothing will inspire more jihadists than the prospect of victory."

In addition, the memo lays out a possible strategy to help reduce the number of terrorists being recruited from the madradssas that are run in many Islamic nations. Madradssas are schools which frequently teach extreme forms of Islam along with basic, educational subjects, and are known to be fertile breeding grounds for future terrorists. One of the criticisms of the Saudi government comes from their support for madradssas within Saudi Arabia itself.

Rumsfeld asks whether the Defense Department is moving fast enough to adapt to fighting terrorists and whether the United States should create a private foundation to entice radical Islamic schools to a "more moderate course." Rumsfeld says the schools, known as madradssas, may be churning out new terrorists faster than the United States can kill or capture them.

I think, from my perspective, the best news from this memo is that by asking if we are able to kill or capture terrorists as fast as they are being created shows that, just maybe, the administration does understand that there isn't a finite pool of terrorists that we can attract to Iraq so that we can wipe all of them out in one series of battles. It is an important question. I can only hope that as well as being concerned about our ability to kill and capture more terrorists than are being created, the administration will also take a serious look at our actions and the comments being made by representatives of our government and military to help ensure we aren't unnecessarily contributing to the growing number of terrorists we have to face.

TO: Gen. Dick Myers, Paul Wolfowitz, Gen. Pete Pace, Doug Feith

FROM: Donald Rumsfeld

SUBJECT: Global War on Terrorism

The questions I posed to combatant commanders this week were: Are we winning or losing the Global War on Terror? Is DoD changing fast enough to deal with the new 21st century security environment? Can a big institution change fast enough? Is the USG changing fast enough?

DoD has been organized, trained and equipped to fight big armies, navies and air forces. It is not possible to change DoD fast enough to successfully fight the global war on terror; an alternative might be to try to fashion a new institution, either within DoD or elsewhere - one that seamlessly focuses the capabilities of several departments and agencies on this key problem.

With respect to global terrorism, the record since September 11th seems to be: We are having mixed results with Al Qaeda, although we have put considerable pressure on them - nonetheless, a great many remain at large.

USG has made reasonable progress in capturing or killing the top 55 Iraqis. USG has made somewhat slower progress tracking down the Taliban - Omar, Hekmatyar, etc. With respect to the Ansar Al-Islam, we are just getting started. Have we fashioned the right mix of rewards, amnesty, protection and confidence in the U.S.? Does DoD need to think through new ways to organize, train, equip and focus to deal with the global war on terror? Are the changes we have and are making too modest and incremental?

My impression is that we have not yet made truly bold moves, although we have have made many sensible, logical moves in the right direction, but are they enough?

Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us? Does the U.S. need to fashion a broad, integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists?

The U.S. is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists. The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' costs of millions. Do we need a new organization? How do we stop those who are financing the radical madrassa schools? Is our current situation such that "the harder we work, the behinder we get"?

It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog. Does CIA need a new finding? Should we create a private foundation to entice radical madradssas to a more moderate course? What else should we be considering?

Please be prepared to discuss this at our meeting on Saturday or Monday. Thanks.

Posted by thorswitch at October 23, 2003 03:39 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.differentstrings.info/mt/mt-tb-ds.cgi/1324

Comments