|
Volume CXXXII, Number 15 |
 |
Rumsfeld lacks the soft touch
ALEXANDER DUNCAN
CONTRIBUTOR
I admire Donald Rumsfeld, much to my surprise. In fact,
I have his biography sitting on my desk. Never mind that it was a freebee
or that it's been there since September and I've read no more than fifty
pages. The fact is, I own it, and some day might get around to reading
the whole thing.
I think I must have fallen victim to the outbreak of "Love Your Military"
that swept across the country in the days following September 11. As Secretary
of Defense, Rumsfeld was a clear honoree in that admiration fest, and
his popularity and my admiration continued to grow when, as B-52s carpeted
the harsh climes of Afghanistan with ordinance, he proved to be particularly
adept at the art of the press conference.
There he would stand in the Pentagon, playing the role of the intermediary
between our indomitable military forces and the mostly clueless civilian
like me, who sat captivated by grainy images of our elite troops tumbling
out of airplanes at night to pulverize the terrible people who knocked
our towers down. And when he wasn't quenching our thirst for revenge,
he would, much to our collective delight, punctuate the conference by
flattening some overly enthusiastic Pentagon correspondent who got a little
too close to the military's secret cookie jar, doing so with a snide yet
not entirely unreasonable remark about military confidentiality. And I
ate it up (like many other Americans) and in fact still do, as long as
he's in the Pentagon briefing room.
The problem is that dear Donald Rumsfeld has taken his daily press conference
overseas to unhappy Europe, where he's become the spokesman for Dubya's
war in Iraq. Quite frankly, he might be the single worst person to try
to convince skeptical Europeans to go to war. While he doesn't exude the
President's buckaroo vibe (which surely also makes most Europeans cringe),
he's oozing with American elitism and a "We'll go it on our own"
attitude, which can't be any better. All of this has come into practice
in recent weeks in the form of inflammatory "Old Europe" comments
and the like. What Rumsfeld seems not to know (or more likely not care
about, given that he's clearly quite intelligent), is that other people
around the globe don't want to go to war (if in fact Americans do), and
don't want to hear the same gung-ho language that lit the patriotic fire
in America immediately after September 11. They need to be convinced,
not intimidated or berated.
For example, yes, the French are frustratingly obstinate whenever the
U.S. wants to take action of some kind, but to discount them entirely
by implying that they are a relic of an older era is entirely counterproductive.
I'm no diplomat, but wouldn't it make more sense to impress upon the French
the point that their time is now, and that they can prove their substance
by joining in a fight against the world's ills? Rumsfeld's rhetoric is
unfit for a situation that demands a softer diplomatic touch.
Fortunately, at the same time that Secretary Rumsfeld was testing alliances in Europe, Secretary of State Colin Powell demonstrated his far superior diplomatic abilities, in spite of the fact that he, unlike Rumsfeld, is a career military man. Perhaps the lone dove in a flock of Bush administration hawks (though some would say that he's sprouted talons and a hooked beak in recent weeks), Powell nevertheless took on the role of war supporter, and did so with a cool, convincing, and steady manner in the U.N. Security Council. If we are to succeed in garnering international support for a war in Iraq (assuming of course, that the Bush Administration actually cares to do so, which they may not), let those like Colin Powell present the argument, and bring Rumsfeld back to the Pentagon podium.
That way we have a chance of getting international support from other than Britain and Tony Blair (who might roll over if Bush told him to), and I can like Rumsfeld again, and even better, keep his biography.
|
FastCounter by bCentral |