He didn't leave ... he was fired. Rumsfeld is an interesting man ... very smart but very ascerbic. President Bush nominated him for Secretary of Defense before 9/11 because he wanted someone to force a transformation of the military. The U.S. military was deeply committed to the Cold War model, where massive armies squared off against one another in the Eurasian theatre. Many thought the model had long since passed the stage of history. The new phrase was "asymmetrical warfare" -- where established armies had to fight much smaller terrorist actions. Rumsfeld was brought in to bring about the change necessary to face this new model. His ascerbic style was thought to be just the ticket for that.
Note: an example of the Cold War mindset ... a project, since canceled, called for a new 80 ton self-propelled artillery piece. Powerful yes; flexible and easy to deploy rapidly, no.
September 11th, 2001 changed all that. Rather than being able to focus on transforming the military, Rumsfeld had to manage an actual war. His strategy for Afghanistan -- small teams of elite personnel supported by massive airpower -- is generally recognized as being brilliant; the precise solution to the problems that plagued the Soviet Union when they invaded back in 1980. But his handling of Iraq came under greater scrutiny. Word is the entrenched military had become severely annoyed with Rumsfeld as well.
Had the Iraq war been going well, Rumsfeld would not have been ousted. But it's not going well (but it is going better than is being portrayed by the popular media). Rumsfeld had become a political liability; the "face" of the problems in Iraq.
The much bigger political question is: why didn't Bush fire Rumsfeld before the elections? Many feel it might have made the difference in many of the races (almost all of which were very closely decided). The Republicans might well still hold one or both houses of Congress had that been done.
I don't claim to know all the ins-and-outs of the politics of this.
* * *
People will always fight. It does not really matter the reason; they'll invent one. Two broad themes from the Bible come to mind:
You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. (Exodus 20:17, NIV)I don't think it's a coincidence that God made this the last of the Ten Commandments. Is not covetousness at the root of most of our problems?
Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all. (Colossians 3:11, NIV)If covetousness is at the root, is not the outcome of that covetousness the desire (or worse, the irresistable urge) to derive classifications of people; to separate people so one group has superiority over the other? Here Paul says that when we kill off our old life (that which covets and seeks to divide) and take up the life Christ offers, we find that there is no division. Our differences fade away as Christ becomes the center of our lives.
Note: The specific inclusion of "Scythians" there is interesting. One commentary said that by including the Scythians, Paul was saying, in effect, "Yes, even the very bottom of the barrel, the most horrible among us." The Wikipedia article doesn't much allude to that aspect of the Scythians, though.
That solution only works when Christ is above all the competing factions. And it only works when "Christianity" is more than what it has generally become in our day. See our many, many posts about our complaints along these lines.
* * *
Yes, I too wish to just go off to some peaceful place and be away from all this turmoil. Sometimes I wish I would just not wake up one day.
No comments:
Post a Comment