Will history portray Donald Rumsfeld as a genius in the war on terror, or as a deadender?

Question

He called the insurgents Deadenders. Will history look kindly upon Rumsfeld's tenure as Secretary of Defense?

Answer 1

"There are known knowns, things we know we know. There are also known unknowns, we know some things we don't know. There are unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know."--Donald Henry Rumsfeld

Maybe he will be portrayed as a deadender or as a genius; it will all DEPEND on the FUTURE.

However, here is what I know. I know that he pissed off a lot of military leaders trying to make the military lighter and nibbler. That is what we need on the war on terror. You see what we need is BALANCE. We need to have "enough" troops to catch the terrorists while SPEEDing up the communication with FEWER CASUALTIES so we can catch them quicker.

"You go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have," said Rumsfeld on December 8, 2004. This is why I decided to put "enough" in parenthesis. There is NO such thing as enough because that perception chages constantly. In fact that advantages of "not enough" is LESS abuse of resources and being CREATIVE, CREATIVE. This adage has certainly improved my life, being in my twenties, since I DON'T PANIC as much as I used to.

Of course, some of us think that 2800 U.S. troops killed in Iraq is such a "big" number. Maybe. Look at the number of dead in other wars and calculate them per year. Vietnam has 5 K per year MORE than this war so you could credit Rumsfled with this. He put a democratic/parlimentary government in Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe those government can flourish in the LONG-TERM because the idea is to put AS MANY PEOPLE IN TYRANNY AS POSSIBLE. I believe we put TOO MUCH blame on Rumsfeld because as he has been saying all along this will take time. This is why we should be putting the more blame on the ARAB CULTURE since somehow they are causing the killings BUT I could be WRONG.

However, I will admit there were some things he SHOULD have done that could have put the country in better shape currently and made him the only TWO-TERM Secretary of Defense, probably.
1. Kept Saddam's military that should have been used right away to keep order. These men only worked for him just to make MONEY.
2. Kept the LOWER ranks of the Baathist Party (not in the top 55 most wanted). They worked for him like the soldiers and know more about this country than the exiles. They would have been the interim government.
3. Authorization for U.S. troops to shoot a few looters just to keep order.
4. Placing a TEMPORARY ban on Iraqis possessing weapons so there would have been fewer insurgent attacks.
5. Not putting "enough" troops. This just a MAYBE.

By the way if anyone is going to be in this position assert your CIVILIAN control, like Rumsfeld, but still listen to the uniform. The 1947 law that combined the Depts. of Navy and War into Defense says that the Secretary of Defense must have a MAXIMUM OF TEN YEARS OF ACTIVE MILITARY EXPERIENCE. I understand that the longer one is in the military, the more hostile he or she would be. I think he is the most active/exciting (because of his "excessive" press conferences) Secretary.

Now going back to the question, I do not know if he will be praised or hated but I gave you what I know.

I am SORRY to say all this.

Answer 2

It's too early to tell as the war isn't over and there is too much politically-based emotion that would label him as one or the other. Give it a few decades or even a century before a cool and unbiased approach can be used to take a look at the policies employed by Rumsfeld.

Answer 3

I think it's pretty obvious that Rumsfeld will go down as one of the two worst Secretaries of Defense in U.S. history.

My money is on him getting the number one spot, but it's too early to know for sure. McNamara is going to be one tough statue to topple.

Answer 4

I bear in mind listening to Rumsfeld speaking approximately this concept that later grew to become into the call of his e book, and noticing one obtrusive logical omission. He suggested that in the process Iraq, there have been "universal knowns", or issues we knew with fact; there have been "universal unknowns", or issues we've been conscious that we did no longer be responsive to; and there have been "unknown unknowns" or issues that we did no longer be responsive to we did no longer be responsive to. He for sure ignored the class of "unknown knowns", or the flaws we theory we knew, yet that have been in fact thoroughly fake. He additionally blew my recommendations while he suggested that we knew precisely the place Saddamn's prohibited WMD have been....."in the section around Baghdad and Tikrit, and fairly to the East, North, South, and West of there". No, he by no potential made any blunders...

Answer 5

He is a very coy one. He screwed up the war on terror and then bailed out to let his boss take the heat. In a few years people will forget about Rumsfeld but they will always remember unfondly Bushy.

Answer 6

They will probably talk about how he was the man that got Colin Powel the boot and then learned to late that Powel was right. They will probably call him the Man Without A Plan.

Answer 7

He will go down in history as one of, or maybe the greatest, Secretary of Defense that we've ever had.

Answer 8

I think he will be portrayed as a failure who was "sacked" after his party lost the Mid-Term elections by a landslide.

Anyone coming after him is gotta look good.

Answer 9

I think he'll be looked at as one of history's greatest monsters.

FP

Answer 10

Nope, he will be seen as a mistake and a liability