This Week at War: Rumsfeld’s Revenge

Robert Gates was certainly more popular, but his predecessor was far more influential.

BY ROBERT HADDICK | JULY 8, 2011

Rumsfeld wins the doctrine war

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates's retirement last week was accompanied by warm praise for his leadership style, his political acumen, and his judgment on critical policy issues. Gates left office widely regarded as one of the most effective defense secretaries since the office was created in 1947. This repute is in sharp contrast to that of his predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld, who left the Pentagon in 2006 under a cloud of scorn from Capitol Hill, the media, and inside the department he ran. Indeed, Gates was brought in specifically to reverse many of Rumsfeld's policies, which many believed were causing the United States to lose the war in Iraq. Gates restored collegial harmony and got the Pentagon through a dark period.

But Gates's departure, the wide-ranging overhaul of Barack Obama's national security team, and, most importantly, the president's decision to withdraw 33,000 soldiers from Afghanistan by next summer shows that the "Rumsfeld Doctrine" is now the accepted standard operating procedure for current and future policymakers. In the end, Rumsfeld won the Doctrine War.

During the first Bush term, and even before the 9/11 attacks, Rumsfeld struggled with the Pentagon, and especially the Army, to create faster, lighter, more flexible, and more expeditionary military forces. Planning for the Iraq campaign in 2002 exposed the rift between Rumsfeld and Army planners, who preferred to replicate the slow massive buildup of armored divisions that had crushed the Iraqi army in the Desert Storm campaign in 1991. Buoyed by the success a handful of intelligence operators, special operations soldiers, and precision air power achieved in Afghanistan, Rumsfeld forced Central Command planners to rip up their Desert Storm-inspired war plan and opt instead for a much smaller force that would be supported by precision firepower and special operations forces.

Even as the Iraqi insurgency negated the campaign's initial success, Rumsfeld persisted in institutionalizing the "faster, lighter" expeditionary doctrine. In 2003, Rumsfeld brought Gen. Peter Schoomaker, who had spent most of his career in special operations, out of retirement to be Army chief of staff. Charged with implementing Rumsfeld's vision, Schoomaker's most notable innovation was the Army's conversion from the large division as the basic deploying unit to the smaller and easier-to-deploy brigade. As the insurgency worsened in Iraq, Rumsfeld resisted pressure to build up a larger and heavier U.S. ground commitment. He also resisted pressure to add to the Army and Marine Corps headcounts to relieve the strain on deploying soldiers, preferring that Pentagon funding remain committed to research and equipment modernization rather than be diverted to personnel accounts. The Iraq campaign had become a distraction to Rumsfeld's transformation agenda and, in his view, feeding more resources into it would only create Iraqi dependency.

MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS: U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
 

Robert Haddick is managing editor of Small Wars Journal.

MARTY MARTEL

2:13 PM ET

July 8, 2011

Gates/Rumsfeld - real culprits behind continuing war

At recent Senate hearings, Defense Secretary Robert Gates offered alibis for Pakistani government’s arrest of five Pakistanis who assisted CIA in tracking Osama bin Laden’s compound in Abottabad.

Rumsfeld also had defended Pakistan's terrorist connections.

Gates’ alibis like ‘reality on the ground’ and ‘all countries lie to each other’ at Senate hearings are mind boggling coming from a Secretary of Defense who is overseeing US war in Afghanistan that has been fueled by Pakistani government who has been playing a duplicitous game of ‘running with the hares while hunting with the hounds’ with US since 2001 as he has to know. Even prior to these lame alibis, Gates had varnished Pakistani duplicity as ‘deficit of trust’.

Mr Gates also said there was “some justification” for Pakistan's concerns about past American policies. Gen David Patraeus, rushed in with an apologia for his Pakistani friends, by claiming that ‘while Faisal was inspired by militants in Pakistan, he did not necessarily have contacts with the militants’ that turned out to be false. Both Adm Mike Mullen and Gen Patraeus fancy themselves to be “soldier statesmen” a la Gen Dwight Eisenhower. Adm Mullen has visited Pakistan 15 times and Gen Patraeus no less frequently. Both evidently have high opinions of their abilities to persuade Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani to crack down on the Haqqani network in North Waziristan and the Taliban’s Mullah Omar-led Quetta Shura.

Thus US military under Gates/Petraeus/Mullen has been mollycoddling Kayani’s Pakistani Army while Kayani protects the terrorist outfits which are killing US/NATO troops in Afghanistan day in and day out since 2001.

Clearly Gates had NO problem or NO qualms about the death of US/NATO troops at the hands of Afghan Taliban insurgents sheltered and supported by Pakistani government all these years.

It is NO wonder that with Secretary Gates at the helm of US Afghan war efforts, Afghan Taliban has been able to mount so successful an insurgency against US/NATO troops.

 

CHIPHER

1:08 AM ET

July 9, 2011

US:UK:Haqqani

...and not one WORD from SecState Clinton or SecDef Gates about the Haqqani led attack on the International Hotel in Kabul, as also NOTHING from our BILLIONAIRE Shahs of Afghanistan and Pakistan Karzai and Zardari who pander to Haqqani, even as calls for (campaign promise) pullout of Afghanistan reach a fever pitch in the US, because they are ALL IN BED TOGETHER for the Long March, as so well documented here:
'Diminution and Development' by Peter Torbay http://www.scribd.com/doc/33086321/

 

JAMES THOMPSON

7:20 PM ET

July 8, 2011

Marty Martel you post the

Marty Martel you post the same opinions on Pakistan again and again. Give it a rest. You sound like a broken record player.

 

PECHORIN

7:44 PM ET

July 8, 2011

fairness

To be fair it has to be acknowledged that he is right. Broken record or not, it's not much use to talk about grand strategy and military doctrine while we're stilling lighting money on fire in Afghanistan.

 

CHIPHER

1:15 AM ET

July 9, 2011

Granny Attica

...especially when TSA is preparing to use ana| swabs on 93-year old cancer patients to make sure they haven't sewn a Paki.bmob in their Fa||opian tubes! Madness! Madness!

 

JOHNBRAGG

1:53 PM ET

July 9, 2011

Being right doesn't make it relevant.

Pakistani perfidy doesn't really have a connection to evaluating the effects of Rumsfeld vs Gates on the US Armed Forces.

 

JACKINTHEBOX

7:28 PM ET

July 8, 2011

Gates has been one of the most effective Defense Secretaries eve

Simply, Gates has been careful with making any inflammable comments or decisions that will endanger our troops on the ground!

This explains it all.

 

CHIPHER

1:10 AM ET

July 9, 2011

Boots Ahoy

...yes, especially if it endangers KEEPING them on the ground.

 

ELLERVEIRA

3:38 PM ET

July 9, 2011

Gates, Rummie, etc.

The overriding fact is that, whatever their differences in approach, both these men were and are warmongers who are enthusiastic about US military adventures abroad to spread the US empire and keep the world under our control. One would think that after three extremely costly wars in men and money that have done NOTHING to benefit the US (Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan) the US would begin to grasp the futility of these foolish endeavors. And now Taiwan: this commitment, made over half a century ago, should have been liquidated long ago. What could be more foolish than to continue to fly in China's face and persist in the illusion that we must "contain" China and prevent its establishing itself as the primary power in Asia? American military policies seem stuck in the past, unable to adjust to changing times.

 

DR REVOLT

5:03 PM ET

July 10, 2011

A True Lie

Donald Rumsfeld should be put on trial for fabricated and false statements that led a nation into a war that was and is illegal. The wealth he amassed throughout his life has only harmed people and created nothing positive for the human experience.

WWW.TRUTHGUM.COM All I Want Is The TRUTH

 

DMOLONEY

7:37 AM ET

July 11, 2011

Not a great article, the way

Not a great article, the way the libya war has been conducted is different from the way rumsfield would have handled it, its being taken care of from the air with no boots on the ground, it was also handled differently on the international stage with the us working with the un and operating under international legal law.

"Obama now seems to agree with Rumsfeld that the long U.S. campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan have resulted in an unhealthy dependency by the hosts"

Because of rumsfields mishandling of these wars the hosts are far more dependent on the us than they should have been. Also many individuals have stressed the importance of the host nations to stand up for themselves, it is not necessarily part of some fabled "rumsfield doctrine".

"Gone is the Cold War and Desert Storm concept of the long buildup of armor as prelude to a massive decisive battle. Instead, globally mobile brigade combat teams will provide deterrence, respond to crises, and sustain expeditionary campaigns."

Gone is the rumsfield idea that it is a reasonable idea to occupy a nation without a proper number of troops or without given them the proper equipment and training to do so.

"There now seems to be a near-consensus inside Washington that the large open-ended ground campaigns that Rumsfeld resisted are no longer sustainable. The former defense secretary's preference for special operations forces, air power, networked intelligence, and indigenous allies is now back in vogue. Even Gen. David Petraeus, who burnished his reputation by reversing Rumsfeld's policies in Iraq, will now implement Rumsfeld's doctrine in eastern Afghanistan"

This is due to domestic pressure to wrap up the war, if this wasnt there more significant and relaible coin methods would be used.

Again rumsfield was a complete and utter failure, studying him should just provide us with examples of what not to do.

 

LESTER_GALULA

11:24 AM ET

July 11, 2011

Doctrine v. Accomplishment

This article is misleading, inasmuch as the application of the Rumsfield Doctrine set the stage for today's troubles in Afghanistan by fostering warlordism and tribalism so that militias could bear the brunt of the security burden and allow us to maintain a light troop footprint. Unfortunately, this policy exacerbated regionalism and ethnic tension without providing adequate security or the framework to develop a functional nation-state. One of it's implied tenets is also the ability to engage in multiple simultaneous wars, which led to diversion of resources from Afghanistan to Iraq and opened up and entire new can of problematic worms.

The problem with the Rumsfield Doctrine, and especially with its recent application, is that the ability to rapidly project the minimum of force to affect action carries with it a tendency to inadequately evaluate the actual requirements necessary to achieve strategic goals. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the strategic requirement was for a stable state after regime change, and the tools of the Rumsfield Doctrine were inadequate to achieve this requirement. Small forces aren't a panacea any more than COIN is, and ultimately the Rumsfield Doctrine has failed to test of efficacy.

I'd also add that it's probably inaccurate to describe decisions born of war-weariness and austerity as a victory for the Rumsfield Doctrine.

 

WHISKEYPAPA

12:13 PM ET

July 11, 2011

Rummy the Dummy

It's nice to see corroboration that Rumsfeld was not actively trying to destroy the position of the United States in the world.

If he -had- been trying to wreck the USA, he could hardly have done a better job.

Walt

 

ELLERVEIRA

3:23 PM ET

July 11, 2011

hi tech warfare

I wonder why the US hasn't gotten the message that hi tech is pretty useless in fighting a guerilla war. And that is what we are in in Afghanistan. You can trash the country with hi tech and wreck it, but to occupy it and colonize it hi tech won't work.

 

JJCALE

7:57 PM ET

July 11, 2011

Gates better at PR and learnt from past mistakes

Intertesting article. Gates also had the opportunity to learn from earlier mistakes - it is much easier getting it right second time around. I am not expert enough to comment on specific military issues (although US Special Forces do seem to be doing a very impressive job) but Gates def comes off better in media than R ever did. However is not the real criticism of R that whilst he was great at winning wars he was less good at planning for peace which made it a lot easier for US forces to be portrayed as foreign invaders which helped the insurgency(ies). The other event of course were those pictures of prisoners being maltreated which also happened on his watch.

 

BILL DIETRICH

6:44 AM ET

July 12, 2011

These things are cyclical

Regardless of who "won the doctrine war", the important thing is that no one has won the REAL war !

These doctrine things are cyclical, as long as the real war continues unwon. Rummy tried small-and-smart, it didn't work, then generals said "if only we had more troops, we'd win". So Gates tried bigger, it didn't work, the budget and military are melting, and now someone's saying "we should be smaller-and-smarter". If we stay another couple of years, it won't be working, and generals again will say "if only we had more troops, we'd win".

 

JDUMONSAU

9:56 AM ET

July 12, 2011

Doctrine War

This article is another example of journalists getting caught up in creating storylines regarding precedent and doctrine rather than understanding that more often than not politics and policy require pragmantic, idiosyncratic responses that address changing circumstances rather than pre-conceived dogmas. I would say that this could be a microcosm of the differences between the Bush and Obama presidences - Bush "went with his gut" and refused to change for far too long in spite of changing circumstances while Obama, who may be harder to predict in his responses to issues, at the very least addresses them open-mindedly, pragmatically, and with regard for actual facts.
Rumsfeld had the right idea in addressing future conflicts with a heavier reliance on new technology, but it wasn't the initial fighting that was the issue in Iraq, rather the complete negligence exhibited by Rumsfeld and Bush in planning the post-war occupation where the on-ground security that was needed was insufficient. This negligence prolonged both wars, costing hundreds of billions of dollars and more importantly the lives of countless innocent Iraqi citizens and thousands of American soldiers.
Writing an article about Rumsfeld winning "the doctrine war" that at best breezes over and usually ignores facts is pussy, hack journalism about a man whose arrogant, disastrous tenure as Secretary of Defense is a major contributor to many of the problems our country must continue to solve.

 

DREAM-KING

10:29 AM ET

July 12, 2011

Re: Doctrine War

Jdumonsau has it right on 'journalists' getting caught up in a heady narrative.

I found the entire position untenable. It's one thing to say that local occupied powers should become responsible for their own security. It's completely another to suggest that Rumsfeld's attempts to implement a technological productivity fix actually accomplished any of the goals set out for the Iraq or Afghanistan war. What a comically blatant example of the 'moving the goalpost and declaring victory' technique.

Counterinsurgency takes labor- and risk-intensive boots, chocolate, conversations and confidence-building before there can be transition to local authority. It needs a lot of this. We failed to do much of this up front, which made it harder to do later when we started. Rumsfeld wanted no part in hearts-and-minds operations, and it showed in the half-assed way it went about. It's partly why Bush had to get rid of him when he did.

Unless you're suggesting the events in Afghanistan and Iraq in many ways resemble the true initial goals (aside from the death of bin Laden)? That's the only way what you're suggesting makes sense, even in your implied weird world where 'doctrine' has some intrinsic standalone value outside of the means to accomplishing national-interest ends.

 

SPACE FARMER

11:26 AM ET

July 12, 2011

Rumsfeld as victor? Come on...

I don't think Rumsfeld's ideas have "won"... see http://nationalspacestudiescenter.wordpress.com/2011/07/12/the-desire-to-buck-conventional-wisdom/

 

MUZZA

12:17 PM ET

July 12, 2011

BLOWN KNOWNS. You may

BLOWN KNOWNS.

You may provide genius level service to your country for a solid century. But if you set up prisons where boys and women are raped, and where the prison staff is equally demeaned (Wikipedia TAGUBA REPORT), guess which part people will remember?

Donald Rumsfeld is an immoral piece of shit. .

 

KEYBASHER

1:31 PM ET

July 12, 2011

Division vs. Brigade

"Instead, globally mobile brigade combat teams will provide deterrence, respond to crises, and sustain expeditionary campaigns."

Yet the Army still wears division instead of brigade shoulder patches, and identifies the majority of their brigades as organic (1st Brigade, 1st Infantry Division) instead of independent (173rd Airborne Brigade.)

 

WOUNDEDDUCK

1:33 PM ET

July 12, 2011

Rumsfeld dead wrong

I suppose Haddick's impossibly-narrow analysis wasn't meant to examine the effectiveness of Rumsfeld's faster-leaner military, but it bears saying that Rummie's new Army was categorically the wrong model for Iraq. We needed overwhelming numbers of soldiers to pacify the country. Instead, we got a sexier, easier-to-deploy military that couldn't hope to do its job. But this is part of the MIC plan to make it easier for America to engage in useless wars of choice, a la Iraq, since, by Rummie's thinking, it's easier to get a brigade into country, with it's sci-fi weapons and vehicles, muck things up, and get out, than it is to fight big battles properly, which are so boring, slow, and night-vision-free affairs. No, Rummie, Georgie and Dick screwed things up but good, and yeah, it's easier to do things their way, but look at the horrific mess it leaves in its wake. Haddick's piece belongs at Politico, not FT.

 

KEYBASHER

1:36 PM ET

July 12, 2011

Taiwan needs:

1) An incipient democratic movement on the mainland, or
2) A reliable ally.

 

EWAZZY36

7:41 AM ET

July 15, 2011

Rumsfeld's revenge

I never understood why President Obama stuck with Gates and Petraeus. Changing to more flexible brigades also was a first step to cut back, to get expenses under control. Today the defense budget is close to $1-trillion, which is obscene. China only spends one tenth of that amount on defense.
The admirals and generals cow-tow to the industrial/military complex against which, so many years ago, already President Eisenhower warned. All military men and women should be returned to the US and employed to fix highways, bridges, railroad tracks, the whole US infra-structure!

 

KASEMAN

12:38 PM ET

July 15, 2011

Rummy et Al Qaeda's moles

What positive outcomes have any of these3 warlords ace achieved from the two invasions we have cooked up? In Afghanistan the Pushtoon, not us, are on the offensive despite our vast superiority in everything but brains. We have been smashing the place for nine years so why are we not winning? We and our satelites have 200,000 uniforms and 80,000 mercenaries (mostly ex uniforms) being stumped by a mere30,000 Talebs. Such fine generals we have. Just as in Vietnam

Our illegai and totally immoral invasion and rape of Iraq has destroyed society, killed 00s of 000s, wounded millions, smashed the lives of more milions and impoverished most of Iraqis. And we know almost nothing about this thanks to our self censoring media and talking heads.

So what are the achievements of Rummy abd Gates? And now we have a new idiot warlord, Don Leone Panattone, once capo di capi at CIA, telling the world that we invaded Iraq and did aboe things because we destroy ObL and Aq Qaeda! What about Saddam? The non existent WMDs? Sorry for the collateral. damage. Good for the neocons and their' families in Israel.

By his admission, Don Leone has trashed what little respect we have abroad. Now every knows that the invasion was racist crusade and the repercussions will come. Meanwhle think Pakistan.

On the US invasion of Iraq', then not so dumb Mubarak told Bush that he had spawned 10 Al Qaedas.
.

These two adventures have cost us $5-8 trillions and more trillions in the future. Just what ObL and his gang of terrorists wanted..

 

ALLENA134

8:08 PM ET

August 5, 2011

This Week at War: Rumsfelds Revenge

Robert Gates was certainly more popular, but his predecessor was far more influential. ...and not one WORD from SecState Clinton or SecDef Gates about the Haqqani led attack on the International Hotel in Kabul, as also NOTHING from our BILLIONAIRE Shahs of Afghanistan and Pakistan Karzai and Zardari who pander to Haqqani, even as calls for (campaign promise) pullout of Afghanistan reach a fever pitch in the US, because they are ALL IN BED TOGETHER for the Long March, as so well docu web site design "Instead, globally mobile brigade combat teams will provide deterrence, respond to crises, and sustain expeditionary campaigns." Yet the Army still wears division instead of brigade shoulder patches, and identifies the majority of their brigades as organic (1st Brigade, 1st Infantry Division) instead of independent (173rd Airborne Brigade.).