The Zong

In case you missed it, a “secret” memorandum was obtained by the New York Times and, as reported over the weekend, it is being read as a “laundry list” penned by Donald Rumsfeld.

On the “laundry,” of course, is the blood-stained set of undies that is the Iraq war. After literally years of insistence that troop levels should be dictated by the commanders on the ground, we have here an historic treatise that should give every American the opportunity to read just why we’ve stayed the course in this war of choice, and why the realities perceived by those in power and what they say about it are two very different things.

Mr. Rumsfeld has frequently emphasized the difficulty of stabilizing Iraq and the need to turn over responsibility to Iraqi authorities as quickly as possible. But he has also been a forceful, even cantankerous, defender of American policy, often insisting his critics were unduly pessimistic. On Oct. 31, just a week before finishing the memo, Mr. Rumsfeld told a radio interviewer, “I feel that we are making good progress with the piece of it the Defense Department has.”

One option Mr. Rumsfeld offered calls for modest troop withdrawals “so Iraqis know they have to pull up their socks, step up and take responsibility for their country.”

Another option calls for redeploying American troops from “vulnerable positions” in Baghdad and other cities to safer areas in Iraq or Kuwait, where they would act as a “quick reaction force.” That idea is similar to a plan suggested by Representative John P. Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, a plan that the White House has soundly rebuffed.

Well, that’s just great. Glad to hear that Rumsfeld finally came around just in time to get his walking papers. It’s much more likely that, over the course of two pivotal elections, the Bushies weren’t about to admit that they actually kind of agreed with some of their critics, that maybe we should be doing something different.

Once again, the odd ones out are our troops and their families. While they continue to risk their lives, our government keeps them in Iraq for political purposes, and they are wounded and killed while Rumsfeld writes a memo that basically says the same thing that his critics have been saying for over a year.

The last couple of items in the memo, in the “Above the Line” category, are almost sickening in their adherence to a public-relations tone, in a way that belies the true concerns of an administration that consistently denies paying attention to polls or public opinion.

Announce that whatever new approach the U.S. decides on, the U.S. is doing so on a trial basis. This will give us the ability to readjust and move to another course, if necessary, and therefore not “lose.”

Recast the U.S. military mission and the U.S. goals (how we talk about them) — go minimalist.

I’d love to know what this last line about going “minimalist” means. Does it mean that we should speak in more modest terms about victory? (Not that anyone has any idea what would constitute victory in Iraq anyhow) Should we “recast” our mission in more realistic terms, withdrawing from the nebulous goals of peace and freedom in the Middle East? Shouldn’t someone have thought to outline things a bit more clearly before we sent our military into harm’s way?

It’s very likely that this memo was leaked to the press with a purpose, and that it gives the Bush Administration a good starting point from which to drastically change the course of the war by favoring troop reductions and redeployment without admitting that it was ever wrong. Still, there is no question that, all rhetoric aside, Iraq is now in the throes of a civil war, and that makes it clear that the Rumsfeld firing and his didactic memo come far, far too late.

- M.G.