We are no longer "Un-American"

An interesting thing happened this past week; one of the administration's most effective weapons was rendered useless. No it wasn't a bomb or a fighter jet, but rather a very strong weapon against those who's opinions do not fall in line with the motives and actions of the Bush administration. Following comments from several retired Generals criticizing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the handling of the war in Iraq, it suddenly became okay to criticize the war. Up until this point in time the President of the United States, the right wing talk radio, and of course our friends at Fox News had found an effective way to stifle any criticism of the Bush administration or the war; simply label all people who disagree as Un-American. However, after this past week the administration must realize that the "Un-American" label can no longer be applied to those who share their dissenting opinions.

The idea that those who disagree with Bush Administration policies are somehow unpatriotic or Un-American is in itself ludicrous, albeit very effective. Now I have to say that as spins go this was a very good one. In fact this administration has been perhaps the best in history at rebutting, labeling, and ultimately marginalizing those who disagree with it. Through the vehicle of talk radio, Democrats have become "leftist-liberals", those who disagree with the war are "unpatriotic", and anyone who disagrees on social policy suddenly "lacks values". Of course no one wants to be labeled as unpatriotic or told they have no morals or values. In this regard the right wing spin machine has succeeded in shutting down objections to policy and practices that would otherwise be criticized extensively. From a strategic standpoint this playbook has served the administration well. A shift is about to occur, however, as it is dangerous if not politically suicidal to accuse retired general officers of being unpatriotic.

Finally someone is saying the right things, and coming after Rumsfeld for the right reasons. This is no left-wing partisan attack, but rather a demand for accountability from the man who runs the Pentagon. This has been a long time coming and it is amazing that the Democratic leaders in congress could not come to this resolution earlier. It is not about whether one agrees with the war or not. The issue is whether this process was managed in the right way, and if it was not, who is accountable? Frankly, I believe that the man at the top of the organization should shoulder the responsibility, but asking for the resignation of Rumsfeld is a good start.

For those of you who are still not with me, let me illustrate it in another way. As a manager of a business, I have to make decisions every single day based on information brought to me by others. If I make a bad decision, regardless of who brought me the information, I am accountable for it. This could mean that I am reprimanded, disciplined, or even fired. The debate over the Iraq War should not be whether or not we should be there, but rather, was the decision to go to war the right one. Since the beginning of the war the administration has changed its reasons for going to war three times. First it was all about WMD, then we heard about regime change, and now we are there to bring democracy to Iraq (I do believe that democracy must come internally from the people, but that is a conversation for later). The simple fact of the matter is that the President acted on bad intelligence and that both he and those responsible for the bad intelligence should be held accountable. In the same vein, Rumsfeld should be held accountable for his lack of planning and mismanagement of the war.

Now, I am not naive enough to believe that we can simply bring our troops home at this point. However, when you have general officers speaking out against the Secretary of Defense, everyone should be listening. These are men who have devoted their entire lives to the service of their country. These men understand better than anyone how to run a war and what is necessary to be successful. The idea of politicians and appointees ignoring high ranking military officers harkens us back 30 years to a different war. Did we learn nothing then that could help us now?