Editorial: Iraq at root of criticisms

Tuesday, Dec. 21, 2004 | 9:09 a.m.

President Bush said Monday that he knows the heart of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and that he is a "good, decent man ... a caring fellow." We don't dispute the president's words regarding Rumsfeld's personal qualities. It's when the president lavishes praise upon Rumsfeld's public qualities as leader of America's military that we wince.

"He's doing a very fine job," Bush said of Rumsfeld at a news conference, where reporters asked about the growing criticism of Rumsfeld for the way he's directed the war in Iraq. On Sunday, on ABC's "This Week," Bush's chief of staff Andrew Card was even more effusive. "Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a spectacular job," Card said.

This is not how we assess Rumsfeld's leadership. Nor is it the way a growing number of Congress members, including many Republicans, view it. The mounting criticism of Rumsfeld is focused almost entirely on the deteriorating conditions in Iraq. After President Bush decided to invade that country, the job of prosecuting the war fell to Rumsfeld. On Rumsfeld's watch, multiple cases of prisoner abuse have undermined our stated purpose of liberating the Iraqi people. A shortage of troops and our disbandment of the Iraqi military have contributed to a treacherous near-anarchy, preventing our stated goal of establishing a democracy. A failure to equip our troops with needed armor and bulletproof windshields has led to excessive deaths and injuries.

For these lapses in leadership Rumsfeld deserves the criticism that is being heaped upon him by members of his own party, including Sens. John McCain, Trent Lott and Chuck Hagel. We believe these criticisms are well taken, but we also believe Rumsfeld should not shoulder them alone. A lot of the discontentedness being expressed, in our view, is simply a growing frustration with the whole situation in Iraq, for which President Bush must take full responsibility. We were supposed to have invaded a country that had weapons of mass destruction and ties to al-Qaida. Those turned out to be false premises. We were supposed to have been hailed as liberators. The widespread, growing attacks by enemy Iraqi forces have proven that vision to have been a delusion. The bringing about of free elections was supposed to have been our final act, but now Bush is saying elect ions will be just the "beginning" of a long U.S. involvement.

Some people are calling for Rumsfeld to be replaced. Maybe that's one answer. Finding the ultimate answer, however, must begin with recognizing and admitting all of our past -- and mistaken -- assumptions about Iraq. Then, and only then, will we be able to develop a new strategy for stabilizing the country.