Johnny vs. Rummy

I know many of our readers will chalk this up to The New York Times' liberal/corporate/interventionist/conservative/antiwar/pro-establishment/big-government/America-hating bias, but why the Grey Lady's full-court press against Secretary Rumsfeld? Not only is Rummy "fending off sharp criticism," he's got "officers on the Iraqi battlefield" complaining about insufficient manpower and "skeptics, who include some of the leading former Army commanders from the last war with Iraq," second-guessing him. I've always enjoyed Rumsfeld's look—he could have played one of Fredric March's bosses at the bank in The Best Years of Our Lives. Also of note: Jack Shafer's take on Times coverage, whose subtitle—When Johnny Apple says we're thwarted, we must be on the verge of winning—says it all.

Comments

[Sven]

'Cause when you squeeze Rummy, his eyes bug out.

[set]

The Pentagon is a political organization. So, I think what the NY Times is reporting is true, but I don't believe it is significant. Alas, it is too early to tell.

Just ask yourself one question: would waiting for more troops help? I doubt it. There isn't much that more troops can do to help in an urban situation. Also, I can hardly see how many of the combat deaths could have been prevented by having more troops.

Though, there is a case to be made that there should have been a heavier division sent in.

We should have recognized the situation in Turkey and not even bothered asking.

Though these are very debatable points.

[Lefty]

Look at a map of the region. If I were Syria and Iran, knowing I'm up next on the hit list, now would be a pretty good time for a preemptive strike.