Dale K. Robinson
Clausewitz on Rumsfeld
May 9, 2006
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has come under fire in recent weeks from a number of retired generals, all calling for his resignation. The criticism is all the same: they claim he’s a micro-manager, is stubborn, has an abrasive leadership style, doesn’t take advice and makes decisions without taking into account sound military recommendations.
My first reaction to this criticism was to quote a hero from childhood, a battle-hardened dog- face who led the soldiers of Easy Company across North Africa and Europe against the Nazi war machine. He was larger than life, like most comic book heroes, often drawn with a bandolier of ammunition over a battle torn shirt. His name was Sergeant Rock, and his soldiers, like all soldiers, grumbled and griped about everything from the weather to the chow to the leadership. And, like the good non-commissioned officer he was, Sergeant Rock would silence the grumbling with “Shut up and soldier, soldier!”
My second reaction was OK, these guys are general officers, trained in leadership and warfare. I should give them the benefit of the doubt, at least hear what they say. Maybe they know what they are talking about. But then again, maybe not.
I found I could easily dismiss retired Marine General Anthony Zinni’s comments. Zinni, who led US Central Command until 2000 and is currently on the circuit hawking a book, left the service before Rumsfeld became SECDEF, as did several other officers critical of Rumsfeld. "I think we are paying the price for the lack of credible planning, or the lack of a plan. We're throwing away 10 years worth of planning, in effect, for underestimating the situation we were going to get into, for not adhering to the advice that was being given to us by others, and, I think, getting distracted from Afghanistan and the war on terrorism that we were committed to when we took on this adventure,” Zinni said in an April 2nd interview on NBC’s Meet the Press. Retired Army Maj General Charles Swannack says of Rumsfeld "... I think we need senior military leaders who understand the principles of war and apply them ruthlessly, and when the time comes, they need to call it like it is." Another retired Army officer, Maj Gen Paul Eaton says Rumsfeld has “shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically, and is far more than anyone responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq.” While experienced military men, they have been out of the loop for a while.
There are two, however, whose comments could carry weight with me: Marine Lt Gen Greg Newbold, who served as director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Newbold, who retired in protest over what he described as “a fundamentally flawed plan” for “an invented war,” while pursuit of “the real enemy, al-Qaeda, became a secondary effort.”
The other is Army Maj Gen John Batiste, who served as the commander of the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004 and 2005 before retiring. This is a man who led soldiers in Iraq, who served there himself, a man who should be able to offer a unique perspective on the discussion.
In an interview with CNN’s Miles O’Brien, Batiste says “whether we agree or not with the war in Iraq, we are where we are and we must succeed in this endeavor. Failure is, frankly, not an option. Success to me is setting the Iraqi people up for self-reliance with their form of representative government that takes into account tribal, ethnic and religious differences that have always defined Iraqi society. Iraqis, frankly, in my experience, do not understand democracy. Nor do they understand their responsibilities for a free society.” That’s all very true, I believe, but, that’s an indictment of OUR instant society that expects our burgers to be ready by the time we pull up to the drive thru window, our wars to be quick, neat, and bloodless, and people who have never known self-government to suddenly form a secular government that respects the rights of the minority along with those of the majority. That’s not an indictment of Rumsfeld, his leadership style or his policies.
Interestingly, while these generals have lots of criticism for Rumsfeld, none have said “This course of action was recommended, that course of action was taken, and the results were…” Rather, Newbold says in a Time magazine article "The cost of flawed leadership continues to be paid in blood. We need fresh ideas and fresh faces, and that means as a first step, replacing Rumsfeld and many others unwilling to fundamentally change their approach." And in that same CNN interview I mentioned earlier, Batiste says of Rumsfeld “decisions are made without taking into account sound military recommendations, sound military decision making, sound planning, then we're bound to make mistakes. When we violate the principles of war with mass and unity of command and unity of effort, we do that at our own peril.”
It is also interesting that Batiste should mention the “principles of war.” One of the greatest military thinkers of the last three centuries and a major strategic theorist, Carl von Clausewitz wrote in his book “Principles of War” that if “we wage war with all our strength, our subordinate commanders and even our troops (especially if they are not used to warfare) will frequently encounter difficulties which they declare insurmountable. They find the march too long, the fatigue too great, the provisions impossible. If we lend our ear to all these difficulties … we shall soon succumb completely, and instead of acting with force and determination, we shall be reduced to weakness and inactivity.”
(Sergeant Rock had it right according to Clausewitz: “Shut up and soldier, soldier!”)
Clausewitz concluded “To resist all this we must have faith in our own insight and convictions. At the time this often has the appearance of stubbornness, but in reality it is that strength of mind and character which is called firmness.”
Carl von Clausewitz, meet Donald Rumsfeld.
Back to Dale's Home Page