WASHINGTON, 9 April 2006 — Just what a lame duck president does not need — a public spat between his top administration officials over the war in Iraq.
The Defense Department and State Department are involved in yet another power struggle, and this time it’s gone public. Previous Secretary of State Colin Powell quietly stepped down when he realized he was impotent in foreign policy matters — against Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his team.
But Condoleezza Rice, current head at state, is not taking Rummie’s jostling in stride.
Evidence of the deepening longstanding tensions over Iraq between state and defense departments were made public and personal last week when Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said, during a radio interview, he didn’t know what Rice was talking about when she recently told a UK think tank that the United States had made “thousands of tactical errors” in its managing of the war in Iraq.
Rumsfeld then all but accused Rice of not being up to the job. Calling the changes in military tactics during the war ‘errors’ reflects her lack of understanding of warfare, he said.
“Why? Because the enemy’s got a brain; the enemy watches what you do and then adjusts to that, so you have to constantly adjust and change your tactics, your techniques and your procedures.”
Then in a direct swipe at Rice, Rumsfeld added: “If someone says that’s a tactical mistake, then I guess it’s a lack of understanding… of what warfare is about.”
In her defense, Rice was diplomatic when commenting on what made Rumsfeld go ballistic.
While Rice admitted that the US made “thousands of tactical errors in Iraq,” she also said future historians will agree that it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
“This could have gone that way, or that could have gone this way,” said Rice, adding that the US-led invasion was “the right strategic decision.”
In an attempt to defuse the row with Rumsfeld, Rice said on Friday her relationship with Rumsfeld “couldn’t be better.” Rice is not the only one in government to question Rumsfeld’s decisions in Iraq. He has been criticized by members of Congress and even some retired generals for missteps in Iraq, including failing to foresee the insurgency.
Former CENTCOM chief Gen. Anthony Zinni recently joined the lengthening list of those calling for Secretary Rumsfeld’s removal last week on ‘Meet the Press.’ When asked if anyone should resign, General Zinni paused and said he thought Rumsfeld and some of his colleagues should go, saying: “I think that those that have been responsible for the planning, for overriding all the efforts that were made in planning before that, that those that stood by and allowed this to happen, that didn’t speak out… I think they have to be held accountable.” Tom Friedman, in the New York Times this week, said: “We failed to [provide a secure environment so the Iraqis could have a… rational dialogue] largely because Rumsfeld, who was warned otherwise, refused to deploy sufficient forces.
Rumsfeld made the decision because — if you read “Cobra II,” … the history of the Iraq War — he was more interesting in transforming the Pentagon than in transforming Iraq.”
Meanwhile Rumsfeld’s attack on Rice is seen as very bad timing and certainly not helpful for America’s foreign policy in Iraq.
A top adviser to Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Al-Jaafari said that the visit last week by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw had backfired, prolonging a deadlock over a new government and strengthening Jaafari’s resolve to keep his job.
“Pressure from outside is not helping to speed up any solution,” said the adviser, Haider Al-Abadi.
“All it’s doing is hardening the position of people who are supporting Jaafari.” “They shouldn’t have come to Iraq,” he said.
Making matters worse, his comments were echoed by several political leaders including Kurds and Sunni Arabs.
