Donald Rumsfeld in State of Denial, by Bob Woodward


On Homeland Security: Anchor Chain memo: defense reform takes multiple presidents

Rumsfeld was trying to define the task before him; on March 20, 2001, he dictated a 4-page memo, "Subject: The Challenge--the Importance of Succeeding."

"After 2 months on the job, it is clear that the Defense establishment is tangled in its anchor chain," he dictated. Distrust between Congress and the Defense Department was so great, he said, that "the maze of constraints on the Department force it to operate in a manner that is so slow, so ponderous and so inefficient that whatever it ultimately does will inevitably be a decade or so late." Without changing and fixing the relationship with Congress, Rumsfeld concluded, "transformation of our armed forces is not possible."

This "Anchor Chain" memo became notorious among Rumsfeld's staff. It sounded like he had almost given up fixing the Pentagon during the George W. Bush presidency. The task was so hard and would take so long, he dictated, that "our job, therefore, is to work together to sharpen the sword that the next president will wield.

Source: State of Denial, by Bob Woodward, p. 25-6 Oct 1, 2006

On Homeland Security: Guantanamo prisoners are "bad guys"; no tribunals needed

The hundreds of suspected terrorists who were detainees at the US base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were unlawful combatants who could be tried in military tribunals and denied access to the US federal court system. This meant that they had been turned over to the Defense Department, but Rumsfeld would not start the tribunal process.

At an NSC meeting with the president, Rice began going through a long paper on the issues that everyone was supposed to have read and understood.

Rumsfeld leaned back and made it pretty clear he was not paying much attention. The president also seemed bored. But Rice plowed on.

"Don, what do you think about this?" Bush asked, interrupting Rice.

"They are bad guys," Rumsfeld said.

It was as if Rice and the NSC had one serious, formal process going on while the president and Rumsfeld had another one--informal, chatty and dominant.

Source: State of Denial, by Bob Woodward, p.276 Oct 1, 2006

On War & Peace: Afghanistan was CIA operation; Iraq was his operation

At an NSC meeting the day after the 9/11 attacks, Bush asked what the military could do immediately. Rumsfeld replied, "Very little, effectively." Later that day, Rumsfeld asked Bush, Why shouldn't we go against Iraq, not just al Qaeda? The president put Rumsfeld off, wanting to focus on Afghanistan, al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

The CIA stepped in to fill the void. They could bring to bear all the resources of the intelligence community, combined with US military power and Special Forces, harness the factional opposition known as the Northern Alliance, defeat the Taliban and close out the al Qaeda sanctuary.

Rumsfeld sat uneasily on the sidelines. At an NSC meeting on October 16, his frustration boiled over. "This is CIA's strategy," he declared. "They developed the strategy. We're just executing the strategy." Rumsfeld had been humiliated. Never again. The next month, when the president ordered him to look seriously at the Iraq war plan, Rumsfeld made it his personal project. This would be his.

Source: State of Denial, by Bob Woodward, p. 77-9 Oct 1, 2006

On War & Peace: Replaced Powell’s “Overwhelming Force” with “Less is More”

In Nov. 2001, the Iraq war plan was the chessboard on which Rumsfeld would test, develop, expand & modify his ideas about military transformation. The driving concept was “less is more”--new thinking about a lighter, swifter, smaller force that could do the job better. Rumsfeld’s blitzkrieg would vindicate his leadership of the Pentagon. He was the main architect, driving the meetings & changes.

An important contrast can be found in the 1991 Gulf War. Powell’s concept was “Go in big & end it quickly. We could not put the US through another Vietnam.“ The plan to use overwhelming force to guarantee victory became known as the Powell Doctrine.

In 2001, things were different. The two great Pentagon ideas--a new, ”refreshed“ Iraq war plan, as Rumsfeld called it, and military transformation--converged.

The point of the Iraq war plan was: Get to Baghdad, and fast. It echoed Rumsfeld’s desire--”assume risk.“ The Powell Doctrine of trying to guarantee success was out. Rapid, decisive warfare was in.

Source: State of Denial, by Bob Woodward, p. 81-83&100 Oct 1, 2006

On War & Peace: Briefed on risks & dangers before war; but shut down dissent

A Feb. 2003 report identified “Show stoppers--problems, if not solved, place mission at risk”:Tom Warrick, author of the related ‘Future of Iraq’ study, was transferred by Jay Garner from the State Department to the Pentagon as a result. A few days later, Rumsfeld said to Garner, ”I’ve got to ask you to take Warrick off the team. I’ve gotten this request from such a high level that I can’t turn it down.“

A level so high that the secretary of defense couldn’t turn it down? That could only mean Bush or conceivably Cheney.

Source: State of Denial, by Bob Woodward, p.125-127 Oct 1, 2006

On War & Peace: Infrastructure collapse was Saddam's fault, not U.S.

In 2003, Rumsfeld said, perhaps trying to refute Powell's warning that the US would own Iraq. "We will stay as long as necessary to help you do that--and not a day longer."

In an interview later, Rumsfeld said he realized that "the Iraqi infrastructure had been neglected for decades. I went over and looked at an electric power plant. I can remember, it was being held together with chewing gum, bobby pins and baling wire. And I looked at [it] myself and said, My Lord, this took 30 years to get there." Saddam had ruled for over 30 years. "It's going to take 30 years to get out of here, to get that--not us out--for them to get back to looking like Kuwait or Jordan or Saudi Arabia or Turkey or their neighbors. And I said, My goodness, that's going to be their job over a long period of time, because it just takes that long. You can't--and they have wealth. They've got water. They've got oil. They've got industrious people. They clearly are going to be the ones that are going to have to do that."

Source: State of Denial, by Bob Woodward, p.186 Oct 1, 2006

On War & Peace: Garner: key mistakes were disbanding army & deBaathification

On June 18, 2003, Jay Garner went to see Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to report on his brief tenure in Iraq as head of the postwar planning office. “We’ve made three tragic decisions,” Jay Garner, the US envoy to Iraq, told Rumsfeld.

“Really?” Rumsfeld asked.

“Three terrible mistakes,” Garner said. He cited the first order banning as many as 50,000 members of Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party from government jobs and the second order disbanding the Iraqi military. Now there were hundreds of thousands of disorganized, unemployed, armed Iraqis running around. Third, Garner said, was the summary dismissal of an interim Iraqi leadership group that had been eager to help the United States administer the country in the short term. Garner made his final point: “There’s still time to rectify this. There’s still time to turn it around.”

Rumsfeld looked at Garner for a moment with his take-no-prisoners gaze. “Well,” he said, “I don’t think there is anything we can do, because we are where we are.”

Source: State of Denial, by Bob Woodward, p.219 Oct 1, 2006

The above quotations are from State of Denial:
Bush at War, Part III
, by Bob Woodward.
Click here for other excerpts from State of Denial:
Bush at War, Part III
, by Bob Woodward
.
Click here for other excerpts by Donald Rumsfeld.
Click here for a profile of Donald Rumsfeld.
Please consider a donation to OnTheIssues.org!
Click for details -- or send donations to:
1770 Mass Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140
E-mail: submit@OnTheIssues.org
(We rely on your support!)

Page last updated: Feb 24, 2019