Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News What happens if Rumsfeld is fired/resigns?

  1. May 9, 2004 #1
    If Rumsfeld is fired/resigns, will Wolfowitz become the secretary of defense, or will someone new be appointed in Rumsfeld's place and Wolfowitz stay deputy?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 9, 2004 #2
    If rumsfeld goes, wolfowitz would surely get hung out to dry as well.

    Oddly, while the kid in me enjoys rummy for a great laugh (the response of "If you have to ask if it's shock and awe, then it's not" was priceless), I really am not happy with the guy's lack of listening to military leaders. Typical beaurocratic B.S., rather than giving our fighting men what they need and are asking for.
     
  4. May 10, 2004 #3
    So if Rumsfeld resigns, is Wolfowitz automatically out, or is it just likely that he'll go too? Is there any sort of order with what happens if cabinet members retire, like with the president>vice president>speaker of the house thing, or is it all just up to the president?
     
  5. May 10, 2004 #4
    Bush has other pressing reasons to keep Rumsfeld. Who would replace him? The Pentagon would be thrown into turmoil. By the rules of succession, the deputy secretary of defense would step up as acting secretary. But the deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, has even less credibility on Capitol Hill. In fact, Rumsfeld's entire inner circle is tainted—if not by the Abu Ghraib scandal, then by the controversies over the Iraq war and the "stovepiping" of false intelligence that led up to it. Confirmation hearings for a new secretary would be a golden opportunity to revisit each of these controversies in great detail, with an election just months away.
    http://slate.msn.com/id/2100201/ [Broken]

    Confirmation hearings would be held in Congress.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  6. May 10, 2004 #5

    kat

    User Avatar

    That's what I was thinking Palestrian. I can see the Dem's blocking Bush's nominations repeatedly.
     
  7. May 10, 2004 #6

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    There's no way it would happen before the election. Firing Rumsfeld would be an admission that the Iraq invasion has been a mistake. Also, Bush relies on the idea of a "President as CEO". He is not an idea man. His talent is supposed to be picking people. If he fails at picking a secretary of defense, what is he good for?

    Njorl
     
  8. May 10, 2004 #7
    Indeed Kat. That's probably what Dem's they are up. Put the pressure.
    But Reps can't allow that. So they are in a difficult position.

    I am sure McCain will not stop. He understands personally the feeling being in the hands of such people. So it are not just the democrates.

    Additionally you have the professional military seing here an opportunity to teach Rumsfeld a lesson.
     
  9. May 10, 2004 #8
    Probably not ... but the pressure grows. Not just inside US. Rumsfeld lost it's credibility.

    Just think about NATO members waiting till after the elections to look if they will go to Iraq. What credibility has US to go to UN? Are they in control in Iraq? No.

    Will Powell be able to correct? Will he only move when the newcon 'Gestapo guys' become less powerful? That's probably what will happen. Put Powell in the spots, give him more power.

    BTW, that NATO attitude is what John Kerry will use: " See, other leaders don't want Bush anymore" ...and he's right.
     
  10. May 10, 2004 #9

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Ever been to the US? More than anything else, we can't stand other people telling us what to do. While it would be bad for Bush if his relationships with foreign leaders went badly, it would actually help him if those leaders expressed a desire for Kerry to win.

    Njorl
     
  11. May 10, 2004 #10

    Yeah, that doesn't really matter to anyone here.
     
  12. May 10, 2004 #11
    Njorl,
    You are absolutely right. Not only are Americans very intolerent of foreigners meddling in their affairs, even east coast ivy leaguers can cause great resentment in mid-western, and western states. Ranchers and farmers don't like the idea of their fate being decided by a person who doesn't know what a cow is, and thinks corn grows in a can. President Bush's most vocal critics may be his best chance for re-election. Every time Bush takes a big "hit" in the media, the money just pours into his campaign.
     
  13. May 10, 2004 #12

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    A lot of those "farmers" are stockholders in large agribusinesses like ADM and have MBAs from those very Ivy League schools (like our President). Most of the meddling that comes from us northeasterners comes in the form of complaining about the huge pipeline of federal tax revenues that leaves the northeast and flows to the south, midwest and west. Much of that money is subsidies for multi-millionaire farmers who demand "freedom to farm" when prices are high (and get it) and demand subsidies "to protect the family farm" when prices are low (and they get those too).

    Not that this has anything to do with Rumsfeld.

    Njorl
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2004
  14. May 10, 2004 #13
    Been in USA? About 50 times.
    Ever been in Europe?

    More than anything else, Iraqi's can't stand other people telling them what to do.
    Ever been in Iraq?
     
  15. May 10, 2004 #14

    amp

    User Avatar

    One thing I'm sure of is if Rummy is booted or resigns then Bush won't have a cap to keep the whistleblowers from letting loose!
     
  16. May 10, 2004 #15

    kat

    User Avatar

    That's wonderful, what areas? Were you here for any length of time? You know, I have many friends and relatives from europe, the middleast and asia and I don't think it is easy to grasp the "American" Physcological mind even after years of being in this country. Although I often think a good comparision, in some respects, not in others, would be to an adolescent...they know everything, are over sensitive, don't want to be told what to do...and really want to do it their way..etc.
    I have, but I don't get the relevence of this comment to U.S. politics?


    Most of the Iraqi's I have spoken with think that these people are getting far to much attention and compassion after what they have done to their own people and that they deserve far worse then this. Again, not all..and I don't agree. But I also don't think they need you to speak for them as a whole, painting their thoughts and opinions, which differ so widely...with one big sweep....
     
  17. May 10, 2004 #16
    Actually, Iraqi's love to have people tell them what to do. They readily submit to any powerful person that appears on the scene. That's part of the problem we have in Iraq, we haven't been as harsh as their mullahs, so we don't get as much respect because we're seen as being weak.
     
  18. May 10, 2004 #17
    Mostly NY and LA for business. Chicago and Dallas less, about 4 - 5 times a week. I had a company in Beverly Hills with some US partners. Great time. We had a NFL license for toys. Visited the LA Rams, training camp, eat with them, ... (later they moved) etc.
    One day one of my partners ran with about $250,000. :/
    Other city and areas: Vegas, Salt Lake City, Minnesota, ...

    I just wanted to make it clear that Europe has a different way of doing politics. When you 'see' Europe you understand that better.

    There comes the problem when a Bush wants to push his ideas on them. These various groups have indeed their own cultural pattern, system of social control, subtile balances, business system, etc. Do they want to replace that by American values? Do you think they have a lot of respect for such values? I doubt.
     
  19. May 10, 2004 #18
    Hughes, you don't want me to comment this. I tell you.
     
  20. May 10, 2004 #19
    If you want me to read your comment, you will have to put it in either the first paragraph or the last paragraph of your post. Your posts are so long that that's all most of us read. Boy, you sure talk alot.
     
  21. May 10, 2004 #20
    Tell me, are you the father confessor for these NATO leaders. The last time I looked 19 of the 26 NATO members were part of the coalition of the willing and none seem to be wavering to that commitment.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2004
  22. May 10, 2004 #21
    Sure father confessor of Paul Richter (LA Times). :devil:
    (BTW: LA Times: free subscription)

    NATO Balking at Iraq Mission

    Amid rising violence and public opposition to the occupation, allies want to delay a major commitment until after the U.S. election.

    By Paul Richter, Times Staff Writer

    WASHINGTON — The Bush administration's hopes for a major NATO military presence in Iraq this year appear doomed, interviews with allied defense officials and diplomats show.

    The Western military alliance had expected to announce at a June summit that it would accept a role in the country, perhaps by leading the international division now patrolling south-central Iraq. But amid continuing bloodshed and strong public opposition to the occupation in many nations, allies want to delay any major commitment until after the U.S. presidential election in November, officials say.
    *
    The clear shift in NATO's stance deals another blow to U.S. efforts to spread the military burden as it grapples with a deadly insurgency in Iraq, fury in the region over its endorsement of Israeli plans for Palestinian territories and the unfolding abuse scandal at the American-run Abu Ghraib prison.

    The Pentagon's announcement last week that it intends to keep 135,000 U.S. troops in the country was a sign that the administration does not expect to be able to shift more of the burden to other nations anytime soon.

    One U.S. hope had rested with NATO. Within the alliance, there seemed to be "a sense of inevitability about the mission" as recently as a few weeks ago, said one NATO official. "But it's just not there anymore…. Any enthusiasm there was has drained away."

    Compounding the allies' wariness is the fact that some countries with troops already in Iraq are unhappy with the U.S. war strategy. Some British leaders and officials of other countries in the occupying coalition have felt that the Americans have been too quick to resort to overwhelming force against insurgents, according to NATO and European defense officials. Some countries also have complained that the U.S. military has been slow to consult with coalition partners on planned moves, including some that have put coalition troops under fire, the officials said.

    Although the friction does not amount to a major rupture, said one European defense official, "it's hard to talk other people into joining a mission when those who are there already aren't 100% happy."

    U.S. officials have been courting NATO as a potential partner in Iraq since launching the war last March. Some U.S. lawmakers, as well as the likely Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, continue to push the administration to draw in NATO, hoping a partnership with the well-equipped 26-nation alliance would give the effort enhanced military capability and international legitimacy.

    Kerry called on President Bush this month to work harder on the necessary diplomacy "to share the burden and make progress" in Iraq. He said NATO member nations must be treated with respect and said their involvement and other steps to internationalize the reconstruction could be "the last chance to get it right."

    But there have been indications of the administration's awareness of potential problems. Bush said at a news conference last month that the administration was "exploring a more formal role for NATO," but national security advisor Condoleezza Rice said afterward that the involvement of the alliance would have to come "in the right time."

    U.S. officials are still pressing for a NATO commitment as soon as possible. R. Nicholas Burns, the U.S. ambassador to NATO, said in a speech in Luxembourg this week that defining such a mission would be "a leading issue" at the NATO summit next month.

    But officials of several allied countries said that even if NATO accepts a role at that time, it is more likely to be a supporting one, such as training police or dealing with unexploded ordnance, rather than peacekeeping. Guarding Iraq's borders, another proposal, also may be rejected as too ambitious, some officials say.

    If NATO takes on a peacekeeping role, it would provide only a few hundred headquarters personnel to serve as leaders for the current force rather than contribute the tens of thousands of new troops sought by the United States, some officials said.

    The reluctance of NATO to commit troops was confirmed in interviews over the last several days with European defense officials from several nations along with NATO administrators and others who work closely with the alliance. Most declined to be identified, in keeping with diplomatic protocol.

    U.S. officials had hoped that NATO could be convinced to accept a role through the influence of a core group of NATO members — Spain, Poland, Italy and Britain, with encouragement from the United States. Many European leaders believed opposition to sending troops would recede in their countries if the United States transferred sovereignty to a new Iraqi government and gave the United Nations a leading role in the effort.

    But the U.S. hopes faded after the March 11 train bombings in Madrid, which upended the political equation in Europe by motivating voters to elect a Spanish government that sided with Germany and France, which opposed the invasion of Iraq and have been skeptical about the Iraq war and the occupation. The death of one of several Italian hostages taken by insurgents has made it more difficult for Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to argue for a NATO mission that would increase Italy's commitment.

    Amid the violence of recent weeks in Iraq, there has been increasing public opposition to the war in other countries that had supported the postwar effort, such as the Netherlands, Norway and Denmark, diplomats said.

    Now, instead of being able to push for an expansion of the European role in Iraq, American officials have their hands full simply trying to maintain the participation of those who are there. International outrage over disclosure of mistreatment of Iraqi inmates at Abu Ghraib prison have added to allied discomfort.

    "The tide is still ebbing," said one European official, describing the regional enthusiasm for sending troops.

    In addition, NATO has struggled to provide enough troops and equipment for its mission in Afghanistan, which holds a considerably higher priority with most members than any future assignment in Iraq. NATO officials have been trying to cajole members for months to contribute more to the Afghan effort, but continue to be rebuffed by officials of governments who say they are overstretched in other peacekeeping missions and do not have equipment designed for southwest Asia.

    Even so, most members take the view that "Afghanistan is where NATO's credibility is on the line," said a NATO official. "In Iraq, it's the U.S.' credibility that's on the line."

    Some officials said they would want to work out some of the wrinkles in recent coalition operations before NATO troops were sent to Iraq. Some Polish military officials, for example, have felt their troops have been placed in danger. In one recent engagement, U.S. forces attacked insurgents in the Polish zone of control without advance notice, bringing Polish troops under fire, NATO officials said.

    Nevertheless, a Polish diplomat in Washington, Michael Wyganowski, said he knew of no operational problems between the military units, and he insisted that Polish troops will remain to at least the end of 2004.

    "We don't cut and run," he said.

    Operations in Iraq have increasingly brought out differences in approach between the American and British forces. The British, for example, believe the Americans are applying excessive force when they use heavily armed AC-130 Spectre gunships to destroy individual buildings being used for cover by insurgents, one NATO official said.

    "The Americans are wedded to the use of overwhelming force," a British defense analyst said. "They've got strict rules about collateral damage, so that's not indiscriminate force. But sometimes when you use overwhelming force, it's hard to make it not indiscriminate."

    Jeremy Greenstock, the British diplomat who formerly was the second-ranking official in the Coalition Provisional Authority, told the BBC last month that whereas British troops have been conditioned by low-intensity fighting in Northern Ireland and the Balkans, "the Americans have been trained to hit hard and conquer large areas quickly."

    "Their reaction to violence has sometimes been too strong, in my view," he added.
     
  23. May 10, 2004 #22

    kat

    User Avatar

    You know, Pelastration, Hughes is right...your post are so long that I seldom have time or a desire to read them completely. It'd be much kinder to us if you were to post a blurb with the link and then your own summation.
     
  24. May 10, 2004 #23
    OK Kat. :uhh: :blush:
     
  25. May 10, 2004 #24

    I agree. While I guess it's positive that you copy and paste articles throughout a single thread, it would be good to hear your thoughts instead.
     
  26. May 10, 2004 #25

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I rarely read links except to confirm facts. Opinions (reasoned and substantiated) are all I am looking for.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook