Di Rita: Rumsfeld Multi-Tasked During the Wars

National Review hosted a symposium on Obama's retention of Defense Secretary Robert Gates. It generated this response from Rumsfeld aid Lawrence Di Rita:

Secretary Gates, together with some new military leadership in key positions, provided those sets of eyes and President Bush’s revised strategy in Iraq has been a success. But the success in Iraq is not without cost — less focus on everything else.

When Gates took office, the national-security apparatus was undergoing the most rapid and profound transformation since the Department of Defense was established in 1947. Rumsfeld was acting at President Bush’s direction to bring the institution into the 21st Century. A partial list of the Bush/Rumsfeld program: the most extensive global military base closure and realignment since World War II; the complete realignment of the global U.S. force posture in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East; the expansion and modernization of U.S. special forces; the redesign of the United States Army; the most significant reduction in strategic forces in the nuclear era; the implementation and deployment of a basic system of defense against ballistic missiles; the creation of an entirely new civil-service system for the Department of Defense; the establishment of new military commands for the Homeland, and Africa; the list goes on.

This is quite a remarkable paragraph. What Di Rita is saying is that while two massive military engagements were underway, Rumsfeld had better things to do. He admits up front that this inattention led to ruin in Iraq and Afghanistan and was temporarily fixed when a defense secretary took over who actually paid attention. And he's suggesting that's a bad thing. One shudders to think of the consequences if Secretary Gates continues to pay attention to winning the wars instead of winning procurement battles, we may actually be able to remove our forces from Iraq and Afghanistan before the end of the century.

Rumsfeld's penchant for doing things other than attempting to win the war he pushed for in Iraq was also documented, albeit less charitably, by Washington Post Magazine writer David Von Drehle. Drehle noted how the secretary viewed his job as ensuring that the Iraq war did not siphon off funds and resources destined for "transformative" weapons systems.

It just so happens that I agree with much of what Rumsfeld was trying to do vis-a-vis restructuring the U.S. military. I also think Di Rita's list of achievements would, in another time, be a praiseworthy legacy.

But if you're the Secretary of Defense and your boss puts the nation into two major ground wars (one of which you championed), you ought to focus on getting that job, and only that job, done and restructure forces at a more propitious moment.