Rumsfeld & War Crimes

I listened to some of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's testimony to the Senate. It was SO frustrating to hear so few people asking intelligent questions, or giving intelligent answers.

On the one hand, Rumsfeld was soft-peddling very guarded and lawyer-eze answers, and on the other hand, Senators were making speeches, followed by windy, lame questions.

The "chain of command" ... from the idiots involved in the "war crimes" (I believe they are war crimes, even if not quite as "serious" as gas chambers and firing squads) to the Commander in Chief ... is innocent until proven guilty. Murderers like Ted Kennedy call for Rumsfeld's resignation without even the slightest shred of evidence that he had any accountability for the situation. When he learned of the incidents, he began a process of investigation to find out the answers to the senators' better questions, and answers that could be reasonably documented so that those guilty could be PROVEN guilty, and those innocent could be shown to be innocent.

In management there is a term for what the British did during the revolutionary war, and what the modern U.S. government does every hour of every day to guarantee that government (and criminal justice) takes forever to accomplish and is slow to react: "micro-management."

Micro-management is when the guy at the top spends 80 hours a week NOT doing his/her job because he/she is busy checking on every move of those under him. It also means that the mule at the bottom hauling the bales has to spend half his time answering the bosses' questions.

"Have you taken another step, mule?"

"Yassa, bossuh! One more step taken!"

"Is the load still on your back?"

"Yassa! Load is still on my back!"

"Have you filled out your Step Taken Report and faxed it to my secretary and emailed it to the Federal Steps Taken Authority?"

"Yassa! All paperwork is done, suh!"

"Then why have you only taken one step in the last five minutes? Looks like we'll need more step-inspectors, and more mules if this job is ever going to get done."

The opposite of micro-management is called "delegation."

Politics is all about micro-management, and the military (except for internal politics, of course) is all about delegation.

Can't you just see Rumsfeld with a clipboard hauling ass across the Iraqi desert trying to count every bullet being fired? That would be an excellent picture if, at the same time, Senators Kennedy and McCain were hauling ass behind him checking his math as he went!

Anyone who thinks Rumsfeld ordered the atrocities, or even allowed them through inaction, has no freakin clue about how political he is, and how devastating such matters are to political careers.

Guys like me who are a-political don't give a rat's rosy rear-end about "majority" opinions. I want selected friends and family to like me, but everyone else can go straight to hell, for all I care. I have been known to say, do, and WRITE things that are quite capable of pissing people off toward me. A politician can't afford to do much of that or he/she is out of work.

So, as a political creature, Rumsfeld would NEVER initiate or allow such stupidity as the prison abuses. His keen sense of self-preservation would jangle like a fire alarm.

Idiot politicians (but I repeat myself) demand verbal answers "right now" that may later be proven to be wrong. Figures. Rumsfeld did the right thing when he started investigations so the right people could be punished and the others allowed to go on about their businesses. The fact that such ridiculous assaults as have been launched by fools makes such investigations not just mandatory, but excruciatingly prolonged because every gnat's whisker of proof has to be compiled in order to have any chance of silencing the accusers.

Even more frustrating is how, even after the evidence is in, people who don't WANT to know the truth will accuse the investigations of being "rigged" or "fixed."

If I were in Rumsfeld's shoes, being a complete clown for even wanting to hold a position in government, here's how I would answer the overall topic.

"I found out there was a problem in January. In order to protect the innocent people along the chain of command, I demanded a thorough investigation to document who was, and who was not, responsible. To do as much as possible to appease meddling legislators, these investigations have to be overly-lengthy and, therefore, are not finished yet. Until then, leave me the hell alone.

"As to why I didn't tell Congress or the public about this before it was leaked to the press? (A) There's a war on and I (unlike the media) will do everything I can to minimize the impact of these relatively few idiots and criminals from hampering the efforts of the majority of 'good guys' in Iraq. (B) While I work for all Americans, I answer directly to the President. If and when he feels like Congress or the public needs to know, he makes that call, not me.

"Now, get back to your jobs coming up with more regulations, laws and committees to explore the formation of committees and leave me the hell alone. I have a war to fight."

MY question is ... since, effectively, the "war" is over in Iraq, why is the Secretary of Defense in charge? Shouldn't this be in the hands of Powell or Rice? Troops have to be there, and Rumsfeld is in charge of that, true, but shouldn't Powell be in charge of the re-building of Iraq?

Actually, there needs to be a new cabinet secretary for this sort of situation ... Secretary of Imperial Occupation.