The defense secretary may need to go as part of the White House effort to rebuild its credibility in Iraq, but others have more to answer for.
Published May 8, 2004
Four years ago, President Bush promised a humble foreign policy, but humility does not come naturally to this president and his inner circle. So it was startling Friday to hear Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld begin his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee by offering his "deepest apology" and taking "full responsibility" for the documented abuse of prisoners at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.
If nothing else, Rumsfeld's words of contrition were more forthright than the president's. After failing to offer an apology during interviews with two White House-approved Arab television networks, the president managed to tell Jordan's King Abdullah II Thursday that he "was sorry" for what happened to the Iraqi prisoners. As a statement of responsibility, it was something short of Trumanesque.
Rumsfeld was less grudging Friday. In the face of senatorial goading, he dropped his usual combativeness and hinted that he might yet resign if he determines that his faulty response to the Abu Ghraib abuses has caused him to lose the confidence of the president, Congress and the country.
It may come to that. The president and ranking members of Congress hate nothing worse than being blindsided by bad news, and they have conveyed their displeasure to Rumsfeld, who failed to warn them that the damning photographs would be made public.
However, Rumsfeld is not the worst offender at the top of the chain of command. Gen. Richard Myers, whose qualifications to serve as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have never been visible to the naked eye, put more effort into trying, unsuccessfully, to persuade CBS not to air its explosive report on Abu Ghraib than in determining what went wrong there. Earlier this week, Myers still claimed not to have read an investigative report on Abu Ghraib completed months ago. He also has been less willing than Rumsfeld to accept blame for operational failures, such as the inadequate training of prison guards, that ultimately fall under his responsibility.
Rumsfeld's departure may prove to be a necessary part of the difficult task of rebuilding the credibility of the Bush administration's war effort, at home and around the world. In particular, if the White House has any hope of diluting the poisonous effect of the horrific Abu Ghraib images in the Islamic world, it will have to take more drastic action. But Rumsfeld's departure alone would not be sufficient. For one thing, all of the likely replacements in the current administration have at least as much to answer for as Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld's absence wouldn't mean much unless the president himself has had a change of heart. This scandal should spur a thorough review of this White House's conduct of foreign policy, with the goal of putting in place a set of people and policies more faithful to the promise the president made four years ago.
