| |
The transformation of Donald Rumsfeld
By Ehsan Ahrari
The man who
is arguably the father of the notion of military
transformation, United States Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld, appears to be undergoing his own sort
of personal metamorphosis in response to the changing
realities of global events involving the United States.
In fact, he is undergoing this transformation
unabashedly, even with gusto.
In an interview on
the eve of an informal meeting of the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization's (NATO) defense ministers in
Colorado Springs, Colorado on October 8, Rumsfeld
unveiled the latest evidence of his personal
transformation by stating he believes that NATO has a
central role in global security.
This is the
same Rumsfeld who coined the phrase "coalition of the
willing", which really meant "coalition of countries who
would toe the US line in all conflicts without asking
hard and probing questions". For instance, countries
that follow the examples of the UK and Australia. He is
the same man who derided France and Germany as part of
"old Europe", while condoning the compliant and
diffident members of Central Europe and the Baltic
states as part of "new Europe", largely because the
former two countries were highly critical of the US
invasion of Iraq, while the latter group of countries
either acquiesced or endorsed it.
Rumsfeld's
harsh denigration and derision of America's European
allies, who opposed the Iraqi invasion, will long be
remembered as one of the main reasons for the newest
round of trans-Atlantic rifts. And those rifts have not
dissipated even now, as France, Germany and Russia
continue to reject the US policy of asking for help from
the UN and the international community of nations, while
still rejecting any suggestion of assigning the world
body a major role in governing Iraq and refusing to
transfer sovereignty to the Iraqi Governing Council.
Now Rumsfeld is portraying himself as a
"committed Atlanticist". Is "Mr Unilateralism" having a
real change of heart ? Alternatively, is he really
growing up in his job (he is serving as US Secretary of
Defense for the second time) and coming to realize that
multilateralism - which served the US so well during the
Cold War years - is still the right way to pursue its
interest in the post-Iraq years? Or, is it merely a
tactical maneuvering on his part?
One might come
to the conclusion that Rumsfeld has decided to burnish
his Atlanticist credentials partially because of the
setbacks that his country is encountering in Iraq, but
also largely, and most significantly, because NATO as an
alliance has been moving in the direction favored by the
Bush administration. In this sense, he envisions that
alliance as a fulfillment of his own vision for a
politico-military transformation, thereby emerging as a
highly relevant entity to serve US global strategic
interests.
In the Colorado Springs interview,
Rumsfeld listed some of those changes: In the past three
years of the Bush administration, he said, NATO brought
about a complete restructuring of its command structure
(by emulating the command structures of America's
military) and by establishing a new rapid reaction force
it has been in charge of its first outside Europe
military effort by taking control of peacekeeping in
Afghanistan. Even regarding Iraq, despite the initial
interalliance squabbling before the US invasion of that
country, a number of NATO countries are involved in
peacekeeping.
As Rumsfeld pointed out, "We now
have 11 of 19 NATO nations with forces in Iraq." Turkey
has recently agreed to participate in peacekeeping. This
particular development has enormous symbolic value from
the perspectives of growing US desperation for a visible
Muslim presence in Iraq. But it also has tremendous
potential to become an ominous development, especially
if the Turkish peacekeepers were to come under attack by
Kurds or by Sunni Arabs in the area that is popularly
referred to as the "Sunni triangle".
Despite the
participation of a number of NATO partners in
peacekeeping operations in Iraq, the jury is still out
regarding how cooperative the Alliance is likely to be
in the near future. Its continued cooperation with the
US version of peacekeeping depends largely on whether
the security situation in Iraq improves or deteriorates.
If the security condition were to improve, NATO is
likely to accept even a larger role in Iraq. However,
under a worsening security situation, one should not be
surprised if a number of allies were to bolt. The Bush
administration is hoping that the NATO's role in Iraq
would follow the pattern of its participation in
Afghanistan.
Rumsfeld's ostensible
transformation may also be the result of a lot of
criticism towards the office of the secretary of defense
- the civilian portion of the Pentagon - regarding its
handling of the security situation and nation building
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
President George W
Bush's decision to restructure the handling of postwar
Iraq and Afghanistan by enhancing the primacy and
visibility of his national security adviser, Condoleezza
Rice, may be viewed as dissatisfaction with the US
departments of defense and state. In principle, that
cannot be construed as a rebuke or even an expression of
lack of confidence in Rumsfeld or Secretary of State
Colin Powell. However, since the American media almost
always portray the ascendancy and descent of political
personalities in Washington as part of a ceaseless power
game, there has been speculation that Rumsfeld's
visibility might be noticeably tapered in the coming
months.
Rumsfeld's own public reaction to the
news of restructuring was interesting. He stated that
Bush did not inform him that he was about to restructure
the handling of Afghanistan and Iraq. That observation
gives ample fuel for Washington punditry to speculate or
look for further clues regarding "who's up and who's
down".
Stepping back from this power game
perspective, no sweeping generalizations can be made
that Rumsfeld's star is about to lose its shine. He has
proven himself to be the most important, and equally
controversial, defense secretary since Robert McNamara
of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. As such,
Rumsfeld has more than his fair share of detractors.
Rumsfeld's greatest contribution is that he has
been so determined on transforming America's military in
such a way that no enemy forces would ever dare to
challenge it on a force-on-force basis. Considering that
no nation lastingly remains on top of the hierarchy of
power, any attempt to defy that historical reality is a
most laudable enterprise. At least for now, by seemingly
transforming his own viewpoint on America's involvement
in global affairs, Rumsfeld is proving that he takes his
own outlook on transformation quite seriously.
Ehsan Ahrari, PhD, is an Alexandria,
Virginia, US-based independent strategic analyst.
(Copyright 2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd.
All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
