 |
Rumsfeld Widely Criticized for US Defense Reform Program
US Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has reaped an "unlikely collection of critics," including many from the conservative camp, as he tried hard to pursue an ambitious and doubtful military reform in an imperious way, the Washington Post reported on Sunday.
In a front-page story, the newspaper said that Rumsfeld, who started a top-to-bottom review four months ago to craft a new military vision ranging from missile defenses to global strategy, has met with a salvo of criticisms from "conservative members of Congress and his predecessor as defense secretary to some of the generals who work for him."
"In dozens of interviews, those people complained that Rumsfeld has acted imperiously, kept some of the top brass in the dark and failed to maintain adequate communications with Capitol Hill," the Washington Post reported.
The criticisms have focused on Rumsfeld's score of study groups, made up of retired generals and admirals and other experts, the newspaper said.
"The Rumsfeld review," as the studies are collectively called, is mocked in Pentagon hallways by some as a martial version of Hillary Rodham Clinton's health care plan, which failed spectacularly in 1994 when it was offered up to Congress, the newspaper said.
"He (Rumsfeld)'s blown off the Hill, he's blown off the senior leaders in the military, and he's blown off the media," said Thomas Donnelly, a defense expert at the conservative Project for the New American Century.
"It's arrogant theorists behind closed doors," said retired Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, now a prominent writer on military strategy.
On Thursday, the Joint Chiefs of Staff held a closed-door meeting at their secure conference room at Pentagon, during which "they posed scathing questions about Rumsfeld's intentions on strategy and possible cuts to the Army," the Washington Post quoted defense officials as saying.
During the secret meeting, the newspaper added, the Army officials led the charge against the conclusions of a Rumsfeld study group on conventional weapons that suggested big cuts in Army troops.
Sullivan, the former Army chief, told a conference of Army reservists on Saturday that he is worried that Rumsfeld would "propose a world in which we will be able to hide behind our missile defense."
In his speech, Sullivan likened the missile defense to the expensive but useless Maginot Line the French built up to prevent German attack after World War I, the newspaper reported.
In another talk, the newspaper added, Sullivan described Rumsfeld's new emphasis on space as "rathole" for defense spending. He also sent an e-mail lashing out at the defense secretary, and the message has circulated widely inside the Army.
Many generals also complained about Rumsfeld's gruff and brusque style, the newspaper said.
It said that generals who have met with the defense secretary reported that communications tend to be one way. "He takes a lot in, but he doesn't give anything back," one general said. "You go and you brief him, and it's just blank."
One senior general unfavorably compared Rumsfeld's stewardship of the Pentagon with Colin L. Powell's performance as secretary of state.
"Mr. Powell is very inclusive, and Mr. Rumsfeld is the opposite, " and "we've been kept out of the loop," the general was quoted as saying.
Rumsfeld's relations with Capitol Hill have been even more chaotic, as quite a lot of Congress members are being concerned about the lack of communications with Rumsfeld on the defense reform program.
One warning sign has been a spate of "holds" placed on Rumsfeld's nominees by angry senators, the Washington Post said.
William S. Cohen, former defense secretary, criticized Rumsfeld last week for failing to cultivate good ties with Congress. "However brilliant the strategy may be, you cannot formulate a strategy and mandate that Congress implement it," Cohen told a group of reporters.
In the following weeks, Rumsfeld will appear at Congress hearings and will begin making critical decisions on high-profile weapons systems and on whether to cut the size of the military to pay for new weapons. "Every one of those decisions could antagonize members of Congress," the Washington Post said.
In This Section
|