Living in Cheney's world

Many people have speculated that the Bush Administration is largely directed by Vice President Cheney. He was strongly in favor of invading Iraq, he was central in trying to shoot down the anti-torture Congressional legislation, and his office is in the middle of the Plame CIA leak case. So what does Cheney, so critical to US foreign and domestic policy creation and execution, think these days? According to his comments at the the Gerald R. Ford Journalism Prize Luncheon on June 19, he thinks Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is doing a great job, Iraq has reached a turning point in favor of defeating the insurgency, and the President's power needed to be and has been restored. Oh, and he, and no one else in the Administration, knew Iraq would be so tough.


Cheney's comments 

During his brief speech and introduction for Rumsfeld, Cheney remarked:

"And our Secretary of Defense is one of the great public servants of our time ... I've heard it suggested on occasion that Don might even be the best Secretary of Defense we've ever had. Well, he's pretty close."

"... the United States of America is a stronger and safer nation thanks to the intellect, the judgment, and the character of Secretary Rumsfeld."

During the question and answer period, the VP was asked about such topics as the Iraq insurgency and the power of the Presidency. Here's what he said:

Question: About a year ago, you said that the insurgency in Iraq was in its final there throes. Do you still believe this?

"I do. What I was referring to was the series of events that took place in 1995. I think the key turning point, when we get back 10 years from now, say, and look back on this period of time, and with respect to the campaign in Iraq, will be that series of events when the Iraqis increasingly took over responsibility for their own affairs..."

"I think that will have been, from a historical turning point, the period that we'll be able to look at and say, that's when we turned the corner; that's when we began to get a handle on the long-term future of Iraq."

Question: Do you think that you underestimated the insurgency's strength?

"I think so. I guess if I look back on it now, I don't think anybody anticipated the level of violence that we've encountered. I guess the other area that I look at, in terms of an area where I think we were faced with difficulties we didn't anticipate was the devastation that 30 years of Saddam's rule had wrought, if you will, on the psychology of the Iraqi people. Very, very hard to go from the way they were forced to live for a long period of time to a situation in which they have the opportunity for self-government, for setting up and operating their own free and democratically-elected society. That's a huge transition to make."

Question: Should there be any limits [to the power of the presidency], and if so, what? 

"But I clearly do believe, and have spoken directly about the importance of a strong presidency, and that I think there have been times in the past, oftentimes in response to events such as Watergate or the war in Vietnam, where Congress has begun to encroach upon the powers and responsibilities of the President; that it was important to go back and try to restore that balance."

"What are the limits? The limits are the Constitution. And, certainly, we need to and do adhere to those limitations. But I think if you look at things like the War Powers Act, for example, adopted in the aftermath of the Vietnam conflict, that that was an infringement on the President's ability to deploy troops. It's never really been tested. I think it's probably unconstitutional. There are a series of events like that that we believed needed to have the balance righted, if you will, and I think we've done that successfully."

Out of touch, ignorant, or both?

So what do we take from his comments? Let's analyze some of key points highlighted above:

• Is America is safer because of the judgement of Rumsfeld? It is very hard to make that case. Obviously, Rumsfeld could only be considered a great Secretary of Defense if he had a track record of excellent decisions. But the record is anything but stellar.
  
  For example, did the US go into Iraq with the right number of troops? In an April 2006 interview with ITV television, Colin Powell stated, "The President's military advisers felt that the size of the force was adequate; they may still feel that years later. Some of us don't. I don't."
  
  Also in April of this year, a series of retired US generals called for Rumsfeld's resignation. Retired Major General Charles Swannack said, "Specifically, I feel he has micromanaged the generals who are leading our forces there ... And I believe he has culpability associated with the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and, so, rather than admitting these mistakes, he continually justifies them to the press ... and that really disallows him from moving our strategy forward."
  
  Then there was the case, relatively early in the Iraq conflict, where Rumsfeld was found to be using a signature machine for signing letters to the families of those killed.
  
  Another infamous Rumsfeld moment was during a December 2004 "town meeting" in Kuwait. A soldier asked about the lack of armored vehicles in Iraq. The Secretary made the comment, "And if you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up.  And you can have an up-armored humvee and it can be blown up." Now that's some spin!
  
  Rumsfeld was also in charge of the military during the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal. Despite the massive PR black eye and the subsequent danger the scandal causes our troops, Rumsfeld remains on the job.
  
  However, not to be completely unfair, unlike Cheney (the Vietnam deferment king) and Bush (who didn't even finish up his National Guard service), Rumsfeld "served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as an aviator and flight instructor."
  
  
• Is the insurgency in its "last throes" for real this time? Cheney is right that history will be a better judge on the overall Iraq situation than those caught up in its daily events, but it's hard to believe we are in the final stages of the insurgency today. The DOD just announced the names of four Marines killed in Iraq on June 20. If the insurgency was dying down, security should be getting better and the need for troops reduced. However, soldiers, including those from the the Guard and Reserve, are still required in huge numbers. For example, the Guard and Reserve continue to be heavily relied on for manpower. A recent DOD press release stated, "This brings the total National Guard and Reserve personnel, who have been mobilized, to 100,776, including both units and individual augmentees."
  
  Certainly the death of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi helps. But does that mean that US soldiers will be safer, that casualties will decline, and that our troops can start returning home in large numbers without replacements taking their place? It would be nice to think so for the sake of the soldiers and their families, but it is hard to believe Cheney's assessment. After all, he made his infamous initial claim about the insurgency -- "The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." -- over a year ago, and his boss Bush claimed way back in May of 2003 that, "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended."
  
  
• Should the Administration have known Iraq wouldn't be easy to transform? Cheney's comment, "I don't think anybody anticipated the level of violence that we've encountered," if true, is scary. Was the US government incapable of planning or at least thinking of a worst case scenario? This statement is similar to the one Secretary of State Rice made when Hamas won the Palestinian election. Then, she said, "Well, I don't know anyone who wasn't caught off guard by Hamas' strong showing."
  
  Why is it that our government leaders seem so clueless? Did they really believe that after decades of of brutal oppression under Saddam Hussein, where the minority Sunni Muslims received special treatment, that the diverse Iraqi people (Sunni, Shia, Kurds, etc.) would suddenly come together, embrace democracy, and live happily ever after? Let's hope all this talk of not being able to anticipate world events is just some form of spin, because the only other option is to believe that the current administration is completely incompetent.
  
  Military commanders are taught to predict the likely way an enemy will react in an engagement but also plan for worse case scenarios. So, why can't our leaders do the same? In the business world, an executive would most likely be fired for being so bad at predicting the market time after time.
  
  
• Should the Presidency be more powerful than it's been? Bush and Cheney have certainly been trying to gain more power for the executive branch of the federal government. While Cheney stated that the Constitution imposes the correct presidential limits, the Administration's actions seem to ignore the Constitution.
  
  For example, the Administration believes it can avoid legal and established court processes for wire tapping, and although Congress is meant to make the laws, the use of presidential signing statements is all about ignoring the portions of a law the Administration does not feel like following.

From examining Cheney's statements, it appears he is either in his own dream world and ignorant of the facts, or he is just saying these things for political reasons despite knowing they are incorrect. The end result is that it is hard to take the VP at his word. Like the boy who cried wolf, will we believe Cheney when he actually says something true?