Rumsfeld 'a victim of Iraq war'

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has been the square-jawed face of war, the man behind the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that he predicted were just the beginnings of a long, hard slog.

Yesterday, Rumsfeld resigned from his post and became the latest casualty of those conflicts, a victim of a war he steadfastly contended the American public simply did not understand.

Standing next to President George Bush in a brief White House appearance in Washington, Rumsfeld, 74, offered no regret for a war gone wrong that mushroomed into an issue that helped carry Democrats in Tuesday’s elections to control of the House and the Senate.

Instead, he provided a glimmer of the trademark temperament that has prompted some critics to call him arrogant.

The war, he said, “is not well known. It was not well understood. It is complex for people to comprehend.” He alluded to the crescendo of calls for his fall, quoting Winston Churchill: “I have benefited greatly from criticism, and at no time have I suffered a lack thereof.”

In the days after September 11, 2001, when he helped carry victims of the terrorist attack out of the burning Pentagon, Rumsfeld was hailed by some as a visionary who was smartly shaping the military into a new, agile force for the 21st century.

His adept management of the attack on Afghanistan in October 2001 was deemed a success, as US forces drove out the ruling Taliban. His stock rose over the next year as he delivered televised war briefings from the Pentagon.

The high point may have come as Rumsfeld introduced America to “shock and awe” bombing during the ferocious assault on Baghdad in the opening days of Operation Iraqi Freedom, a tactic meant to force a quick surrender by the Iraqis.

Rumsfeld’s plunge from hero to war wounded soon began in the murky aftermath of the fall of Baghdad. After the initial assault was over, the harder, bloodier struggle for peace began.

US casualties began to mount, war costs ballooned past $300bn (€234.8bn) and scandals over the abuse of prisoners in Iraq and elsewhere began to broaden.

The calls for his resignation began with a few senior Democrats during the 2004 campaign, but slowly military leaders, most of whom had already retired, started adding their criticism for his conduct of the war.

In response, Rumsfeld told interviewers that criticism in time of war was to be expected. He dismissed much of it as complaints from “naysayers” reluctant to confront the tough realities of a global conflict pitting Islamic extremists against forces of moderation.

He often told troops in the field that in the future they would look back on their effort in Iraq or Afghanistan and feel proud that they were part of a historic effort to promote freedom.

While some blame him for having no plans for post-war Iraq and misjudging the strength of the insurgency, others say he served as the lightning rod for criticism of the president’s war.

“He really has made some very hard calls in the department of defence that needed to be made that he hasn’t gotten credit for, and he catches a hell of a lot of criticism that he personally probably hasn’t earned,” said Lieutenant General Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard.

“He just ends up being a convenient target for somebody’s frustration or disenchantment.”

Rumsfeld’s tenure at the Pentagon parallels that of another man whose legacy is also tied to an unpopular war, Robert McNamara, who led the Pentagon during the Vietnam conflict.

“They became identified with the war and the war with them,” said Andrew Krepinevich, executive director of the Centre for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington. “Ultimately they departed as a consequence of the crisis in the field and politics here at home.”

Rumsfeld offered his resignation twice to Bush during the furore over prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, but Bush repeatedly declared his support for his embattled secretary.

As recently as last month, when the latest in a series of critical books on the war was published, Rumsfeld snapped at reporters asking about his future.

“No, no, no,” he said. He was not resigning.

But with US war casualties climbing beyond 2,800 and American troop levels in Iraq stuck at about 152,000 with little hope of significant reductions any time soon, Rumsfeld became a political liability the administration could no longer endure.

Even the independent Army Times, which serves the armed forces, called for him to resign earlier this week.

As the announcement sent shock waves through Washington yesterday, Bush acknowledged that, in truth, he had been considering the change for at least two weeks.

Rumsfeld remained closed-mouthed about his departure until the very end. Early-morning meetings went on as scheduled yesterday, with no visible inkling of the announcement that was to come later in the day.

Walking back into the Pentagon after a late-afternoon meeting with Bush, Rumsfeld was circumspect about his departure.

“I’ve been here six years and I think it’s probably good for this department to have a change in leadership that is fresh, that is supportive of the president, as I am,” he said.

“It will be a different Congress, a different environment, moving towards a presidential election and a lot of partisanship, and it struck me that this would be a good thing for everybody.”