Democrats play politics with Rumsfeld

New Jersey Republican senatorial candidate Thomas Kean has called, as I mentioned on Monday, for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation. I'm sure other Republicans dislike the defense secretary as well, and perhaps some would also like him to resign, but it's the Democrats, of course, who are his more vocal critics.

This was evident yesterday when a "Democratic-sponsored resolution [in the Senate] called on President Bush to replace Rumsfeld as a tangible way of showing that the administration was willing to change its Iraq policies". Republicans blocked the "no-confidence vote," but "the fact that the issue was even raised underscored the Democrats' increasing efforts to turn the controversial Pentagon chief into the focus of public discontent with the war in Iraq". "The resolution carried no force of law," but "the measure offered Democrats a chance to decry the continued turmoil in Iraq 3 1/2 years after the U.S.-led invasion, and an opportunity to portray Rumsfeld as a key symbol of the problems that have hampered the administration's goal of establishing a stable democracy there".

Fair enough. Rumsfeld is indeed "a key symbol of the problems," though, more than a symbol, he is very much the cause of those problems. Looked at another way, Rumsfeld is the problem. Or at least a big part of the problem.

The resolution amounted to little more than transparent politics, but calling publicly for Rumsfeld's ouster was a good strategic move for the Democrats. If Rumsfeld remains in office, he will continue to be an easy target for Democrats heading into the November midterms. He may never be "the focus of public discontent" to the degree Democrats would like him to be, but his critics will be able to point to him as one of the architects of all that's gone wrong in Iraq. More so even than Bush and Cheney, Rumsfeld attracts blame. If voters refuse to hold his boss fully accountable for authorizing (and authoring) the war, they should at least hold Rumsfeld partly responsible for the ensuing quagmire.

But if Rumsfeld is ousted -- if he resigns of his own volition or at Bush's request -- Democrats will be able to take credit for applying the pressure that prompted his dismissal. It has been suggested that a Rumsfeld replacement at the Pentagon could be this election year's October surprise, and, indeed, his resignation and replacement could help Republicans, but how would Bush and Rove be able to pull that off now? Such a move would look like weakness, like giving in to Democratic demands. In this sense, the effect of the resolution is to tie Bush's hands and to head off a "surprise". In its anticipation of Bush's options, it was a brilliant move.

It would be best for Democrats for Rumsfeld to remain in office at least until after the midterms. It would probably be best for Republicans for him to be replaced before the midterms. Whereas Democrats want to be able to run against him (and all that he represents), Republicans want to be able to put him (and the quagmire) behind them and to run on a new, post-Rumsfeld effort in Iraq. That new war would be same old war, of course, even with the show of Iraqis assuming more responsibility for security, but a such a visible change at the Pentagon could be enough to persuade voters that Republicans are serious about pursuing a different course -- at least, that would be the Republican spin.

So, yes, this was a brilliant move. But it's important to remember that Iraq isn't just Rumsfeld's war. He may end up resigning, but ultimately Bush and Cheney are the ones who ought to be held accountable for Iraq and for every other example of gross misconduct and negligence that has occurred on their watch. When voters go to the polls in November, they ought to have Bush and Cheney on their minds, not Rumsfeld.