Media General News Service November 7, 2004
Rumsfeld signals he won't 'fade away'
Some think abuse scandal hurt him, wonder whether he'll stay for a second term
By James W. Crawley
WASHINGTON - Now that the election is over, the hottest parlor game here will be: "Does Rummy stay, or does he go?"
Rummy, of course, is Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
In nearly fours years as the Bush administration's point man on defense, Rumsfeld has been a lightning rod. He has pushed transformation of the military into a leaner, meaner fighting machine while fighting terrorists in Afghanistan and mounting a blitzkrieg-style war in Iraq.
Rumsfeld, who also served as defense secretary during the Ford administration, has occupied the Pentagon's top civilian job longer than all but two predecessors - Robert McNamara, defense secretary for Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson; and Caspar Weinberger, President Ronald Reagan's defense chief.
In recent months, though, Rumsfeld has been pummeled by critics and senators shocked by the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.
So although no one expects Pentagon policy shifts during a second Bush term, there's a lot of chattering about Rumsfeld's future.
"The $64,000 question becomes what happens to Secretary Rumsfeld," said Thomas Donnelly of the American Enterprise Institute.
Some are not convinced Rumsfeld will leave voluntarily. Asked in September if he intended to "fade away," like Gen. Douglas MacArthur, Rumsfeld said, "I'm old enough to have heard that fellow say that. And I don't intend to say it."
"The job is his as long as [Bush] wants him. Any speculation otherwise is wishful thinking," said John Pike, who heads GlobalSecurity.org, an Alexandria, Va., independent think tank.
Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation analyst Christopher Hellman said Rumsfeld's fate is less clear than that of Secretary of State Colin Powell, who many believe will resign despite public comments to the contrary.
And, if Rumsfeld leaves, who would take his place?
Pentagon Deputy Paul Wolfowitz and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge have been mentioned. Each has detractors - Wolfowitz because of his neoconservative stances and Ridge for his performance as the nation's anti-terror chief.
Keeping Rumsfeld, one analyst said, may be better than replacing him.
"Sometimes the devil you know is better than the one you don't know," Hellman said.
No major changes are expected to national-security policy over the next four years, analysts said.
"The trajectory is set and they will stay on it," said Jack Spencer, a senior policy analyst at Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington think tank.
However, among the serious issues that will require decisions, are three:
Transformation - turning the military into a futuristic fighting force - has been slowed since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, but Rumsfeld still wants it to be his legacy.
"A foundation for transformation has been built, but they haven't built the house yet," Spencer said.
So if bad decisions are made during the next four years, Rumsfeld's initial efforts could collapse, he added.
A new round of base closures is set to begin next year, but critics argue reducing military infrastructure during a war is unwise. With the administration planning to bring thousands of troops back from European bases, some analysts question where those men and women will go if more U.S. bases are shuttered.
Even if Sen. John Kerry had won, analysts said there was little in defense policy a Democratic administration could have changed in the near term.
"When you looked at the security issues, there was not a lot of light between them," said the Center for Arms Control's Hellman.
"There's a limited shopping list of things they can do," he added.
© Copyright 2004, Media General, Inc.
