The Daily Background

A couple of things here, both on Iraq.

Firstly, the President has given up on his hopes to present a major address on Iraq (which would include a ‘refreshed’ strategy). The article I just linked to says none of this, but this represents a setback because he had been planning to have something in the next couple of weeks. My guess is that his strategists want more time between his address and the Iraq Study Group report release (what was that again?)

Besides, it doesn’t hurt to publicize more meetings with people- the Pentagon, lawmakers, etc. Originally, the two or three alternative plans prepared by the Pentagon and White House itself, etc were scheduled to come out shortly after the ISG report, but they may have been delayed due to the content of the ISG report.

Secondly, and perhaps more interestingly, the conservative hub Townhall.com has the first interview with former Secretary Rumsfeld since he left the Administration. Here are some snippets:

THOMAS: You’ve read the Iraq Study Group Report.

RUMSFELD: I haven’t. I’ve read reports of it and gone through the executive summary.

That is where I imagine an awkward pause would occur. Another notable moment:

THOMAS: With what you know now, what might you have done differently in Iraq?

RUMSFELD: I don’t think I would have called it the war on terror…it is not a ‘war on terror.’ Terror is a weapon of choice for extremists who are trying to destabilize regimes and (through) a small group of clerics, impose their dark vision on all the people they can control. So ‘war on terror’ is a problem for me… [it is more of a] a long war, or a struggle, or a conflict, not against terrorism, but against a relatively small number of terribly dangerous and violent extremists.

Rumsfeld also said that due to the nature of the ‘war on terror,’ “there is no way the military can prevail.” Why is it that Rumsfeld only says things I agree with after he leaves office? Really. The man almost sounds reasonable now. Almost. He goes on to say that “the military can’t lose.” That’s some old fashioned Rumsfeldian logic for you. And yes, I am taking both of those quotes horribly out of context.

,br />
By the way, if you’re interested in the semantics question of what to call the “war on terror,” you might be interested in this list I complied a while back about the Administration’s various attempts at branding their wars.

P.S.- Speaking of Rumsfeld, FOX just got an interview with him too, and he says that he was fired because of the outcome of the midterm elections.

Filed under: Iraq Related, Z-TDB Blog