<p>I was at the Los Angeles World Affairs Council luncheon today featuring Donald Rumsfeld, and he made a few points in regards to our current efforts in the war on terror. Pretty funny person, actually, there were times when he just gave this puzzled but meditative look. Quite an eloquent speaker.</p>
<p>Anyway, some of the points that he expressed were:</p>
<p>This lady in a table in front of us stood up, and shouted, “Mr. Rumsfeld, You Have Lied to Us!” in the middle of the session. It was weird, actually, because she just popped up out of nowhere. </p>
<p>Anyway, what are your thoughts on the points the SecDef has made?</p>
<p>"“As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don’t know we don’t know.”</p>
<p>Actually, three. There was another lady accompanying the lady who got on top of her seat and screamed at the top of her lungs. I didn’t see the guy, but.</p>
<p>They took her into the back and she screamed, “He’s lying!” 'Course, everyone started laughing.</p>
<p>" Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don’t know we don’t know "</p>
<p>then of course there are the known knowns, that Rumsfeld should be fired and put in jail for his responsibility in approving the torture methods that killed prisoners in custody.</p>
<p>I’ve been impressed with Rumsfeld’s Q&A sessions ever since 9/11. </p>
<p>It’s a great opportunity to get to hear people like Rumsfeld speak in person because you quickly realize that, even though you may disagree with their views, these are extremely intelligent leaders who are pretty earnest in their efforts to serve their countries and make good decisions.</p>
<p>I had the opportunity to sit in the audience and listen to a roundtable panel of five living ex Secretaries of State and another with living Attornies General – from across the political spectrum. I came away very impressed. These panels made me appreciate that viewing government at the top levels of the executive branch as a Democrat versus Republican model misses the point, especially in foreign affairs.</p>
<p>In other words, an equally capable version of Rumsfeld in a Democratic administration might very well come to the same conclusions as Rumsfeld when presented with the same set of facts.</p>
<p>Some reactions:
Terrorists have failed in most of their attempts to invoke terror/fear into regular citizens. (so does that mean they’re not terrorists?)
The fight is not between the United States and the Muslim faith, but rather moderate Islam versus extremists. (so…why are we still involved?)
We cannot converse/negotiate with terrorists, as they will do whatever it takes to achieve this goal. (So how will we know when the war is over? When every last potential terrorist is dead?)
China should move towards a more free political system, as that is the only way a noteworthy free economic system can be achieved. Do note, the Consul General of China was there. (Maybe they could use our help like were helping Iraq) </p>
<p>We do not have a “nation building” task force in the United States, but there are a group of volunteers/experts who have dedicated themselves towards this task. (Did he mean the Peace Corp? Isn’t that nation builidng?)</p>
<p>The London Bombings were not connected with the present war in Iraq. (it’s about the living conditions for immigrants in Leeds?)</p>
<p>“In other words, an equally capable version of Rumsfeld in a Democratic administration might very well come to the same conclusions as Rumsfeld when presented with the same set.”</p>
<p>That’s the thing - they are all wise men (and women). Wise men and women who can kill half a million children without batting an eye, and go on national tv and say “it was worth it”. Wise men who can go on tv and lie about pictures of chemical weapons depots and be found out by semi-amateur reporters within 48 hours, and have it roll off his back. Wise men who can lie about civilian casualties, acceptable levels of “collateral damage”. The list gets pretty boring after awhile, which is why we don’t bother to spend much time with it.</p>
<p>No one seems willing to ask why the Iraqi “ah-hem” military doesn’t want to fight “for their country” while the U.S. is there. It’s the 5-ton elephant in the middle of the room. Or why Basra - the “peaceful city” in Iraq, under British authority, ruled by thugs and criminals, and British soldiers aren’t allowed out of their barracks at night. Our wise men and women are prepared with answers, but only for questions they pose to themselves.</p>
<p>Spiker, you didn’t really answer my question.
If this is a war between moderate Islam and extremists, why is the US doing the fighting? Why aren’t the moderate Muslims doing the fighting?</p>
<p>Why aren’t the moderate Muslims from Egypt, Jordon, Lebanon and the Persian Gulf states doing the fighting? Why aren’t the moderate Muslims from Pakistan, Indonesia, India, and elsewhere, in Iraq fighting?</p>
<p>Oh yeah, I forgot, where are the moderate Iraqis? Don’t they outnumber the extremists? Don’t they have America backing them? You would think with America backing the moderate Iraqis, the insurgency would be over by now. There would be such overwhelming political and military force.</p>
<p>Iraqi men join the military because there simply isn’t any other work to be found… “Reconstruction” has ground to a virtual standstill, and no Iraqi is going to get hired as part of the “private security forces” to “protect the reconstruction efforts”. It’s a paycheck that allows them to eat, period. But they are reluctant to fight what is, after all, America’s dirty war, all of which, as you remember, was going to be paid for with Iraqi oil profits… If you were a “moderate Muslim”, and saw the situation in Basra, and in south Baghdad, and in Anbar Province, and on the road to the Airport, and you had kids and remembered the dead children from the early-mid 90s, regardless of your political opinion, would you stick out your neck for the Americans?</p>
<p>Rumsfeld is a wise man. But no one believes his crap over there (unless they’re on the take.)</p>
<p>dstark - I agree with you …my thoughts are in parenthesis the other statements are Rumsfelds from the original post. seems to me even if you accepted the first justification (which I didnt)…if you thought attacking Iraq was ok, we should have been outa there when we caught sadaam. Remember when after the WMD’s werent appearing the main message was shifted to Sadaam’s a bad man…he gassed his people…etc? why wasn’t that our curtain call. now we have to stay there to finish the mission. What mission??? how do we know when its over? we’ll be there forever. my cousin is over there. we have to get him back.</p>
<p>Mini, thanks again for bringing up the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi kids killed by our needless bombing of water and sewerage systems and sanctions.</p>
<p>Just to add to your post, for the record, it was Ambassador Albright who said to Tim Russert, I believe, that the death of a couple hundred thousand Iraqi kids was “worth it”. </p>
<p>I do think that it is important to realize that the US , has probably killed more Iraqis than Sadam ever did.</p>