Blogosphere Outrage of the Day: GQ obtains briefing papers from Donald Rumsfeld to President Bush adorned with Old Testament Quotes

By pretty much universal agreement, Donald Rumsfeld was an awful US Defence Secretary. He raised chaos in the Pentagon without really changing its structure as hoped. His belief in a light & quick military was a genius move in invading Iraq, but cost thousands of his own soldiers their lives in its utter incapacity to then control and stabilize Iraq. He dragged down his own president and parties standings, and oversaw the US turn from the shining city on the hill, to an outcast which tortures. He was an unconscious poet with the language, providing some of the Bush administrations most memorable phrases such as ‘old Europe’ or my favourite for showing the utter inability of the administration to understand what their actions had wrought:

Freedom’s untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things,” Rumsfeld said. “They’re also free to live their lives and do wonderful things. And that’s what’s going to happen here.”Looting, he added, was not uncommon for countries that experience significant social upheaval. “Stuff happens,” Rumsfeld said

Stuff indeed does happen.

Yet when he came to office in 2000, he along with Dick Cheney were one of the two big names who were to provide advice and guidance to the youthful new president. Both had served administrations before and at the highest levels, with Rumsfeld even having previously sat in the Defence Secretary’s chair during Ford’s term. These two public images of the man seem contradictory. Did Rumsfeld suddenly lose it in 2000 perhaps ? Senility setting in early? Perhaps not.

Instead Rumsfeld highlights an interesting feature of the US Cabinet system, and one highlighted by the documents GQ has obtained. Rumselfd, like Cheney were masters of the bureaucratic fight, and in providing the President with quotes that suited his ego and mood, Rumsfeld was acting as the perfect loyal underling, helping his president, even at the cost of his country. Therefore the outrage should not be that this is evidence of America on a Christian Crusade (it’s not), but that such small acts were likely positive in swaying a man elected President of his country. How petty and small must Rumsfeld have judged Bush to be if a few scraps like this were seen as aiding his own power position. Whilst Dick & Dons attentions and skills lay in winning bureaucratic fights, both men lacked good political and strategic antenna. For example part of the reason the US went back into Afghanistan in 2002 was because Rumsfeld had by then finally wrested control from the CIA and George Tenent and now was determined to fight the war his way. The fact it was disastrous militarily and nearly as bad politically (only the even more suicidal Invasion of Iraq distracted the public from really noticing this blunder) were not on the radar of a man like Donald Rumsfeld. Instead he was doing what he did best, fight and win bureaucratic fights. As the head of a department he did all the department could have wanted, and seemed a capable, if strongly controlling manager. Yet in the US system, the heads of departments are also supposed to be not only managers, but political figures advocating for the administration, perhaps even ambassadors for it. It was in this that Rumsfeld and Cheney, despite both fancying themselves in such roles failed their president and ultimately their country. And yet every US president upon appointing cabinet ministers will need to choose between people who can manage their department, and those who can publicly advocate for the Administration both to the media, and the rest of the world. Very few are highly capable at both.

Westminister systems on the other hand have established departmental secretaries who ideally serve any party or minister and therefore can focus their entire attention and talents on the good of the department, freeing the Minister, with his political background to be the public face. Of course Ministers are still responsible for their ministries ill-administration, and bad Ministers can screw things up horribly, but largely the skill set lets the politicians worry about the politics and the bureaucrats worry about the bureaucracy. There is also a further advantage, in that Ministers loyalties lie almost entirely with the governing party, and not the departments. As such it’s rare for ministers to end up mere advocates for their department. They tend to balance both the departments wishes with the aims of the government, and so resolve some of the difficulties and inter-departmental tensions that could otherwise accrue, particularly when it comes to the budget process. As such the Australian system enjoys much more harmony between agencies, especially within Foreign Affairs and Defense (see Gyngell & Wesley 2007 ‘Making Australian Foreign Policy’) than the tension which is often seen between the Pentagon and State over in the USA. In Westminster systems, where the Minister’s loyalty is closer to the country Leader than their staff around them, the government tends to move as the Leader wants. In the US system, that is usually the case, but when Cabinet Secretaries are too powerful or alternately too captured by their Department they can sometimes come to act against the intentions of the Leader (as highlighted again in Drapers piece when discussing Rumsfeld dragging his feet on Katrina)

Interestingly Obama has decided on a similar model by choosing a Defence Secretary who is more of a manager than a politician. Gates political service to the Administration largely ends with the (R) at the end of his name on media grabs. Time will tell if it was a wise choice, afterall, until 2003 Rumsfeld was a hero of the administration. By 2006 he was a clear winner of biggest loser debates everywhere.