I got a lot of e-mail (way too much to answer individually) from folks who disagreed with my saying that I didn't think Donald Rumsfeld should resign over these revelations of torture. Actually, I phrased that poorly. If Mr. Rumsfeld wishes to resign, it wouldn't bother me, just as long as no one thought that meant much. What I should have written was that I don't think he should be forced to resign. That may seem like a subtle difference but I generally think calls for someone to resign are a lot of posturing, especially in the case of someone who can be dismissed from his position or otherwise easily removed. If Rumsfeld is incompetent or culpable or not running the war the way Bush wishes, he shouldn't resign. He should be fired. If he's not incompetent or culpable or displeasing Bush, he shouldn't be forced from his position because a lot of people — some of them, unabashed political opponents — are turning up the heat in the press. He should stand or fall with the whole administration.
This is not really a defense of Rumsfeld so much as it is a desire to de-politicize this matter. Almost everyone who wrote made the point that we have to tell the world that America does not tolerate the kind of brutality that has been revealed. Okay, fine…then fire all those responsible, right on up to the top, and tell the world that what they allowed is unacceptable. That would be a lot more meaningful than letting one guy quit, take a cushy job in the private sector (probably for Halliburton) and say, as he would, "I left because I didn't want to be a campaign issue in the re-election of our great president…" Do we really think that would do anything to improve America's image around the globe, especially now that Bush is on record as saying the guy's doing a "superb" job? Why would anyone then think American policy is changing because Rumsfeld was pressured into quitting? I mean, if Bush thinks that's a superb job, wouldn't he then look for a replacement who'd continue the same modus operandi? It's the attitude and the policy that need to be changed more than the guy implementing them. I don't think it will settle anything if we punish a few scapegoats, whether it's a couple of brutal prison guards or the Secretary of Defense.
Last night and today, I read a batch of articles on Rumsfeld and the scandal, and I'm leaning towards the view of him expressed by Fred Kaplan in this article. If someone wants to point me to an opposite view, I'm willing to read. So far, a lot of the counter-arguments strike me as falling into the general category of "We're bad but not as bad as they are," which I reject because…well, as Senator Lindsey Graham said, "When you are the good guys, you've got to act like the good guys." I think it's also amazing that the "not as bad" line of thought is being offered for the most part by people who in the past have seen the battle as Good versus Evil and dismissed all nuance as "moral relativism." Now, apparently, there are degrees of Good and Evil in their world.