Editorial: Questionable memo requires skepticism

Published: Friday, October 24, 2003

A leaked memo written by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has been the object of some debate lately because it suggests that the war on terrorism is far from over.

Rumsfeld's memo referred to the war on terrorism as having made reasonable progress, but the remaining haul will be "a long, hard slog."

Many critics of the Bush administration and media commentators are interpreting Rumsfeld's memo as denoting a deep pessimism and lack of faith in military stratagems. However, interpretations of the memo may have missed the mark.

Rather than a lack of conviction regarding the war in Iraq and the actions taken against Afghanistan after Sept.11, 2001, the memo could be nothing more than a cabinet ploy to garner support for an ongoing struggle. A maneuver such as intentionally leaking a memo by the nation's leader on defense could be used to reaffirm that the U.S. military has been doing an admirable job in minimizing international terrorist threats and installing an egalitarian government in Iraq, but that these tasks are extensive and overwhelming. In America, advertising pays, even in politics.

Rumsfeld speaks of combating terrorism as an arduous one, and this could be interpreted as a self-justifying or self-redeeming excuse for the United States' inability to capture or confirm the death of Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden. Rather than withdrawing troops, Rumsfeld is suggesting that the United States needs to continue its struggle in deflating the vast cellular network of terrorism.

By writing, "My impression is that we have not made truly bold moves, although we have made many sensible logical moves in the right direction, but are they enough?" Rumsfeld may be euphemistically referring to more intensive military action as the necessity to make "truly bold moves." What would these bold moves entail? More air raids in Afghanistan? More tanks in Baghdad? Or an invasion of North Korea?

The longer Americans can be made to believe that they are involved in a war, the less likely they will be to change presidents in 2004. History has shown that a dramatic shift such as electing an official from a different party than that currently holding office during wartime activity is a rare occurrence.

By inflating the insurgent strength of opposing nations, they appear more resilient. And the more resistant the "enemy" seems to be, the easier it becomes to dismiss claims that the United States and American allies are attacking emaciated and defenseless nations.