NOTICE/DISCLAIMER: The content of this page is UNOFFICIAL and the views and opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of anyone associated with this page or any of those linked from this site. All opinions are those of the writer and are intended for entertainment purposes only. Links to other web pages are provided for convenience and do not, in any way, constitute an endorsement of the linked pages or any commercial or private issues or products presented there. Neither the DOD, the Air Force, the 8th Fighter Wing nor Mickey Mouse has endorsed any of this site. All Air Force links are publicly accessible through the worldwide web. If there is any discrepancy between eye-witness accounts and OFFICIAL DOD records, this site opts to lend credence to the eye-witness views.

This site has little in the way of technical information on Kunsan AB's tactical planning, weekly exercises, or technical specifications on the aircraft. Our position is that Kunsan AB has been promising to "kick ass" for over thirty years and not a speck of bomb iron has hit North Korean soil yet. These tactical plans change from week to week, if not daily, but the point is: NO ONE from Kunsan has dropped a bomb on North Korea or shot a MiG from the sky. All the plans are simply plans -- not reality. HOWEVER, the hard work and ability of the airmen to carry out the war game planning in the face of a hardship tour speaks loads of their caliber and dedication. The PEOPLE is what we want to cover -- not the GAME. The second item we wish to cover is the BASE which has served the airmen -- who served the mission. Over the years, wings and organizations have come and gone from the face of Kunsan AB -- but the base has always remained to serve. The third item covers those Korean events that affect the life of the airmen or mission at Kunsan. This ranges from main gate protests to the ever-mounting efforts of Korea to wean itself away from American military dependency.

HOW IT WAS! KUNSAN AIRBASE 8TH FIGHTER WING (2002)

Cuts in Military Strength Shelved, Cuts in Military Hardware Continue & Growing Rift in Defense Department

The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) released in September 2001 -- three weeks after the terrorist attack in New York -- once had been expected to call for sweeping changes in the size and scope of the nation's military forces and weaponry in line with early Bush administration pledges to reshape the armed forces. The QDR is what is used to shape the 2003-2004 budget requests. Unfortunately, the QDR -- which is normally in-depth and very specific -- provided only the basic guidelines and Secretary of Defense Rumsfield admitted at the time that it was a "work-in-progress" because of the new strategies dealing with homeland defense and the war on terrorism. Though the document recommended looking to more futuristic weapon systems, the Pentagon demanded funds to upgrade the weapons that were neglected over the past decade.

It had been rumored that the Bush administration was looking towards eliminating one active Air Force wing, two Army divisions and one carrier battle group. At the same time, the Administration sought to pare $1 billion from the Air Force's next-generation F-22 fighter and 30,000 troops from the Army, and eliminating the Crusader mobile howitzer and Comanche reconnaissance helicopter. (Go to 2001: The New Military ) Proposals to ''transform'' the military into a smaller, quicker fighting force with high-tech weapons was the "vision" that President Bush offered when he took over. However, after the Sept 11th attack, the "vision" is being reshaped. The lessons learned from Afghanistan put the elimination of the the carrier groups on a hold indefinitely as they were the backbone of the offensive effort in Afghanistan.

The following are some of the new "visions" for the U.S. soldier in the 21st Century.

Cutting DOD/Military/Government Civilian Jobs: In November 2002, a blockbuster proposal was floated by the Secretary of the Army. Army Secretary Thomas E. White wrote in an Oct. 4 internal memo that the Army needed to direct as many resources as it can to anti-terrorism efforts and let support jobs go to the private sector, where the administration believed they could be done at lower cost. The Army was considering whether to contract out nearly 214,000 military and civilian employee positions in what would be the largest transfer of jobs to the private sector by a government agency. If successful, the Army's initiative -- undertaken in the name of focusing more of the military's resources on national defense -- could affect more than one in six Army jobs around the world. And it could provide a major boost to the Bush administration's efforts to move large blocs of government work into the private sector. On the line are the jobs of 58,727 military personnel and 154,910 civilian employees who perform such support functions as accounting, legal counsel, maintenance and communications. All told, the Army currently employs about 1.3 million people, including 222,000 civilians. Federal unions of course immediately denounced the Army plan as a thinly veiled attempt to do away with their jobs and benefit defense contractors. And some analysts said it raised questions about the Defense Department's capability to adequately manage its growing workforce of contract personnel.

This is the trend for the military world-wide and the USAF has had their share of conversions going on as well. In the past, base housing stateside have been converted to contractors and many of the former civil engineering functions. Future USAF changes have centered around the administrative and services areas for units. The unfortunate thing for overseas units is that many positions will remain vacant at unattractive remote locations -- such as Kunsan.

Then on November 15th, the New York Times had an article which stated that the the Bush administration planned to privatize up to 850,000 jobs -- nearly half the federal civilian work force. The article stated, "Officials said the intent was to save money by ensuring the lowest cost for many routine duties like mowing lawns, picking up trash, making eyeglasses and printing paychecks." But the sweeping policy change, which could potentially lead to the shift of many thousands of jobs to the private sector, infuriated union leaders who attacked the move as part of a broader effort by the White House to wipe out government jobs, take back Civil Service protections and advance an ideological agenda of cutting the bureaucracy.

Mark Wolverton, Wolvertoon (Nov 02)

The new policy, which can be enacted WITHOUT Congressional approval, is a major expansion of a trend that has been taking place in government at all levels for the last two decades. There has been a movement to hiring private companies to pick up trash, run prisons, collect traffic tickets and do much of the other mundane business of government. Although there have been problems, there has been validation that it does save money.

The unions counter that this is money politics to shift jobs to benefit political contributors. They stress that there are horror stories of contractors who have pocketed monies collected for the government. Unfortunately, there is some validity to the union claims that some contractors got their contracts from low bids, but then renegotiated their contract prices upwards once the government workers had been eliminated.

Administration officials have long sought to draw attention to what they say are the excesses and inefficiencies of government. In his budget proposal this year, Mr. Bush noted, under a headline saying "Work Available in the Yellow Pages?" that the veterans department employs more than 18,000 medical technicians and pharmacists, 11,000 lawn maintenance workers, dry-wall hangers, janitors and contractors, and 10,000 cafeteria workers. The administration was vague about how much money its initiative might save. The president's budget said savings were on the order of 20 percent, and other officials said 30 percent, enough to save many billions of dollars a year in a $2 trillion federal budget.

Until now, the Bush administration had been pressing government agencies to put 15 percent of jobs that are not "inherently governmental" into private competition. Those jobs are defined as "commercial activities," like running cafeterias, making travel arrangements and other tasks that are routinely done in the private sector. The change would not apply to any policy-making or political job, or most managerial ones. The new policy sets a target of putting half of those jobs out for competition in the next two years or so, and extending this to all 850,000 over the long run.

But looking beyond the squealing over jobs, there is the root issue that has to be addressed. Bush wants to make the military smaller and more mobile. But the war on terrorism involves doing more jobs -- and he has started on the "Axis of Evil" invasions starting with Iraq. There is just not enough manpower to go around. The Reserves are being tapped to the max and now the strain is showing.

More Reserve May Go Active

CBSNews
December 5, 2002

The Pentagon could soon activate as many as 10,000 National Guard troops as part of a build-up to possible war with Iraq, a newspaper reported Thursday.

The troops would join more than 50,000 National Guard and Reserve troops already on duty as a result of heightened homeland security and other assignments, and would be the vanguard of a massive mobilization in the event of war breaking out, the New York Times reported.

In the 1991 Gulf War, some 265,000 reservists went on active duty; a similar number would be called for any new military offensive.

The decision to call-up reservists would depend on the progress of United Nations weapons inspections now under way in Iraq, the Times reported. Some military planners are loath to call up the reservists before the holidays if they are not immediately needed, and the order activating the next 10,000 could be delayed until the New Year.

"If you call them up before Christmas and don't give them something meaningful to do, that's dumb," one senior military official told the Times.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard B. Myers review possible mobilizations about twice a week, the paper quoted officials as saying.

According to the newspaper, the next round of mobilizations would affect reservists with military police experience to assist with security at installations in the United States and overseas. During any war, reservists would also handle security at non-military sites that represent possible terrorist targets, like power plants.

Because of the expertise sought by the Pentagon, any potential call-up would put strain not only on reservists and their families, but also America's cities and states because many reservists have regular jobs providing essential government services.

"Many of the activated troops hold full-time positions as law enforcement officers, border patrol agents, prison guards and medical personnel," said a recent report by the National Council of State Legislatures. "Among its 414 sworn officers, for example, the Montgomery, Ala., police department has 74 military personnel."

"Of the total 528 Colorado State Patrol staff, 52 are members of the military reserves. In Texas, 763 prison system employees serve in the National Guard or reserves," the report continued.

According to Pentagon figures released Wednesday, the bulk of reservists now on duty are from the Army National Guard and Army Reserve — about 25,000 strong. They join roughly 16,000 Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve personnel, a Navy Reserve contingent of just over 5,000, Marine Corps reservists numbering 3,800 and 707 Coast Guard Reserve members.

Some of those on active duty are part of entire units that have been mobilized, while others have been called up individually. The total number of reservists on active duty has fallen slightly in the past month.

There are about 1.2 million reservists, comprising just under half of the United States' total military force. The president can call up to 200,000 reservists to active duty without declaring a national emergency or asking for Congressional permission.

If the president were to activate more than that, he would have to declare an emergency. If he authorized a full mobilization — more than a million reservists called up — Congressional authority would be required.

Fiscal Year 2003 Defense Spending: In 2001, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld urged Congress to back reductions in Pentagon waste and inefficiency, saying he could not assure taxpayers the military was spending their money wisely. In the 2002 budget, he aimed to turn "waste into weapons" meaning that his savings would be used to reshape the military.

After the Sept 11th attack, Bush backpedalled on his vision for the military and reshaped it to fit the new reality of the war on terrorism. Now, the military transformation promised by Bush is simply a high-tech addition to the existing military that many still believe is outmoded and designed to fight a Soviet Union that no longer exists. Traditional forces -- tanks, armored-personnel carriers and short-range attack jets -- may not be appropriate to fight elusive 21st-century foes, such as the al-Qaeda terrorist network. The carrier task forces that Bush sought to pare down proved to be the backbone of the Afghanistan effort. The military hardware of the past cannot simply be abandoned because unpredictable adversaries like Iraq and North Korea still exist.

In an October 23, 2002 CBS News report entitled, "Military Getting Large Pay Raise"stated that President Bush signed into law a bill that gives him a $355.4 billion defense-spending measure he wanted to wage an expensive, no-end-in-sight global fight against terror and possibly Saddam Hussein. The defense-spending bill funds a 4 percent pay raise for military personnel, construction of expensive new warships and the next phase of Mr. Bush's missile defense plan.

There were substantial funding increases for precision-guided weapons, advanced communications equipment, spy satellites and unmanned aerial vehicles were approved. All of these advanced systems proved valuable to the U.S. military in its war in Afghanistan. The idea is to improve intelligence gathering and shorten the time it takes for intelligence to reach fighter pilots or troops in the field. The budget also included increases for developing a national missile-defense system, a top priority for the president, and money to convert four Trident submarines from nuclear-weapons carriers to launch vessels for conventional cruise missiles.

The defense bill includes a 4.1 percent pay raise for military personnel and almost all the $7.4 billion Mr. Bush requested to keep developing a national missile defense system. The defense bill also provides $3.3 billion for 15 C-17 transport aircraft, $2.3 billion for two Aegis destroyers, $3.2 billion for 46 Navy F/A-18 E/F fighters and $3.5 billion to continue developing the Joint Strike Fighter. Another $249 million is allotted for Navy Tomahawk cruise missiles, a prime weapon in the Persian Gulf War. Notably missing is the Army's new mobile howitzer system, the Crusader, that Rumsfield killed on grounds that it was too heavy to deploy to distant battlefields; the F-22 stealth fighter; and Commanche attack helicopters.

Bush also signed a $10 billion military construction bill that includes improved base housing. The spending measures were the first of the 2003 budget year with 11 spending bills still pending. The defense bill, approved with overwhelming support to provide most of what Mr. Bush requested, increases spending by more than $34 billion over the previous fiscal year. The president sought $367 billion, but ran into bipartisan resistance to his proposal for a $10 billion fund he could tap without congressional input for combating terrorists overseas.

In November 2002, the FY 2003 Defense Authorization Act was ready for the President's signature on Nov 19. According to the TROA: Weekly Update, "The defense bill also authorizes many other important initiatives, including:"

* A January pay raise of at least 4.1% for active, Guard and Reserve forces, with some receiving up to 6.5%, depending on grade and years of service.

* A new assignment incentive pay up to $1,500 for members serving in designated assignments.

* A new military leave authority that allows servicemembers to transfer leave to another member, and authority for service secretaries to grant one-time emergency leave to prevent excess leave status.

* Extension of authorities for certain bonuses and special pays for Reserve and active forces.

* Extension of time (to 14 years, vs. current 10 years) for use of Montgomery GI Bill education benefits for the Selected Reserve.

* Reinstatement of discretionary authority for DoD to allow officers to retire with 2 years time in grade (vs. 3 years) for retirements between Oct. 1, 2002 and Dec. 31, 2003.

* Establishment of a Korea Defense Service Medal for military personnel who served in the Korean theater after July 27, 1954 and a date to be set in the future.

* Authorization for the Secretary of Defense to pay a flat-rate daily stipend (in lieu of payments for transportation and miscellaneous expenses) for military retirees and certain others participating in funeral honors details.

* Authorization of use of commissaries by National Guard members who are called to duty in state status in support of federally declared national emergencies.

* A requirement for a review of quality-of-life issues for members of the Armed Forces every four years.

* Reduction in the number of continuous years of Reserve component service required immediately before qualifying for a Reserve retirement from eight to six.

* A program of education and other incentives to encourage national service, entailing at least 15 months on active duty after initial training, an additional period on active duty or in the Selected Reserve, with remaining obligated service in the Reserves, Peace Corps, Americorps, or some other national service program.

*Elimination of prior authorization for TFL beneficiaries needing inpatient mental health services.

*Allowing family members to retain the TRICARE Prime remote benefit when not authorized to accompany the member to the next permanent duty station - only if the family remains at the former duty site.

*Authorization of TRICARE Prime remote benefits to reservists activated for more than 30 days who reside in TRICARE Prime remote locations.

*Automatic designation of Medicare providers as TRICARE providers, effective under the new TRICARE contracts in 2004.

* Prohibition of DoD from denying health care benefits to Prime enrollees who receive service connected care through the VA, if the VA cannot meet DoD's access standards.

*Requirement for DoD to adopt Medicare claims processing procedures except for those unique to TRICARE requirements.

*Further direction to facilitate VA/DoD sharing agreements and authorization for three pilot sites to test collaboration initiatives.

What is scaring a lot of people is that the Bush administration is looking to resume atomic testing in what some feel is chipping away at the non-proliferation accords of the past. A memo from the Bush administration recommends another look at the potential benefits of a "low-yield" testing program, which might produce a nuclear explosion equivalent to only a few hundred pounds of conventional explosives with small amounts of plutonium - not in bomb form. So-called subcritical tests are now designed to produce no nuclear yield. Opponents feel any new testing could prompt the Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, and the Pakistanis to do likewise, or harden North Korea's refusal to abandon its nuclear program. However, defense officials state that no new testing is planned.

However, portions of the defense authorization bill require weapons scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and elsewhere to report whether nuclear explosions beneath the Nevada desert might be "helpful" in resolving reliability questions about existing nuclear weapons, even if the tests are technically "unnecessary." Congress authorized the three nuclear-weapons labs to create preliminary designs for a weapon known as the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, designed for underground targets. The project involves strengthening existing hydrogen bombs, rather than creating new designs. Livermore weapons designers say they don't expect the project to require nuclear tests -- even though the bill gives authorization to go back to testing in less than six months.

Discord in Pentagon Rising: In October 2002, the discord within the Pentagon is starting to show from various reports. Reports state many senior officers on the Joint Staff and in all branches of the military describe Rumsfeld as frequently abusive and indecisive, trusting only a tiny circle of close advisers, seemingly eager to slap down officers with decades of distinguished service. The time-honored ability of the head of the Joint Chiefs to appoint his own top staff has been ursurped by Rumsfield. The unhappiness is so pervasive that all three service secretaries are said to be deeply frustrated by a lack of autonomy and contemplating leaving by the end of the year. Though Rumsfeld's primary objective is to streamline the military into a information-based 21st Century fighting force, he also has the objective of reasserting civilian control over the Pentagon and reining in a Joint Staff that the defense secretary believed had become too powerful and independent of civilian control. Rumsfield felt that officers were acting at times as though they were not subordinate to their civilian bosses, Rumsfeld's Style, Goals Strain Ties In Pentagon 'Transformation' Effort Spawns Issues of Control', Vernon Loeb and Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post, October 16, 2002 stated:

What makes this more than a bureaucratic dispute, however, is that it is influencing the Pentagon's internal debate over a possible invasion of Iraq, with some officers questioning whether their concerns about the dangers of urban warfare and other aspects of a potential conflict are being sufficiently weighed -- or dismissed as typical military risk aversion.

The dispute also promises to have a huge impact in the coming year over the fate of hugely expensive weapons systems, with Stephen A. Cambone, a top Rumsfeld deputy, now recommending more than $10 billion in savings by cutting or delaying the Air Force's F-22 stealth fighter, the Navy's next generation aircraft carrier, and three Army programs, the Comanche reconnaissance helicopter, the Stryker wheeled combat vehicle and the Future Combat System.

These tensions were straining relations between the uniformed military and Rumsfeld prior to Sept. 11, 2001, but were partially submerged by the Afghan war and other counterattacks on terrorism. They have now reemerged as the Pentagon plans for a possible war in the Persian Gulf and for a fiscal 2004 budget that is in danger of being swamped by war costs and long-deferred expenditures on modernization, new weapons and Rumsfeld's desire to transform the military into a 21st-century force.

"There is a nearly universal feeling among the officer corps that the inner circle is closed, not tolerant of ideas it doesn't already share, and determined to impose its ideas, regardless of military doubts," said Loren B. Thompson, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute who has close ties to defense contractors and the military.

"All of the bad blood of last year is coming back in a very big way," said one former Pentagon official.

All three service secretaries were recruited from private industry to bring "best business practices" to the Pentagon and promised autonomy in making management reforms. But all three find their actions constrained by Rumsfeld and what is referred to as his small "palace guard," according to Pentagon insiders.

Later in the article it stated that Rumsfield has systematically chopped off the Chiefs of Staffs for each of the services at the kneecaps. He announced General Shinseki's replacement 15 months early thereby rendering Gen Shinseki into a lame duck and effectively tossing his vision to transform the Army into the trash can. As if to put an exclamation point on his actions, on Oct 24th, Rumsfield stated that there is only one "Commander in Chief" and that is the President. Thus ends the time-honored tradition of titles such as "CINC-PAC." For the military whose "soul" is based on time-honored traditions, some of these changes must be very irksome.

"CINC" Is Sunk

American Forces Press Service
October 25, 2002

WASHINGTON - The term "CINC" is sunk.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld put out a memo Oct. 24 to DoD leaders saying there is only one commander in chief in America -- the president.

His memo also forbids use of the acronym "CINC" (pronounced "sink") with titles for military officers. The title of commander in chief is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Article II, Section 2, states, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."

Even before World War II, however, the title was applied to U.S. military officers, and over the years "commander in chief" came to refer to the commanders of the U.S. unified combatant commands. Their titles became, for instance, "Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Command" or "Commander in Chief, U.S. Transportation Command."

No more. Rumsfeld has been using the term "combatant commander" for months now when referring to a regional organization such as the U.S. Central Command and "commander" when talking about a specified unit such as the U.S. Strategic Command.

But don't toss out that old stationery or signs. The memo also tells officials to use old stocks and replace signs only when done in regular maintenance. The changes should be done "without any undue additional cost to taxpayers."

The new term is simply "commander," as in "Commander, U.S. Northern Command" and "Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command."

The next hurdle is getting over the conversational habit of referring to "the CINCS."

Next, Rumsfeld killed the Army's new mobile howitzer system, the Crusader, on grounds that it was too heavy to deploy to distant battlefields and not "transformational" enough to be relevant on the future battlefield. Army leaders had coveted Crusader for years as a weapon system that would finally make the Army second to none in artillery firepower. What we have is a conflict of "visions" for the military. The military leaders were going in one direction and now Rumsfield is going in another with his vision of the new military for the next century.

Rumsfeld's office has expressed concerns about the effectiveness of the new Stryker wheeled combat vehicle designed to replace the tank in the latest Army fighting unit called the Interim Brigade Combat Team. The article stated that "Cambone, Rumsfeld's closest aide, has proposed cutting in half the Army's plan to field six of these combat teams, saving $4.5 billion in Stryker procurement. The Interim Brigade Combat Team is Shinseki's bridge between the heavy Army of the Cold War and the Army of the future. But Cambone is also zeroing in on two programs at the heart of that future Army, or Objective Force, proposing a 50 percent cut in the Army's Comanche helicopter and a two-year delay in fielding its Future Combat System. In October 2002 Jane's Aircraft News announced that the US Army's Boeing Sikorsky RAH-66Comanche reconnaissance/attack helicopter programme has emerged from a series of reviews with the number of aircraft to be purchased significantly reduced, to as few as 679 aircraft over the next 20 years.

But Rumsfeld's office, aided by former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), who is close to Rumsfeld and deeply interested in how to reform the Army, is now questioning whether Stryker measures up." This friction seems to be growing though the head of the Joint Chiefs has downplayed this.

"It has become a truism in national security circles that Rumsfeld has been a better secretary of war than secretary of defense. Rumsfeld has two dominant priorities. The first is reshaping the U.S. military from a heavy, industrial-age force designed in the Cold War to an agile, information-age force capable of defeating more elusive adversaries anywhere on the globe.

Rumsfeld's second priority, about which he has been less open, is reasserting civilian control over a military establishment that had grown autonomous -- and, many believe, too cautious -- during the Clinton years. Indeed, Rumsfeld has pushed throughout the war on terrorism for bolder plans from the military. Under his stewardship, war planning has become far more effective and imaginative, said a former official who otherwise is critical of Rumsfeld.

"This guy really is trying to get [the Pentagon] to work for him," said one former defense official. "I don't think he's chosen the right path. But it's not a question of him being the devil and everyone else is a misunderstood angel."

It has been repeatedly quoted in the press that Roche, White and England (Secretaries of the AF, Army and Navy) are a bit frustrated because it's a "my way or the highway" type atmosphere in reference to Mr. Rumsfeld's management style. At times, he and his staff resort to confrontation and edicts as they carry out the president's order to transform the military. What is ominous is Rumsfield has re-hired a consultant who helped him hire top civilians in 2001. According to a Washington Times article on 21 November, Stephen Herbits, whose openly homosexual stance previously caused some friction at the Pentagon, is back at the Pentagon -- an indication that Mr. Rumsfeld plans a major personnel shake-up in the coming months.

The Washington Times article stated, "Most of the civilians Herbits screened and approved in 2001 are hawks, taking a hard line on China, Iraq and North Korea. He worked under Mr. Rumsfeld three decades ago in the Ford administration and has advised a number of Republican administrations on key recruits. He helped Mr. Rumsfeld pick the current three service secretaries, as well as other senior posts. The Pentagon has about 130 positions that require White House approval. Through all the criticism in 2001, Mr. Herbits enjoyed the confidence of Mr. Rumsfeld, who has now brought him back to make new personnel decisions, according to interviews with senior defense officials."

Rumors state that Army Secretary Thomas White and Air Force Secretary James Roche may leave in coming months because of the friction as they feel they were "recruited under false pretenses." They were promised autonomy, but instead got micro-management from Rumsfield. The Secretary of the Army Thomas White is a highly decorated Vietnam War veteran and retired one-star Army general is well liked by Army soldiers. Though his former position as a top Enron executive caused him some bad press earlier in 2002, he weathered the storm and fought to save some of the Army's top projects like the Commanche helicopter -- in conflict with Rumsfield's cost cutting moves. Air Force Secretary James Roche has also been in a losing fight to stop cuts in the Air Force's F-22 stealth fighter programs.

Can Anyone Say "McNamarra"? Rumsfield keeps reminding many of Robert McNamarra, a former president of the World Bank and former whiz kid of the Ford Motor Co. Like McNamarra -- and the Kennedy bunch -- all decisions were made by the inner circle of trusted confidantes. Like McNamarra, he has a "my way or the highway" management style. Like McNamarra's fixation on Communism, Rumsfield is fixated on the "Axis of Evil" -- or specifically Iraq. The return to Kennedy-style covert activities of the CIA, the U.S. considering biochemical warfare, and possible return to nuclear testing in 2002 sends shivers up the spines of a lot of people.

Rumsfeld, now 68, was the youngest secretary of defense in history, serving under President Ford from 1975-77 as his in-house Whiz-kid. He moved from being a young-turk legislator in the 1960s to a key official in three Republican administrations and finally a corporate executive (GD Searle & General Instruments). A political animal, he publicly sought the vice-presidential nomination in 1980 and briefly ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 1988 against the elder George Bush, before dropping out and backing former Kansas Sen. Bob Dole for the job. He was also Dole's campaign chairman in his failed 1996 presidential bid against Bill Clinton. Rumsfeld's tenure as Secretary of Defense is the latest position in a political and business career in which he has "repeatedly taken on challenges as an underdog and ended up on top."

A cold-war warrior confronts the age of terrorism

By Ann Scott Tyson
Special correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

It's a classic scene from what might be called "The World According to Don Rumsfeld." On a raw November day in Bratislava, the US Defense secretary strides onto a red carpet, places his hand over his heart, and listens to a military rendition of "The Star Spangled Banner." It's the type of ritual that Mr. Rumsfeld, impatient by his own account, usually only tolerates. But this day is special - "thrilling" he says. Slovakia, a former part of the communist axis, has been invited to join NATO - and Rumsfeld, long a cold-war warrior, relishes the triumph. "Here we are!" he beams as he steps into the lights of television cameras. "[The world] has changed."

Rumsfeld recalls his Chicago childhood with Czechoslovakian immigrants, his impassioned "Captive Nations" speeches in Congress in the 1960s, and his vigil as NATO ambassador for President Nixon in the early 1970s. Now, Slovakia stands as proof that "freedom is ascendant, and the cause of liberty has prevailed over the darkness of tyranny and terror and will do so again," he says later.

The obscure incident illustrates one of Rumsfeld's overarching beliefs: A strong America leads aggressively in the right direction, and the world invariably comes around. It's less unilateralism than an "America-knows-best" brand of paternalism. American might and right proved decisive in winning the cold war. It will win the war on terrorism. It worked in Afghanistan. It will work with Iraq.

Today, with the United States again poised on the brink of war, Rumsfeld's leadership style and core beliefs are shaping the use of American force at a pivotal point in modern history. In coming weeks, he will counsel President Bush on the use of preemptive military action to overthrow the Iraqi regime - with repercussions that could either transform or destabilize the Middle East. Those decisions will flow from a complex man known to be both dedicated and, at times, domineering.

Friends, classmates, employers, and colleagues say Rumsfeld possesses an unusual mix of traits. He is solidly conservative but not strident, principled but pragmatic, old-fashioned yet forward-looking. Sober about the world's dangers, he is optimistic about tackling them.

His blunt convictions have won him praise, yet critics call him an abrasive, arrogant warmonger. Rumsfeld often voices exasperation that his views are distorted or misunderstood. Regardless, the hard-charging Midwesterner is a force to contend with in American politics.

"He has a lot of influence," says former President Ford, who first appointed Rumsfeld Defense secretary in 1975.

At the heart of Rumsfeld's worldview is the moral imperative of American leadership, which he embraced, along with his own duty of public service, half a century ago. As a clean-cut student on scholarship at Princeton in the 1950s, Rumsfeld was so inspired by former Illinois Gov. Adlai Stevenson's address at the March 1954, senior-class banquet that he has handed out copies for years.

"The world's fate now hangs upon how well or how ill we in America conduct our affairs," Mr. Stevenson said. "If America stumbles, the world falls." Eight years later, in 1962, Rumsfeld repeated this conviction from train platforms along Chicago's North Shore, handing out pamphlets in an upstart congressional candidacy that would launch his political career. "Maintain a firm, no-back-down foreign policy based on the rightness of our position, and backed by our military strength," read his debut statement, featuring a fresh- faced 29-year-old Rumsfeld under the words "From Where I Stand."

Now a feisty 70, Rumsfeld stresses that America must lead a struggle against terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, confident that other nations will follow.

"It's less important to have unanimity than it is to be making the right decisions and doing the right thing, even though at the outset it may seem lonesome," he told a group of Marines in August, recalling Winston Churchill's warnings about Adolf Hitler before World War II. "In unanimity, we often find an absence of rigorous thinking."

At his spacious Pentagon office, Rumsfeld shows visitors a bronze plaque with a quote from Teddy Roosevelt: "Aggressive fighting for the right is the noblest sport the world affords." Today, it would appear, the Defense secretary has no shortage of athletic opportunities.

The Fireman's Carry - a Drive to Win

He was known - and feared - as "the speedy take-down specialist." As captain of the Princeton wrestling team his senior year, Rumsfeld, or "Rummy" to friends, perfected a bold move known as the "fireman's carry." It involved rapidly seizing opponents by the arm and leg, hoisting them onto his back, and slapping them down on the mat.

One hapless victim of this move, a classmate named Shelly Ivey III, vividly recalls the day he made the mistake of challenging "Rummy" - and got a concussion. "I went down very quickly, right onto the mat," he says. Rumsfeld's confidence was so high that he executed the difficult fireman's carry on bigger wrestlers. "It was his patented move," recalls Brad Glass, a fellow wrestler and Navy pilot. Entries in the 1954 Princeton yearbook echo Rumsfeld's prowess: "Captain Don Rumsfeld ... appeared on the mat to twist his opponent into submission."

Many people who know Rumsfeld well, including his wife, say he is, in essence, a wrestler: Fiercely competitive, comfortable with one-on-one battle, ultraconfident in his ability to win. Even now, in a city filled with exceptionally ambitious people, he stands out for this trait.

Rumsfeld's relentless drive has made some critics charge that he's overeager to push toward military action - notably against Saddam Hussein. His management style, too, has rankled subordinates, including the top military brass whom he regularly grills on war plans and weapons systems. Last spring he publicly humiliated Secretary of the Army Thomas White when canceling a major army weapons system, the Crusader.

Yet Rumsfeld's steely determination has also made him the Bush administration's personification of the global war on terror. "Wrestling is a man-on-man, no-second-place-money sport, which is what politics is," observes Ned Jannotta, a close friend who managed Rumsfeld's four successful House campaigns. "He has the guts to take on an issue head-to- head when he may win or lose."

Rumsfeld's tenure as defense chief is the latest stint in a political and business career in which he has repeatedly taken on challenges as an underdog and ended up on top.

At 29, Rumsfeld made a long-shot bid for Congress, taking on a veteran Illinois legislator in the Republican primary. He worked 15-hour days on the campaign, run by high school buddies on a shoestring budget out of one of his father's fixer-upper properties in Winnetka, Ill. On election night in 1962, Rumsfeld was riding in friend Art Nielsen's blue Buick when he learned the crucial 50th ward was going his way. "He jumped out of the car and let out a Princeton war whoop," Mr. Nielsen recalls.

In Congress, Rumsfeld mastered the floor rules. Too impatient to climb the seniority ladder, he became a party activist. Working with a core of young moderates, he helped orchestrate Mr. Ford's election as House minority leader in an effort to rejuvenate the GOP leadership after Goldwater's presidential loss in 1964. "He wasn't a mean partisan like [Newt] Gingrich or an ideologist," says former Rep. Ed Derwinski (R) of Illinois, who served with Rumsfeld for six years. "He was a gentleman and his loyalty ran to the party, which put him in the mainstream."

Still, Rumsfeld illustrated a shrewd political instinct and an ability to roll over opponents. Before the Watergate scandal broke, for example, he sensed trouble and left his job as an economic adviser to Nixon to become US ambassador to NATO in 1973.

"He didn't like what he saw was going on in the inner sanctum of the Nixon administration," recalls Ford. After Nixon resigned, President Ford immediately called his friend Rumsfeld back to become his chief of staff and later Defense secretary. Rumsfeld proved a skilled turf battler. "He was one of the toughest operators in Washington," says Robert Ingersoll, a former US envoy who observed Rumsfeld's quiet maneuvering in Ford Cabinet meetings. "[Secretary of State Henry] Kissinger usually rolled over most of the other bureaucrats, but he didn't roll over Don - and I think Don rolled over him a few times."

That's not to say he lacks a softer side. Despite his busy career, he stays in touch with a close coterie of Chicago friends, taking time for visits and personal notes. He and his wife, Joyce, his sweetheart from New Trier High School in Winnetka, have three children and several grandchildren who gather regularly at the family ranch in New Mexico.

But as Pentagon chief and corporate CEO, Rumsfeld has earned a reputation as a tough, demanding boss. Using a dictaphone to send out memos so prolific they are called "snowflakes," he goes through endless revisions of everything from corporate mergers to war plans. "Every day he would come up with a new idea," says Mr. Jannotta, a Chicago investment banker who worked with Rumsfeld on a 1980s merger. "He was never satisfied until he had turned over every stone and not too concerned if he had made someone stay up all night doing it." The dramatic turnaround and 1985 sale of the Chicago-based G.D. Searle & Co. launched CEO Rumsfeld's multimillion-dollar fortune.

Indeed, Rumsfeld's sheer energy is legendary - especially for a man tied with George Marshall as the oldest Defense chief ever. Rising most days at 4:45 a.m., he arrives at the Pentagon by 6:30. Often wearing hiking boots and a cardigan sweater, he prefers to work standing up behind his desk. At home, he works into the evening in a room with a large television and desk stacked with papers. His wife tries to get him to bed by 9:30, friends say. On whirlwind trips abroad, he jets across time zones and continents, working while reporters half his age sleep in the back of the plane. He then shows up fresh at a Pentagon briefing shortly after his return "looking as if he just stepped out of the shower," one correspondent groans.

Although he no longer wrestles or works out on the trampoline, he skis and plays a mean game of squash - taking on far younger men. "He plays squash as if he's using the racket as a weapon," says Jannotta. "I've won if I come off the court with my head still on."

Leaning Forward in a 'Dangerous and Untidy' World

His eyes narrow, his voice turns icy and low, and from his Air Force jet somewhere over the Atlantic, Rumsfeld issues another warning to Saddam Hussein. "You can be absolutely certain we'll not allow our aircraft to continue to be shot at with impunity," Rumsfeld says, referring to another spate of Iraqi groundfire against US and British planes patrolling no-fly zones. He straightens his beige flight jacket. "We intend to respond."

Since emerging as a spirited war secretary in the wake of Sept. 11, Rumsfeld has made it clear that America is "leaning forward" - ready and willing to use force to defend US interests even if it means risking American lives. His newly unveiled "Guidelines" nudge the US toward a more robust military posture, shifting away from more cautious doctrines set down in 1984 by Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and reaffirmed in the 1990s by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Colin Powell.

Even before taking the Pentagon job, Rumsfeld told Mr. Bush he worried that a perception of the US as casualty-averse was emboldening enemies. He won Bush's assurance that the next time force was required, the US military would, essentially, set the record straight.

Today, Rumsfeld is managing a growing presence of US troops in hot spots around the world - from Afghanistan to the Gulf states and the Horn of Africa.

He says the approach is getting results. America's willingness to battle the Taliban and Al Qaeda was a crucial factor in mobilizing what is now a 90- nation coalition against terrorism, he asserts. Similarly with Iraq, he says: Lacking the threat of a US-led invasion, Baghdad would never have readmitted UN inspectors to search for weapons. "The reason that Iraq is now allowing inspectors in is because of the very visible threat of the use of force," he says. "Prior to that, they weren't willing to let anyone do anything."

The Weinberger-Powell approach aimed to prevent actions that could squander US lives - and was heavily influenced by Vietnam and the death of 241 Marines in Beirut, Lebanon, in 1983. Washington, they advised, should deploy US troops only as a last resort. With clear goals and firm support, Washington should then use overwhelming force to bring fighting to a swift end.

When Rumsfeld released his own guidelines for committing US forces in October - the first made public by a Defense secretary since the Reagan administration - he stressed that the risk of action must be weighed not in isolation, but against the "risk of inaction."

He cautions against risking lives except for "a darn good reason," but adds this advice to leaders who deem the use of force necessary: Acknowledge upfront the risk of casualties "rather than allowing the public to believe an engagement can be executed antiseptically, on the cheap."

Military action, once approved, should be early, forceful, and free from arbitrary deadlines or restrictions. Nor should military goals be compromised to win international support - an attitude that's rankled US allies and drawn fire from critics as unilateralist. His mantra: "The mission determines the coalition."

Rumsfeld's calls for a strong, unfettered military reflect his view of the world as a "dangerous and untidy" place, an impression that likely began in his wartime childhood.

Rumsfeld was nine years old when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. His father, who had risen from an office boy to become a successful realtor, left home to serve as a Naval officer in the Pacific. Intensely proud of his father's example, Rumsfeld joined the Navy ROTC in college and after graduation in 1954 he served three years as a Naval aviator and flight instructor. He often rekindles images of his father's enemies when describing the new array of threats America faces today.

"In World War II ... there were suicide pilots flying their aircraft into our ships," he told guests to the Lone Sailor Award dinner in May. "Today, a new enemy is seeking global power and has flown our own airliners into our buildings on suicide missions," he said. "They're working ... to gain access to weapons of mass destruction."

Over and over, Rumsfeld warns of the risk that terrorists will obtain chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons and "kill [not] a few hundred or a few thousand, but tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands." Failing a regime change in Baghdad, he asserts, the nexus of terror and weapons of mass destruction is most dangerous in Iraq. Rumsfeld, who as a Middle East envoy met Hussein in 1983, calls him a "brutal, repressive dictator" and a master at manipulating world opinion. His solution: Beat Hussein at his own game.

'The Sky Is Going to Fall!' - Managing Public Opinion

A press aide saunters to the back of Rumsfeld's plane after it rumbles down a runway in Santiago, and hands a reporter a copy of a Chilean article, highlighted in yellow.

"Read this, and then he'll [Rumsfeld] come talk to you," the aide says. Fluent in Spanish, the reporter translates aloud the first few lines, which sing Rumsfeld's praises.

"See!" Rumsfeld grins mischievously when he appears a few minutes later, waving the article. "It says I have a human side! I've only been here a day and they know me better than you do!"

Joking and sparring with the media is something this Defense secretary relishes more than most - but the friendly banter also has a clear strategic purpose.

Serving up deft put-downs and repartees peppered with homespun exclamations like "golly" and "dadburned," Rumsfeld has emerged as the administration's most skilled and televised voice for the war on terror.

Virtually overnight, Rumsfeld - with his rimless glasses, piercing look, and blunt use of the verb "kill" - became the public face of the war. It's a role he'll likely repeat if the US attacks Iraq - and how he handles it could shape American and world perceptions of the conflict. In the front-and-center job, he'll follow his own advice: "Invest the political capital to marshal support to sustain the effort for whatever period of time may be required."

The role reflects one of Rumsfeld's most firmly held beliefs about democracy: the idea that a well-informed public - the "educated citizens" of Adlai Stevenson's 1954 Princeton address - will find its way to the right decisions. In a little-known act as a young congressman in 1966, Rumsfeld embraced Stevenson's "magnificent gamble" in a speech on the House floor, urging passage of the Freedom of Information Act. " 'A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both,' " Rumsfeld said, quoting James Madison. Still, the Pentagon is far from a bastion of openness under Rumsfeld, who is as good at selectively withholding information as he is at managing his message.

He's drawn criticism for secretiveness and a strenuous effort to control the flow of information from his Pentagon podium. Leaks on Iraq-invasion scenarios in recent months infuriated him, and in August he ordered the FBI to investigate. But underlying his domineering style is a fierce patriotic bent as well as a desire to have the nation trust its leaders to do the job.

On some of the most sensitive topics arising in the war - military commissions and the treatment of detainees, civilian casualties, and the ill-fated Office of Strategic Influence (OSI) - Rumsfeld has welcomed informed debate, but dismissed much outcry over civil liberties as alarmist.

"Oh my goodness gracious, isn't that terrible, Henny Penny, the sky is going to fall!" he said en route to Chile in November, mimicking what he considered to be inflammatory editorials and cartoons related to the alleged disinformation plans of OSI, the short-lived office for shaping opinion that he shut down in February.

"I said ... if you want to savage this thing, fine, I'll give you the corpse." But, he added defiantly, "I'm gonna keep doing everything that needs to be done, and I have."

Rumsfeld likewise brushes aside concerns about a planned Pentagon computer surveillance system, designed to mine data around the world. The media should have more trust in government, he suggests. "Anyone with any concern ought to be able to sleep well tonight," he says in a fatherly tone. "Nothing terrible is going to happen."

And when all else fails, Rumsfeld has perfected another signature technique: the ability to keep mum - and deflect criticism - while getting the media to laugh about it.

A typical exchange goes like this one Nov. 14:

Reporter: Mr. Secretary, is bin Laden alive or dead apparently, now? And if he is alive, is the United States winning the war on terrorism? Rumsfeld: Charlie, the answer to the question, 'Is he alive or dead' - the answer is, 'Yes, he is alive or dead.'

(Laughter.)

Rumsfeld: Thank you very much!

Rumsfeld was called back into service in 1999 to head the nine-member Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States, a byproduct of wrangling between congressional Republicans and the Clinton administration over a missile defense system. His report supported the Republicans' contention that a missile defense was needed, and he blasted CIA director George Tenet for increasing secrecy within the agency to such an extent that it was damaging the quality of intelligence provided to Congress. When appointed to the Secretary of Defense job, Bush praised Rumsfield as being able to bring his corporate experience -- as well as Department of Defense experience -- to the job.

Some would counter remarks about his resemblance to McNamarra by saying that Rumsfield is a former Secretary of Defense and has "experience" in the Department of Defense. However, we counter this with the fact that his experience was from 1975-77 -- twenty-five years ago in a completely different geopolitical and geoeconomic world. Applying his experience from then may get the U.S. into some deep trouble. The effects of a war in Iraq may change the face of the Middle East forever and propel the U.S. into a worldwide jihad with every U.S. citizen having a target painted on their chest. On the other hand, the maintaining of the status quo with dictators like Sadam Hussein and our "friendly royals" in Saudi Arabia may create a plethora of other problems ending up with every U.S. citizen having a target on their chest. It against this backdrop that Rumsfield operates -- a man who is certain he is right with a view that America will be justified by history in the end.

Anyone involved in the Vietnam War process should remember Robert McNammara, another "civilian" who brought his "business acumen" to the job. McNamarra was added to the Kennedy administration as a shining star and whiz kid who came up with such proposals as a "one-fits-all aircraft" -- and what a fiasco that was!!! McNammara brought the military under civilian control -- as Rumsfield is fighting to do now -- and thus made the Vietnam war, a political affair controlled by Congress. Once that happened the military was hamstrung so that they could NEVER win the fight.

In 1961, President Kennedy began to send military advisors to Saigon to explore the question whether local Vietnamese forces could, by training, be brought up to the level of expertise required to fight a guerilla war against troops of a people's liberation army from Hanoi. His Secretary of Defense was Robert S. McNamarra, one of the so-called Whiz Kids at the Ford Motor Company, who with his systems analysis and mission oriented deployment assured both Kennedy and Johnson that it would be a sure win. Some still claim his "business acumen" in dealing with the North Vietnamese resulted in the deaths of thousands of GIs in Vietnam. Some 58,000 Americans and over a million Vietnamese would die in that bloody conflict.

In 1995, McNarmara completed his memoirs, In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam. McNamarra said "Yet we were wrong, terribly wrong. We owe it to future generations to explain why." On pp 32-33, McNamara wrote "The irony of this gap -- Asian experts -- was that it existed largely because the top East Asian and China experts in the State Department -- John Paton Davies, Jr., John Stewart Service, and John Carter Vincent -- had been purged during the McCarthy hysteria of the 1950s. Without men like these to provide sophisticated, nuanced insights, we -- certainly I -- badly misread China's objectives and mistook its bellicose rhetoric to imply a drive for regional hegemony." (See Review.) What he did not say was that the experts were still available in lists upon lists existing in the Department of State, but he just chose not to consult them. According to reports, Rumsfield also has this style where he listens to only his select circle of insiders -- disregarding advice from the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Some wonder if Bush -- and his right-hand man Rumsfield -- really have a clear cut policy on Iraq. When Bush started, he wanted nothing less than Saddam Hussein out of office. When the possibility of being involved in a protracted "nation building" mission with an Army of Occupation, he backpedalled and stated that Saddam could remain in office if he complied with the U.N. resolution. But he never really gave up the idea and continued to try to drum up support for an international coalition to share the "occupation" burden WHEN Saddam was ousted or killed.

Many world diplomats view the U.S. plans to attack Iraq as "not well thought out" -- especially if it intends to go it alone. The truth is that the U.S. really has no idea what this invasion will create...it could be a Middle East conflict that explodes engulfing Isreal and pitting the entire Muslim world pitted against the Israeli and U.S. forces. It could erupt into increases in terrorist attacks against Americans from young Muslims that feel that they have been disenfranchised by the super-power Americans. Or it could be a bloodbath where the American troops are slaughtered in the streets of Baghdad turning the Americans against Bush. OR ... It could be a total American victory with the world at the last minute jumping on the American bandwagon and the coalition marching into Baghdad in victory as the Iraqi troops throw down their arms to surrender. The truth will be somewhere in between but no one has a crystal ball. The worst nightmare is it could be McNamarra's Vietnam revisited.

The Koreans feel that Rumsfield -- like McNammara's experience in Vietnam -- is reading the North Asia situation all wrong. Just as Robert McNamara was wrong from the very beginning of his term as Secretary of Defense, the Koreans view the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield team as arrogant with their unilateral stance. The Koreans feel that Bush and Rumsfield don't have a full complete grasp of the Korean situation. The Korean perspective of the North Korean situation is very different from the U.S. position.

However, Rumsfield has an overriding belief that a "strong America leads aggressively in the right direction, and the world invariably comes around. It's less unilateralism than an "America-knows-best" brand of paternalism. American might and right proved decisive in winning the cold war." This belief that America is right in its path is at the core of the war on terrorism -- and ultimately, when time permits, will bring to heel the "Axis of Evil".

However, some feel that just as McNamara was mesmerized by an anti-Communist stance on virtually all policy decisions, so is Rumsfield in his view of the "axis of evil" which has mesmerized the Bush administration. It is now focused on Iraq while deferring action on North Korea to a later date -- with the exception of cutting off its fuel oil in the middle of winter which may turn everything into a bloody mess in the worst case scenario. (See North Korean Strategy: The USFK View for the American positions in Korea.)

However, Bush/Rumsfield realize that they are pushing the North to the wall -- and at the same time ignoring its plight. Though it is a dangerous game, they know North has NO options. The North Koreans are at the weakest point that they been in 50 years. Its economy is virtually bankrupt. After repeated floods and droughts, its populace is in the midst of a famine which has claimed an estimated 2 million. For the first time in 50 years, the North is cutting their military forces because they simply cannot feed them. Their border guards have to grow their own food to survive and spend much of their time guarding their fields from others. There have been cases of guards being washed away in floods while guarding their fields and rescued in the Imjin River. Though the military has first preference for food and supplies, their pilots don't have enough flying time because of lack fuel -- and don't even have socks -- as reported by a defecting pilot a few years back. Their military hardward is falling apart due to lack of parts. Currently Russian arms sales to North Korea are estimated at about US$10 million a year -- presumably a minimum level for spare parts. North Korea reportedly sought some $100 million of Russian arms supplies per annum, but Moscow has been reluctant to extend new loans to cash-strapped Pyongyang. Russian specialists say the North Korean Air Force is most in need of updating. It has 500 aircraft but only 30 MiG-29 fighters and 35 Su-25 fighters can be classed as being up to date. More than half of the air force is grounded and needs repair and modernization. Isolated and without friends, if it attacked the south, its end would be swift and final. The North Koreans are rattling their sabre, but it is rusted and out-of-date. Bush/Rumsfield can afford to push the envelope.

In December 2002, the Korean played their "nuclear trump card" -- right after Roh Moon-Hyun was elected. Roh campaigned on an anti-American platform and was swept into office by the politically motivated NGO groups and students. A definite rift between the U.S. and South Korea is in the offing as Roh pursues Kim Dae-Jung's "sunshine policy" and process of "engagement." Despite the U.S. stating that it will NOT negotiate with the North until it disarms, the South is pressing forward with a "plan" that gives the North exactly what it wants...which the U.S. has repeatedly said it will not do.

But this does not negate the fact that Rumsfield seems fixated with the idea of the "Axis of Evil" -- especially Iraq and the toppling of the Saddam regime. As was mentioned before, he seems to be a better Secretary of War than a Secretary of Defense. He orchestrated the unconventional war in Afghanistan and now prepares for the conventional war with Iraq. However, Rumsfeld's confrontational manner and a penchant for keeping key decisions confined to a small group of trusted aides has, by some accounts, rankled the professional military. This style is reminiscent of the Kennedy-clan style where decision-making was done within the inner-circle.

The bad blood with the military has its origins in disputes surfaced in Rumsfeld's first year in office when he set in motion a sweeping but secretive review of the strategy that underpins the way US military forces are sized and organized. His management style is similar to McNamarra -- controlling from the top and turning the generals into nothing more than political puppets.

War on Terrorism changes to War on Iraq

Brian Duffy Des Moines Register (Aug 2002)
(Click cartoon to enlarge)

However, the Bush folks are also political animals. This stance was political suicide so Bush sought Congressional approval through open debates. The president sought lawmakers' backing to build public support and to avoid souring congressional relations. But Bush still asserts that congressional consent was not legally necessary -- though it is being downplayed.

No Democratic political figure wanted to touch the issue until AFTER the midterm elections in November 2002, and prefered to push the debate into 2003. However, with Bush pushing for military action in 2002, it required a debate BEFORE the elections. No one questioned the merits of the case against Saddam, just the timing right before November's midterm elections. Democrats claim it was designed to benefit Republican candidates as it implied that the Democrats' preferred domestic issues instead of preparations for military action as the GOP favored.

In September, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle launched an angry tirade against President Bush, accusing him of seeking to politicize the debate over Iraq. But despite this political rhetoric, there was support for the resolution that would authorize the president to use force to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. However, Congress scaled back Bush's request for far-reaching powers to wage war on Iraq before voting on the mandate for war. The intent was to narrow the language to limit action only to Iraq, rather than a mandate that could be invoked for years to come in the region. Some lawmakers wanted the resolution tied to a U.N. ultimatum -- but the Bush administration balked at the notion as it limited U.S. options.

David Horsey, Seattle Intelligencer, WA
Click on cartoon to enlarge

In October, the President received the go-ahead from Congress which gave Bush the green-light to pursue war with Iraq -- though it asked Bush to work through the U.N. FIRST, instead of unilaterally going to war. The political statement was for the U.S. to "speak with one voice" but the vote was hardly unanimous. Though the resolution to put a two-year time limit on the Bush's war powers was defeated, Congress also stated that Bush must report to Congress every 60 days if he does go to war. Thus the Bush administration retained the power to act unilaterally -- but now with the blessing of the Congress.

But the rumblings of dissent started to be heard. It became clear that going it alone against Iraq was not sound militarily. The problems are in trying to support a full-scale attack on Iraq -- as well as provide cleanup operations in Afghanistan -- and continue operations in other areas such as Bosnia.

Though the war in Afghanistan had reached a stage where the sweeps were providing diminishing returns, the U.S. seemed mired down there for a much longer period. Gen. Franks, the commander of the operations there, stated that it would be a long time before the U.S. could leave the area due to "stability" concerns. To some folks who remembered George Bush's promise to NOT get mired down with the Clinton concept of "nation building" attached to military action, this sure sounded like "nation building."

Stumping throughout America, President Bush constantly hammered on how Saddam violated U.N. demands by refusing to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors. U.N. Security Council resolutions passed after the 1991 Gulf War said Iraq must eliminate weapons of mass destruction and the means to produce them. Iraq claimed to have done so, but Iraq refused to admit U.N. arms inspectors since 1998 to verify their claims. Bush harped on how in 1991, Iraq agreed to destroy and stop developing all WMD and long-range missiles, but had continued to possess stockpiles of biological and chemical agents and could be close to building a nuclear weapon. Bush further charged that Iraq continued to shelter and support terrorist groups, including the Abu Nidal organization, despite its pledge to renounce all involvement with terrorism. Of course, George Bush, Jr. noted that in 1993, Iraqi intel tried to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and the 41st chief executive of the U.S., George Bush, Sr.

However, the American public seemed to have trouble fully accepting the Bush administration's efforts to demonize Saddam Hussein. The idea of unilateral action against Iraq seemed strangely repugnent to many Americans -- smacking of "imperialism." Instead Americans supported by nearly a two-thirds margin, the idea that Washington should attack only with support from European allies and the United Nations. In America in October 2002, there was mounting pressure questioning the use of force in Iraq. An NBC poll showed that 64 percent of those polled favored the U.S. entering into a conflict with Iraq ONLY as a member of a coalition and 55 percent favored the U.S. proceeding with a U.N. resolution. All the major news magazines were also questioning the need to invade Iraq to achieve the goals that Bush proposes.

Though there was compelling evidence that the Saddam Hussein regime was pursuing weapons of mass destruction (WMD), the American people were more worried about the economy. They had problems conceptualizing WMD = Terrorism. It was hard for most to understand why we want to invade. Collin Powell attempted to build the case in that Saddam has continued to pursue the WMD in spite of UN injunctions. Powell stated, whether he achieved his goal in nine years or two years it was irrelevant. Once he gained WMD he would use it to destabilize the world. Powell attempted to build the case that Saddam should be stopped BEFORE he got the WMD which would make any invasion impossible. Also, there was genuine disagreement in the administration about how to deal with Iraq. Bush spokesmen generally denied or downplayed the rift, but even in late August, there was public disagreement between Cheney, who had no use for weapons inspections, and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who saw inspections as a necessary first step.

Once the plans for the invasion had crystalized, there were many high-profile former Generals -- including Norman Schwartzkoff and former Chief of Staff Gen McPeak -- who questioned an attack on Iraq without a coalition. Other retired military leaders continued to chime in against the attack -- especially one that would involve the taking of Baghdad at high cost to get at Saddam. More and more former military generals -- or retired Colonels turned military analysts -- were speaking out forcefully against any invasion in news articles and columns.

Tim Menees, Pitsburg, Penn (Sept 2002)
(Click cartoon to enlarge)

Then October, retired Marine Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, who preceded Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks as head of Central Command, came out against a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. He stated the U.S. has other priorities in the Middle East. His concerns are widely shared by many in the leadership of the military but aren't universal, a retired three-star general said. Then four-star Marine Gen. John J. Sheehan publicly joined Zinni in expressing their doubts. Zinni and Sheehan feel that Saddam can easily be contained. Zinni said a lack of knowledge over what weapons Iraq has isn't a sufficient reason to attack. "In other words, we are going to go to war over another intelligence failure,'' Zinni said.

Call for a U.N. Resolution: Bush seized on Secretary of State Colin Powell's idea to "throw down the gauntlet to the United Nations." The President would depict Saddam Hussein as someone who has for 11 years defied U.N. resolutions calling on him to disarm. The United States would become the defender of the United Nations' honor. It was a masterpiece and a coup in deflecting all the international criticism away from the U.S. and focus it on Saddam.

Bush went to the United Nations in September and set his case forth that Iraq has violated the UN mandates 16 times in 11 years. It was the same old speech of telling the UN Security Council that they had to put some muscle behind their mandates and that U.S. was seeking their approval. BUT he stated that the US reserved the right to go it alone if it felt it was in its national security interests. It was a masterpiece of turning the tables from one of being on the defensive from international attacks of Bush's unilateralist "rush to war" -- to one of where Hussein was depicted as the unilateralist who had engaged in a "decade of defiance" to U.N. resolutions -- and Bush himself was a multilateralist working with the UN. "Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence?" This was the question that Bush demanded to be answered and delivered an ultimatum both to Saddam and to the United Nations itself: act now or America will. Bush stated that his timetable was "days or weeks, not months or years" and he launched plans to move a 600-person command center to the compliant Persian Gulf state of Qatar by November.

Bush's pledge to "work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions" to authorize action, marked a major victory for Powell and Bush's closest ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Powell started work to try to win a tough U.N. Security Council resolution giving Saddam an ultimatum, one that would set a deadline of no more than 30 days for admitting U.N. inspectors -- with no negotiations, only a "zero tolerance" inspection which exempts nothing as it did in the past. Bush still reserved the right to act unilaterally. But it was all an uphill battle...and slowly things turned against the U.S.

Milt Priggee Spokane, WA (Sept 2002)
(Click cartoon to enlarge)

The new approach to form a coalition put more pressure on Bush to win consent from his Security Council partners for the use of force. However, the French wished to have a two-step process with the weapons inspectors submitting their findings and THEN issuing an ultimatum if there is non-compliance or openess in the inspection process.

After Bush's speech to the U.N., the Iraqis swiftly agreed to "unconditionally" allow the inspectors in -- and to start "immediate negotiations" on the logistics. The two teams of weapons inspectors were ready to move once the laboratories, housing and logistics had been ironed out.

The Iraqi move was intended to deflate the Bush momentum within the UN. Immediately following the "unconditional" acceptance, Hussein made conciliatory gestures designed to show he wasn't entrenched in his ways. Trying to demonstrate tolerance and forgiveness, he ordered 20,000 political prisoners and common criminals to be set loose. A few days later, he canceled the fee of $200 -- 50 times the average monthly income -- charged to all Iraqis wishing to travel abroad. Hussein was doing a PR blitz on the U.N. delegates. (NOTE: In November, Radio Azadi, which broadcasts from Iraqi Kurdistan, said that the bodies of 12 women, who were freed from prison under an Iraqi amnesty on October 20, were found lying in a vacant lot in Baghdad. The circumstances of their deaths were not known.)

However, Colin Powell said it best when he stated, "Remember, the issue is not inspection, it is disarmament." Washington reminded the UN who they were dealing with by stating, "the Iraqi regime's repeated pattern of accepting inspections "without conditions," and then demanding conditions, often at gunpoint." Washington said that Saddam has played this game of "rope-a-dope" before while continuing to develop his WMD. Sure enough a week after the initial Iraqi announcement, senior Iraqi officials insisted the deal would be off the table if there were a new resolution. Iraqi officials had insisted that inspectors should have to follow previously agreed procedures when visiting presidential sites, including providing the Iraqi government with advance notice and conducting the inspections in the presence of diplomats. The inclusion of "diplomats" makes the proposal a farce and the rest of the "previously agreed procedures" was under the agreement that the Iraqis never complied with in the first place. As Colin Powell said, this was a "rope a dope" routine.

John Trever Albuquerque, NM (Sept 2002)
(Click cartoon to enlarge)

U.N. Resolution and Problems Forming a Coalition: When Bush bowed to public pressure to seek congressional approval, he also said he would seek support from the U.N. Security Council's other four members by talking with the leaders of Britain, Russia, China and France. Of course, he had England's Tony Blair on his side -- though Blair had his fair share of protestors in his country. However, soon the efforts to forge a coalition seemed to start to unravel. In September Chancellor Gerhard Schröder declared that Germany would refuse to provide troops or money for any invasion of Iraq. Russia wanted assurances that the $7 billion dollar debt owed by Iraq will remain in effect before it commits itself. Some small countries have backed Bush -- like Bulgaria and Romania who aspired to NATO membership. Australia was 100 percent behind Bush, but Canada stated that it would have to be convinced further. Sitting on the bench were Turkey, Greece, and Egypt amongst others. Saudi Arabia in November stated that it would not allow troops to use its facilities nor allow overflights. Of course, Syria and Iran were dead set against this invasion idea.

Then there was the very ticklish Kurdish issue. Turkey wanted assurances that Iraq will remain intact as one country without the formation of a Kurdish state in the north. To gain Turkey's support, the Bush administration had promised that there would be no formation of a break-away Kurdish state after the war. This leaves the Iraqi Kurds out to dry. According to New York Times article in October 2002, "The irony of the Iraqi Kurdish condition is that as long as Saddam remains in power in Baghdad, the Kurds have international backing to live in as a de facto state of their own. But once he's gone, the U.S. and its allies insist that the Kurdish enclave rejoin a post-Saddam Iraq. None of the neighboring allies on whose support Washington depends for Saddam's ouster is willing to see Iraq dismembered, with resistance strongest from those states with their own restive Kurdish minorities — Iran, Syria and, most importantly, Turkey. There may also be some Kurdish skepticism of a new war because of the bitter memories of 1991, when the first Bush administration urged Kurds to rise in rebellion, and then allowed them to be slaughtered by Saddam's armies."

The Kurds in the north have volunteered to put 100,000 Kurds on the field to face Saddam, but the U.S. has been cool to this offer because of its ties to Turkey. In November, the Istanbul daily Hurriyet reported that Turkish military leaders had insisted that any U.S. invasion plan not include Iraqi Kurdish militias, known as peshmergas, and that Kirkuk, an oil-rich northern Iraqi city that Kurds were seeing as a future provincial capital, not be placed under Kurdish control. However, on Nightline a retired Army Special Operations Commander stated that the U.S. WOULD use the Kurds in the attack and that Special Ops troops were already on the ground assisting the Kurds in training and gaining intelligence within Iraq from the Kurds. The use of the Kurds would be common-sense to win a war with Iraq, but politically it is not feasible at this time as the U.S. needs Incirlik AB to launch its attack.

In October, Bush tried to use the APEC Conference in Mexico to build an international coalition. Bush tried to convince Asian leaders at the APEC conference in October and was politely turned down. China's leader was invited to the Bush ranch, but again there was no support for his invasion plan.

Then to complicate matters even further, North Korea revealed that it had been continuing its nuclear program inspite of its signature on a 1994 accord to not do so. Though the U.S. immediately nullified its involvement in the accord, South Korea has continued to pursue its interests by retaining its agreements with the North in force. (SEE North Korea Amassing Chemical Weapons, Continuing its Nuclear Weapons Program & Asks for Russian Military Aid .) However, this problem was separate from the Iraqi problem and the Bush administration decided that it should be resolved through diplomatic channels -- instead of confrontation. However, it also stated that the promised oil should be turned off -- though it was KEDO that had the power to do this.

Rex Babin, Sacramento Bee, CA
Click on cartoon to enlarge

Setting the North Korean situation aside, the U.S. became mired down in the U.N. Security Council over the wording of the Iraq resolution. During an open Security Council debate on Iraq in mid-October more than two dozen nations -- including Iraq's closest neighbors and key U.S. allies -- refused to endorse the Bush administration's demand for an authorization of military force if Baghdad fails to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspections. France, Russia and China have veto power in the council and oppose U.S. and British efforts to include in the resolution a threat of military action if Iraq fails to comply with the inspections. They said Iraq must be given a chance to completely disarm without the imminent threat of military action. Diplomats from the three countries have argued that Iraq should be given a chance to cooperate before the use of force is contemplated. They contend that the authorization for military action should be considered in a second resolution only if Iraq obstructs the inspectors.

Dick Wright Columbus Dispatch, OH (Oct 2002)
(Click cartoon to enlarge)

Many U.N. members favored the two-resolution approach proposed by France and backed by Russia and China. Under the French approach, the first resolution would toughen U.N. inspections and warn Iraq that it will face consequences, including the possible use of force, if it doesn't comply with inspections. The second would authorize action against Iraq if it failed to cooperate. Russia and France are circulating their own proposals for disarmament in Iraq, hoping to soften a draft resolution presented by the United States. Both governments believed the initial U.S. proposal would trigger military action against Iraq -- regardless of how delicately the wording was phrased.

The U.S. has conceded that Saddam could remain in power as long as the WMD inspections proceed. It also backed down from its original demand that a new U.N. resolution must authorize military force if Baghdad fails to cooperate with weapons inspectors. Instead, the U.S. floated a compromise which would give inspectors a chance to test Iraq's will to cooperate on the ground. If Iraq then failed to disarm, the Bush administration would agree to return to the Security Council for further debate and possibly another resolution authorizing action. This compromise was turned down.

The U.S. text accused Iraq of a "material breach" of previous U.N. resolutions and warned of "serious consequences" if Iraq failed to meet demands for the full disclosure and dismantling of its programs to produce weapons of mass destruction. France and Russia wanted that language deleted -- or significantly modified -- as it implied a threat of consequences. France and Russia refused to support this draft which meant that the U.S. draft would never be passed. The U.S. submitted another proposed draft modifying the wording.

Washington kept talking positively of growing support for its position in the 15-member Security Council body, but France did not see it that way. The U.S. was stressing the need to get a rousing vote from those countries in the Security Council who were there rotationally, without a veto. Bulgaria, Colombia, Guinea, and Norway were almost certainly on the U.S. side; Mexico, Cameroon and Singapore possible; Ireland and Mauritius were outside shots; and Syria was viewed as a definite "no." Bush tried to woo support at the October 2002 APEC conference, but was rebuffed by most major countries -- the most prominent being China. As time dragged on, there the chances of a "rousing support" for Bush's proposal seemed to dim.

After eight weeks of foot-dragging by the U.N., the U.S. strategy then switched to convince its allies that that Mr. Bush WOULD confront Saddam one way or another. That would force them to choose between backing the United States or swallow a dose of irrelevancy as Bush proceeded without them. Bush "implied" that the his patience was wearing thin by stating repeatedly on American TV that if the U.S. did not get the support in a U.N. resolution, it would go it alone. A unilateral action would have been a slap in the face of the Security Council as it would be tantamount to making the Council irrelevant -- not only for this crisis, but for all future crises. This was hard-ball at its hardest. There was very little worry that anyone would call the U.S. to task as the U.S. was in the midst of deploying its troops to carry out its threat.

However, going it alone would be a very expensive proposition with estimates between $50-100 billion. (The Gulf War cost the American taxpayers $60 billion so the upper cost is more realistic.) Japan whose economy is in the toilet can't be counted on to be the deep pockets like in the Gulf War. In addition, there are realistic fears that the cost of oil may skyrocket causing the U.S. to go into a recession.

Dick Wright Columbus Dispatch, OH (Oct 2002)
(Click cartoon to enlarge)

Unanimous Vote for U.N. Resolution: On November 8, the United Nations agreed to a resolution warning Iraq of "serious consequences" if it bars U.N. inspectors. The U.N. Security Council unanimously approved U.N. Resolution No. 1441 giving weapons inspectors the muscle they need to hunt for illicit weapons in Iraq. The council's approval of the U.S.-draft resolution was a diplomatic coup for the Bush administration as a result of changing of the wording in the resolution that eliminated "hidden triggers" and switched the responsibility for who determined violations from the U.S. to the U.N. weapons inspectors.

The terms of the resolution were clear and devoid of negotiation. If Hussein failed to meet any condition by the deadlines set forth, the Security Council would reassemble and military action would become imminent. The first deadline -- for Iraq to accept or reject those terms -- was one week after the passage of the resolution.

In a surprise move, Syria voted for the resolution making it a unanimous 15-0 vote. The final version of the resolution contained Syrian, French and Russian amendments to reassure their countries that the U.S. would not use the resolution as a "pretext for war." U.S. diplomats provided Damascus, Moscow and others with critical assurances that the resolution wouldn't be used to launch war on Iraq, and the administration would work through the United Nations to reach a peaceful settlement to 12 years of international conflict with Iraq.

Immediately following the passage of the resolution, France, Russia and China issued a joint intepretation of the resolution insisting that it excludes any automatic use of force and that the Security Council would only discuss Iraqi violations reported by weapons inspectors.

However, the U.S. is still free to attack Iraq without a formal second U.N. resolution authorizing the use of force, but the U.S. has promised that it would "consult" with the Security Council before any military action. The resolution requires the Security Council to assess any serious violation that could lead to war -- but Bush has made it clear that the Security Council would not control the U.S. actions. The U.S. position is that the resolution preserved "its right to strike if the council appeared lax in the face of any Iraqi infraction." U.N. Ambassador Negroponte stated, "This resolution doesn't constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq.'' The U.S. position is that the resolution offers Iraq a "last chance" to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction in a peaceful way.

The advance team of UN Inspectors were expected to arrive at Baghdad on Nov 18, though the resolution gives the U.N. inspectors until Dec 23 to start the inspections. The resolution places the responsibility for immediately report Iraqi violations on the U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix and the International Atomic Energy Agency. The council would then assess the violations and decide how to respond.

But the resolution leaves it up to inspectors to decide what constitutes a violation -- an area open for interpretation by the U.S. The passage that declared Iraq in "material breach'' of its U.N. obligations was removed as it would have allowed the U.S., rather than inspectors, to determine whether Iraq had committed an infraction. This was to address French and Russian concerns that "hidden triggers in the language" could automatically spark a U.S.-led attack. Blix's teams will concentrate on efforts to expose any biological or chemical weapons while the atomic energy agency searches for signs of a renewed nuclear program.

A New York Times article stated, "The resolution gives the inspectors sweeping new powers to carry out surprise inspections anywhere in Iraq including Saddam's presidential sites, conduct private interviews with any Iraqi citizen, and seal off swaths of Iraqi territory during inspections. Blix's teams will concentrate on efforts to expose any biological or chemical weapons while the atomic energy agency searches for signs of a renewed nuclear program. In an effort to prevent a repeat of the cat-and-mouse games Iraq played with inspectors during the 1990s, the resolution threatens Iraq with "serious consequences,'' if it obstructs their work." The article stated, "Under a strict timetable, Iraq has until Dec. 8 to declare all its chemical, biological and nuclear programs. Blix said Iraq might have difficulty completing the declaration of its large petrochemical industry in time, but the United States decided against extending the deadline."

While the United States made major concessions to wary allies, the resolution met the White House's key demands for tougher U.N. weapons inspections and the flexibility to take military action against Iraq if inspectors say Baghdad isn't complying. At the same time, it gives Saddam ''a final opportunity'' to cooperate with weapons inspectors, held out the possibility of lifting 12-year-old sanctions imposed after Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait and reaffirm the country's sovereignty.

Immediately following the announcement of the U.N. resolution, Bush promised "the severest consequences" for Saddam Hussein if he failed a final test to comply. "Iraq must now, without delay or negotiation, fully disarm. ... If Iraq fails to comply, the United States and other nations will disarm Saddam Hussein." But Bush said he would not be handcuffed by the resolution, which he said addresses the concerns of allies "without jeopardizing our freedom of action." "Iraq can be certain the old game of cheat and retreat ... will no longer be tolerated," he said. The president did not specifically threaten Iraq with military force, but said only that Saddam could avoid war. "The United States prefers that Iraq meet its obligations voluntarily, yet we are prepared for the alternative," Bush said. "In either case, the just demands of the world will be met."

UN council backs resolution on Iraq, 15-0

Terence Neilan The New York Times
Saturday, November 9, 2002
"Serious" action vowed if inspectors are barred

UNITED NATIONS, New York After more than seven weeks of diplomatic wrangling and finessing, the United Nations Security Council unanimously agreed Friday on a resolution requiring that Iraq sho