The recent comments by Senator McCain about Secretary Rumsfeld's leadership have sparked an interesting debate within this forum.  Rather than sniping at each other, I suggest we try and diagnose the problem so it doesn't happen again.

My hypothesis is that Bush failed to clearly communicate his overall strategy to Rumsfeld.  However, I also suspect that Rumsfeld was a little reluctant to hear what his commander-in-chief was telling him.  Bush hopes his legacy is a democratized middle east.  Ambassador Derijian, Rick Stoll, and the rest of the gang at the Baker Policy Institute have been promoting the idea that democracies don't fight each other to the Bush family for years.  Bush 1, with his CIA experience, was probably a little more cynical about the results of a power vacuum.  Bush 2, who thinks God is on our side and democracy is the natural state of man, really bought in to the regional democratization idea.

When Bush won the election, he was already looking for a way to begin the democratization process.  The attacks on 911 made Afghanistan the clear candidate to begin the process and force rather than diplomacy the clear method.  We probably would have remained focused on Afghanistan until the country was stable, had Saddam not made such an a$$ of himself.  Throwing out the inspectors and refusing to share the documentation of the transport or destruction of the chemical weapons discovered during the first gulf war, just gave Bush the excuse he needed to move on to country #2 on an accelerated time table.

If the Prez had made clear to Don that the strategic planning for the military should be grounded in the vision of regional democratization in the middle east, then things probably would have turned out differently.  Rumsfeld wanted to build shock troops and quick strike mobility.  His vision was quick assault and limited exposure.  Rumsfeld, who I believe is significantly more intelligent than our current commander-in-chief, undoubtedly learned from the Russian fiasco in Afghanistan.  His strong belief that an occupying force could never succeed in this region impaired his willingness to fully serve the President.

So the conversation probably went something like this...

Bush:  Don, we have to get rid of Saddam so the Iraqi people can elect a legitimate government and serve as an example for the rest of the region.

Rumsfeld:  So you want me to get rid of Saddam.

Bush:  Yes, Don.  With the dictator out of the way, democracy will flourish and the Iraqi people will know freedoms they have been denied for generations.

Rumsfeld:  So you want me to get rid of Saddam.

Bush:  Yeah, get rid of him and we'll show the rest of the region that democracy can provide stability and a quality of life far beyond what they ever imagined possible.

Rumsfeld:  Great Mr. President.  This is just the mission we've been preparing for.  We can be in Bagdad before they know what hit 'em.  Saddam will have no command and control of his troops within a couple of days, and we'll have him on the run within weeks.

Bush:  That's great Don.  Then the Iraqi people can begin to build their new country using democracy and personal liberties as the foundation for their legitimate government.

Rumsfeld:  They'll think God himself is coming for Saddam.  Shock and Awe, baby.

Bush: Okay...well...that's fine Don.  Once Saddam is gone, we can begin the process of establishing security so the Iraqis can get on with their destiny of taking control of their lives back from a despot.

Rumsfeld:  Right.  We're so right on for this mission, I'll make Powell and Schwarzkopf look like amateurs.  And get the whole thing done for half what we spent on Desert Storm.

Bush:  That's fine Don.  Then they'll have their elections and we'll have a democratic axis running right through the region, Afghanistan-Iraq-Israel.  With a friendly Jordan and Turkey providing stability, we can work on the Palestinian crisis, then turn to Syria and Iran.

Rumsfeld:  Don't worry Mr. President, Saddam is as good as gone.

The secretary was probably right, given the lack of institutions to support a democracy and the politically charged and militarily equipped factions within the country.  But the point is, the commander-in-chief had a different agenda, even if it was wrong.  Rumsfeld should have either convinced Bush of the impossibility of his wished for legacy or resigned and let someone who bought the President's vision run the show.