Follow us on social

google cta
To the end, Rumsfeld was never held accountable for what he unleashed

To the end, Rumsfeld was never held accountable for what he unleashed

Known for his swagger and jingoistic approach to the job, the former Secretary of Defense later became a symbol of Iraq War failure.

Analysis | Middle East
google cta
google cta

Donald Rumsfeld, a two-time Secretary of Defense under Ford and Bush, former permanent representative to NATO, and former Congressman, died at the age of 88 on Tuesday, according to an announcement from his family. 

Rumsfeld was one of the chief architects and defenders of the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, and he was also responsible for approving illegal interrogation methods that led to the torture of detainees. A longtime ally of then-Vice President Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld was one of the officials most responsible for the greatest American foreign policy debacle since Vietnam, and he became a symbol of the failures of the Bush administration’s management of the Iraq war. He was one of the chief war criminals of the Bush era, and he was never held accountable for the devastation he helped to cause.    

Educated at Princeton, Rumsfeld briefly served in the Navy and then in Congress. He served in the Nixon administration, and then became White House chief of staff to Gerald Ford. Rumsfeld then brought Cheney into the Ford White House when he went to run the Pentagon the first time. Returning to government service in 2001, he served five years under George W. Bush until he was forced out following the Republicans’ drubbing in the 2006 midterm elections.

Rumsfeld was enamored with a so-called “light footprint” approach to war, and under his leadership the military was unprepared for the open-ended occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan that they were ordered to carry out. His plans for the invasion were inadequate in large part because he imagined that the U.S. would be fighting a reprise of Operation Desert Storm. During the autumn before the invasion, he said, “The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990.” 

He infamously dismissed the possibility that the war would drag on beyond one year: “Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that.” He slapped down Gen. Eric Shinseki’s assessment that hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed to occupy Iraq, saying, “the idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far from the mark.” Because he never took seriously the inherently destabilizing effects of a war for regime change, he made no effort to prepare for what would come next. His self-serving claim that “you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time,” was an attempt to deflect from the fact that the army the U.S. had at the time was the one that Rumsfeld wished to have, and the war was one that the United States had chosen to start.

Rumsfeld was a wartime Secretary of Defense almost the entire time he served in the Bush administration, but his leadership in wartime was sorely lacking. As Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold said of him, Rumsfeld made decisions “with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions— or bury the results.” Rumsfeld embodied the hubris and recklessness of the Bush administration. His approval of brutal interrogation methods meant that he also took part in the administration’s criminal behavior. Human Rights Watch summed up his role in the administration’s use of torture this way: “Defense Secretary Rumsfeld created the conditions for members of the U.S. armed forces to commit torture and other war crimes by approving interrogation techniques that violated the Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture.” 

As Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld also presided over the expansion of U.S. security commitments in Europe with the second round of NATO expansion that took place in 2004. He cheered on Ukrainian efforts to join the alliance when he was still in government. After leaving government, he continued to advocate for continued NATO expansion to include Ukraine and Georgia. Just as the Bush administration was doing at the time, Rumsfeld called for granting Ukraine and Georgia Membership Action Plans (MAPs) in 2008. In the end, the decision to open the door to alliance membership at the Bucharest summit contributed to the outbreak of war between Georgia and Russia later that year. This is a reminder that Rumsfeld’s strategic judgment was just as flawed and poor in other regions as it was in the Middle East.

The Iraq war was an unnecessary and illegal preventive war, and Rumsfeld’s part in waging it defines his legacy as one of the top leaders responsible for this crime. Unlike an earlier generation of policymakers chastened by their failures in Vietnam, Rumsfeld had no regrets about running a war that killed thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis while also displacing millions more. In his memoir, Known and Unknown, he continued to support the war without qualification: “Ridding the region of Saddam’s brutal regime has created a more stable and secure world.” 

Even as he was writing those words, the war he helped to start was creating the conditions that would lead to the rise of ISIS and the destabilization of Syria. His unrepentant attitude was typical of top Bush administration officials, and Rumsfeld’s uneventful retirement shows that there is no real accountability in our system for disastrous policy failure and war crimes.


Donald H. Rumsfeld, then U.S. Secretary of Defense, during a Town Hall meeting in the Davis Conference Center, MacDill Air Force Base, Fla., October 11, 2005. (DoD photo by Master Sgt. James M. Bowman)|
google cta
Analysis | Middle East
Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi
Top photo credit: Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi 首相官邸 (Cabinet Public Affairs Office)

Takaichi 101: How to torpedo relations with China in a month

Asia-Pacific

On November 7, Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi stated that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could undoubtedly be “a situation that threatens Japan’s survival,” thereby implying that Tokyo could respond by dispatching Self-Defense Forces.

This statement triggered the worst crisis in Sino-Japanese relations in over a decade because it reflected a transformation in Japan’s security policy discourse, defense posture, and U.S.-Japan defense cooperation in recent years. Understanding this transformation requires dissecting the context as well as content of Takaichi’s parliamentary remarks.

keep readingShow less
Starmer, Macron, Merz G7
Top photo credit: Prime Minister Keir Starmer meets Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and António Costa, President of the European Council at the G7 world leaders summit in Kananaskis, June 15, 2025. Picture by Simon Dawson / No 10 Downing Street

The Europeans pushing the NATO poison pill

Europe

The recent flurry of diplomatic activity surrounding Ukraine has revealed a stark transatlantic divide. While high level American and Ukrainian officials have been negotiating the U.S. peace plan in Geneva, European powers have been scrambling to influence a process from which they risk being sidelined.

While Europe has to be eventually involved in a settlement of the biggest war on its territory after World War II, so far it’s been acting more like a spoiler than a constructive player.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig
Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Saudi leans in hard to get UAE out of Sudan civil war

Middle East

As Saudi Arabia’s powerful crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), swept through Washington last week, the agenda was predictably packed with deals: a trillion-dollar investment pledge, access to advanced F-35 fighter jets, and coveted American AI technology dominated the headlines. Yet tucked within these transactions was a significant development for the civil war in Sudan.

Speaking at the U.S.-Saudi Investment Forum President Donald Trump said that Sudan “was not on my charts,” viewing the conflict as “just something that was crazy and out of control” until the Saudi leader pressed the issue. “His majesty would like me to do something very powerful having to do with Sudan,” Trump recounted, adding that MBS framed it as an opportunity for greatness.

The crown prince’s intervention highlights a crucial new reality that the path to peace, or continued war, in Sudan now runs even more directly through the escalating rivalry between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The fate of Sudan is being forged in the Gulf, and its future will be decided by which side has more sway in Trump’s White House.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.