現在地 HOME > 掲示板
> 戦争４１ > 833.html
★阿修羅♪
|
現在地 HOME > 掲示板
> 戦争４１ > 833.html
★阿修羅♪
|
|
●表題のようなラムズフェルド国防長官の10月16日付けのメモが、
22日の『USAトゥデイ』紙で暴露されました。
●このメモ発覚についてのニュースは、日本でもいくつかもメディアで
報じられました。
マスコミは「対イラク戦争で強気なことを言っていた国防総省が内部では
動揺している」といった論調で報じていましたが、むしろこのメモの
見どころは、形勢不利と見た米国国防総省が、あらたな「戦争遂行機関」の
創設を検討しているという戦略的意図を示している点にあるでしょう。
そういう理由で、このメモの全文を見ておく価値があると思い、『USAトウデイ』
が報じたメモ全文も示しておきます。（邦訳つき）
さらに参考のため、このメモについての『USAトゥデイ』の暴露報道と、その後の
同紙のフォローアップ記事を（原文のまま）示しておきます。
●けれども、こうしたメモが、発行規模や娯楽路線や大衆性という意味で
米国の“読売新聞”ともいうべき『USAトゥディ』がなぜ「暴露」できたか、
という点に注目しておく必要がありそうです。
これは国防総省筋からの意図的な情報リークによる“釣り”なのですが、
その目論見は何なのか？
ひょっとすると、国防総省の枠組みには収まらないような、まったく新たな
不正規戦争を全面的に行なうための軍政機構の公然的設置にむけた観測気球
かもしれません。
●ところで、日本のメディアの報道では、ラムズフェルドは「対テロ戦争」に
ついてのメモを出した、という表現になっていますが、これで取材不足と
米国の新聞の抄訳リライトでお気軽な記事を作っていた手口を露呈して
しまいましたね。
たしかにこのニュースを“すっぱ抜いた”（ただし本当にすっぱ抜いたのか、
政府筋の観測気球としての“外見上だけ「すっぱ抜き」にみえる偽装」か、は
検討の余地があるでしょう）『USAトゥデイ』の記事には「Rumsfeld's
war-on-terror memo」という記述があります。直訳すれば「ラムズフェルドの
対テロ戦争メモ」。 ……しかしこのメモ自体には「SUBJECT: Global War on
Terrorism」とちゃんと記されている。訳せば「案件：対テロリズム世界戦争」。
米軍・国防総省当局は、米国が「対テロリズム」の「世界戦争」(グロウバル・
ウォーフェア）を戦っている、という認識なのです。)
我々が知っているかどうかは別として、米軍自身は、「世界戦争」を展開している
という認識なのです。
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
●まず、10/16ラムズフェルド・メモの発覚について報じた日本の
マスコミ報道をおさらいしておきます。
▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼
（毎日新聞）[10月23日18時44分更新]
http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20031024-00002016-mai-int
＜イラク＞戦後統治の混迷を認める 米国防長官
イラクとアフガニスタンでの戦いは「長く厳しい苦闘になるだろう」――。ラムズフェルド米国防長官がイラク情勢の混迷を認め、対応の検討を指示した国防総省幹部あての内部メモが明らかになった。長官はこれまで強気の発言を繰り返してきただけに「国防総省のサイドから初めて反省が出てきた」と話題になっている。
▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲
▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼
（毎日新聞）[10月24日11時54分更新]
http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20031024-00003039-mai-int
＜対テロ戦争＞「勝っているか負けているのか」米国防長官メモ
ラムズフェルド米国防長官が今月、イラク情勢の混迷を認め、対応の検討を指示した国防総省幹部あての内部メモが明らかになった。その中で長官は「勝っているのか、負けているのか、それを測る方法を欠いている」と不満をにじませ、国防総省内などに対テロ戦争のため新組織を設立する必要性についての検討を求めている。
---------------------------------------------------
（毎日新聞）[10月24日11時54分更新]
http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20031024-00001039-mai-int
＜対テロ戦争＞「勝っているか負けているのか」米国防長官メモ
【ワシントン佐藤千矢子】イラクとアフガニスタンでの戦いは「長く厳しい苦闘になるだろう」――。ラムズフェルド米国防長官が今月、イラク情勢の混迷を認め、対応の検討を指示した国防総省幹部あての内部メモが明らかになった。
これまでイラク戦争批判に強気の発言を繰り返してきた長官は２３日の会見で「対テロ戦争は困難なものになると初めから言っている」と釈明したが、米政界では「国防総省の文民サイドから初めて反省が出てきた」（民主党のバイデン上院議員）との受け止め方が大勢だ。
２２日付けの米紙ＵＳＡトゥデーが報じたのを受けて、国防総省がメモのコピーを公表した。今月１６日付けで、ウルフォウィッツ国防副長官、マイヤーズ統合参謀本部議長ら４人の幹部にあてて書かれた。この中で長官は「対テロ戦争に勝っているのか、負けているのか、それを測る方法を欠いている」などと、イラク戦後統治の混乱への不満をにじませている。
さらに国防総省という巨大組織を「対テロ戦争を成功裏に戦えるよう早急に変革することは不可能」と指摘し、同省内か外部に対テロ戦争のための「新組織」を設立する必要性について検討するよう求め、「会議で議論するので準備してほしい」と結んでいる。
長官が省内議論を喚起するため内部メモを回すのはよく知られた話で、今回のメモもその一環として作成されたものとみられる。
▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲
▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼
（ロイター）[10月24日15時25分更新]
http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20031024-00000687-reu-int
米国のメッセージ効果的に伝える新たな機関が必要＝米国防長官
［ワシントン ２４日 ロイター］ ラムズフェルド米国防長官は、２４日付のワシントン・タイムズとのインタビューで、米国はより効果的にメッセージを伝える必要がある、とし、国際テロを相手にした「思想戦争」を勝ち抜くため新機関が必要になるかもしれない、と述べた。
同長官は、「我々はテロとの戦いに加え、思想戦争の最中にある。思想は重要だ。聞き手を説得させるように伝える必要がある」と述べた。
また、「人々の大半はテロを信じず、無実の人を殺すことがよいことだと思っていない。より多くの人々に声を上げて欲しい」としている。
同長官は、思想をめぐる戦いで優位に立ち、テロや過激派の教義を抑えるため、政府内部に「２１世紀情報局」を設立することを示唆した。
同長官は、同長官が最近送付した側近に宛てたメモでイラクやアフガニスタンの情勢について悲観的な見方を示したことについては、軍の上層部に「危機感」を持ってもらうことを意図したものだ、と強調した。
▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
●次に、これが「10/16ラムズフェルド・メモ」の全文です。
（ただしこれは『USAトゥデイ』が“すっぱ抜いた”ものですから、
ひょっとすると、同紙の操作が入っているかもれません。）
▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼
●USA Today 2003年10月22日
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/executive/rumsfeld-memo.htm
10/22/2003 - Updated 01:18 AM ET
Rumsfeld's war-on-terror memo
【ラムズフェルドの対テロ戦争メモ】
Below is the full text of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's memo on the war on terror:
【ドナルド・ラムズフェルド国防長官の対テロ戦争に関するメモの全文は次のとおり――】
----------------------------------------------------------------
October 16, 2003
【2003年10月16日】
TO: Gen. Dick Myers
Paul Wolfowitz
Gen. Pete Pace
Doug Feith
【提出先：リチャード・マイヤーズ空軍大将（統合参謀本部議長）
ポール・ウォルフォウィッツ国防副長官
ピーター・ペイス海兵隊大将（統合本部副議長）
ダグラス・フェイト政策担当国防時間 】
FROM: Donald Rumsfeld
【提出者：ドナルド・ラムズフェルド国防長官】
SUBJECT: Global War on Terrorism
【案件：対テロリズム世界戦争】
The questions I posed to combatant commanders this week were: Are we winning or losing the Global War on Terror? Is DoD changing fast enough to deal with the new 21st century security environment? Can a big institution change fast enough? Is the USG changing fast enough?
【戦闘に臨む司令官たちに私が今週呈示した質問は下記の通り：我々はテロを対する世界戦争で勝ちつつあるのか、それとも負けつつあるのか？ 新たな21世紀の安全保障環境に対応できるほど速やかに国防総省は変革を進めているのか？ 大きな機構改革を十分迅速に進めることは可能なのか？ 合衆国政府は十分迅速に変革を進めつつあるのか？】
DoD has been organized, trained and equipped to fight big armies, navies and air forces. It is not possible to change DoD fast enough to successfully fight the global war on terror; an alternative might be to try to fashion a new institution, either within DoD or elsewhere ? one that seamlessly focuses the capabilities of several departments and agencies on this key problem.
【国防総省はこれまで巨大な陸海空軍戦力と戦うことを目的にして編成・訓練・装備されてきた。対テロ世界戦争を成功裏に戦うための変革を国防総省が十分な速さで進めることは不可能である。つまり国防総省の内部または外部に、新たな一大機構を創設するという代替措置を検討してもよいのではないか？ この重大案件について幾つかの象徴の能力をじっくりと吟味する必要があろう。】
With respect to global terrorism, the record since Septermber 11th seems to be:
【世界規模のテロリズムに関して9/11以降の展開を眺めると：】
We are having mixed results with Al Qaida, although we have put considerable pressure on them ? nonetheless, a great many remain at large.
【我々はアルカイダについては彼らにかなりの圧力をかけてきたが、勝敗相半ばという結果ではないか？ もっとも、大勢の結果は今後出るものであろうが。】
USG has made reasonable progress in capturing or killing the top 55 Iraqis.
【合衆国政府はイラク上層部55人の捕獲と抹殺でそれなりの進展をみた。】
USG has made somewhat slower progress tracking down the Taliban ? Omar, Hekmatyar, etc.
【合衆国政府はタリバンの追跡では、かなり出遅れているのではないか？ オマルとかヘクマティアルなどは。】
With respect to the Ansar Al-Islam, we are just getting started.
【アンサル・アル・イスラムについては、我々は着手したばかりである。】
Have we fashioned the right mix of rewards, amnesty, protection and confidence in the US?
【我々は米国内で、報酬と目こぼしと保護と信頼が適度に混ざった成果を生みだしてきたか？】
Does DoD need to think through new ways to organize, train, equip and focus to deal with the global war on terror?
【国防総省は対テロ世界戦争を扱うことができる組織編成・訓練・装備・焦点化の新たな方法を、結論が出るまで徹底的に検討する必要があるのではないか？】
Are the changes we have and are making too modest and incremental? My impression is that we have not yet made truly bold moves, although we have have made many sensible, logical moves in the right direction, but are they enough?
【我々がこれまで実施し、現在すすめている変革は、あまりにも緩慢で成長速度が遅すぎるのではないか？ 私の印象をいえば、我々はこれまで正しい方向にむけて賢明で理にかなった展開をしてきたとは思うが、しかしまだ真に大胆な展開は行なっていないと思う。それとも現状のやりかたで十分なのだろうか？】
Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?
【今のところ我々には、自分たちが対テロ世界戦争に勝利しているのか敗北しているのかを測る術がない。神学校だの過激派聖職者だのが我々と戦わせるために採用し、訓練し展開している人数よりも多くのテロリストを、我々は日々、捕獲し抹殺し威嚇や説得で行動を思いとどまらせることが出来ているのだろうか？】
Does the US need to fashion a broad, integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists? The US is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists. The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' costs of millions.
【米国は次世代のテロリストをくい止めるための広範かつ統一的な計画を策定する必要があるのではないか？ 米国は長期的視野に立った計画には比較的わずかな力量しか投入していないが、我々はテロリストを阻止するために莫大な努力を投入しつつある。費用と利益を勘案すると、我々は割に合わないことをしている！ テロリストたちは百万ドル規模の費用で済ませているのに、それに対する我々の費用は十億ドル規模にもなるのだから。】
Do we need a new organization?
【我々には新たな機関が必要ではないか？】
How do we stop those who are financing the radical madrassa schools?
【過激派の神学校に資金提供している連中をどうやって阻止するか？】
Is our current situation such that "the harder we work, the behinder we get"?
【我々の現状は「頑張れば頑張るだけ後れをとっていく」ではないのか？】
It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog.
【連合国がアフガニスタンやイラクに一定の範囲で勝利しうることは明らかだろう。だがそれは長く苦しい骨折り仕事になるだろう。】
Does CIA need a new finding?
【CIAは新たな結果を必要としているか？】
《訳注：報道された原文では「finding（知見）」になっているが、文脈から考えてここはひょっとすると、元のラムズフェルド・メモでは「funding(財源)」だったのかもしれまい。》
Should we create a private foundation to entice radical madradssas to a more moderate course?
【過激派の神学校を誘惑してもっと穏健な道を選ばせることができるような、民間の資金供与機関を創設すべきか？】
What else should we be considering?
【この他に我々が検討すべき課題は何か？】
Please be prepared to discuss this at our meeting on Saturday or Monday.
【土曜か月曜に会議を開くので、この案件を論じる用意をしておいてほしい。】
Thanks.
【以上。】
▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
●「10/16ラムズフェルド・メモ」についての『USAトゥデイ』の“暴露”記事
と、その後のフォローアップ報道
▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼
●USA Today 2003年10月22日
http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20031022/5609351s.htm
Page 1A
Defense memo: A grim outlook Rumsfeld spells out doubts on Iraq, terror
By Dave Moniz and Tom Squitieri
USA TODAY
WASHINGTON -- The United States has no yardstick for measuring progress in the war on terrorism, has not ''yet made truly bold moves'' in fighting al-Qaeda and other terror groups, and is in for a ''long, hard slog'' in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a memo that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sent to top-ranking Defense officials last week.
Despite upbeat statements by the Bush administration, the memo to Rumsfeld's top staff reveals significant doubts about progress in the struggle against terrorists. Rumsfeld says that ''it is not possible'' to transform the Pentagon quickly enough to effectively fight the anti-terror war and that a ''new institution'' might be necessary to do that.
The memo, which diverges sharply from Rumsfeld's mostly positive public comments, offers one of the most candid and sobering assessments to date of how top administration officials view the 2-year-old war on terrorism. It suggests that significant work remains and raises a number of probing questions but few detailed proposals.
''Are we winning or losing the Global War on Terror?'' Rumsfeld asks in the Oct. 16 memo, which goes on to cite ''mixed results'' against al-Qaeda, ''reasonable progress'' tracking down top Iraqis and ''somewhat slower progress'' in apprehending Taliban leaders. ''Is our current situation such that 'the harder we work, the behinder we get'? '' he wrote.
Pentagon spokesman Lawrence DiRita declined to comment specifically on the memo, but he said Rumsfeld's style is to ''ask penetrating questions'' to provoke candid discussion. ''He's trying to keep a sense of urgency alive.''
Among Rumsfeld's observations in the two-page memo:
* The United States is ''just getting started'' in fighting the Iraq-based terror group Ansar Al-Islam.
* The war is hugely expensive. ''The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' cost of millions.''
* Postwar stabilization efforts are very difficult. ''It is pretty clear the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog.''
The memo was sent to Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Marine Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs; and Douglas Feith, undersecretary of Defense for policy.
Rumsfeld asks whether the Defense Department is moving fast enough to adapt to fighting terrorists and whether the United States should create a private foundation to entice radical Islamic schools to a ''more moderate course.'' Rumsfeld says the schools, known as madrassas, may be churning out new terrorists faster than the United States can kill or capture them.
The memo is not a policy statement, but a tool for shaping internal discussion. It highlights a Rumsfeld trait that supporters say is one of his greatest strengths: a willingness to challenge subordinates to constantly reassess problems. The memo prods Rumsfeld's most senior advisers to think in new ways about the war on terrorism at a time when many are preoccupied with the 7-month-old war in Iraq.
In public, the Bush administration has been upbeat in describing the war on terrorism. Attorney General John Ashcroft has noted that two-thirds of al-Qaeda's leadership has been captured or killed.
Last month, Rumsfeld told PBS that ''al-Qaeda has been put under enormous pressure'' and ''their ability to function has been significantly affected.''
▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲
▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼
●USA Today 2003年10月22日
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-10-22-defense-memo-usat_x.htm
Posted 10/22/2003 12:24 AM Updated 10/22/2003 8:53 PM
After grim Rumsfeld memo, White House supports him
By Dave Moniz and Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON ? The United States has no yardstick for measuring progress in the war on terrorism, has not "yet made truly bold moves" in fighting al-Qaeda and other terror groups, and is in for a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a memo that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sent to top-ranking Defense officials last week.
----------------------------------------------------------------
【写真】Rumsfeld discussed various topics including the situation in Iraq and troop morale during a news conference at the Pentagon Tuesday. By Heesoon Yim, AP
http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2003/10/22-rumsfeld-inside.jpg
----------------------------------------------------------------
White House press secretary Scott McClellan, traveling with President Bush in Australia, reacted by voicing support for Rumsfeld. "That's exactly what a strong and capable secretary of defense like Secretary Rumsfeld should be doing," said McClellan.
"The president has always said it will require thinking differently. It's a different type of war," McClellan said.
Three members of Congress who met with Rumsfeld Wednesday morning said the defense secretary gave them copies of the memo and discussed it with them.
"He's asking the tough questions we all need to be asking," said Rep. Jim Turner, D-Texas.
Despite upbeat statements by the Bush administration, the memo to Rumsfeld's top staff reveals significant doubts about progress in the struggle against terrorists. Rumsfeld says that "it is not possible" to transform the Pentagon quickly enough to effectively fight the anti-terror war and that a "new institution" might be necessary to do that. (Related item: Rumsfeld's memo)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/executive/rumsfeld-memo.htm
The memo, which diverges sharply from Rumsfeld's mostly positive public comments, offers one of the most candid and sobering assessments to date of how top administration officials view the 2-year-old war on terrorism. It suggests that significant work remains and raises a number of probing questions but few detailed proposals.
"Are we winning or losing the Global War on Terror?" Rumsfeld asks in the Oct. 16 memo, which goes on to cite "mixed results" against al-Qaeda, "reasonable progress" tracking down top Iraqis and "somewhat slower progress" in apprehending Taliban leaders. "Is our current situation such that 'the harder we work, the behinder we get'? " he wrote.
Pentagon spokesman Lawrence DiRita declined to comment specifically on the memo, but he said Rumsfeld's style is to "ask penetrating questions" to provoke candid discussion. "He's trying to keep a sense of urgency alive."
Among Rumsfeld's observations in the two-page memo:
-- The United States is "just getting started" in fighting the Iraq-based terror group Ansar Al-Islam.
-- The war is hugely expensive. "The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' cost of millions."
-- Postwar stabilization efforts are very difficult. "It is pretty clear the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog."
The memo was sent to Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Marine Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs; and Douglas Feith, undersecretary of Defense for policy.
Rumsfeld asks whether the Defense Department is moving fast enough to adapt to fighting terrorists and whether the United States should create a private foundation to entice radical Islamic schools to a "more moderate course." Rumsfeld says the schools, known as madrassas, may be churning out new terrorists faster than the United States can kill or capture them.
The memo is not a policy statement, but a tool for shaping internal discussion. It highlights a Rumsfeld trait that supporters say is one of his greatest strengths: a willingness to challenge subordinates to constantly reassess problems. The memo prods Rumsfeld's most senior advisers to think in new ways about the war on terrorism at a time when many are preoccupied with the 7-month-old war in Iraq.
In public, the Bush administration has been upbeat in describing the war on terrorism. Attorney General John Ashcroft has noted that two-thirds of al-Qaeda's leadership has been captured or killed.
-------------
Contributing: Kevin Johnson, Jim Drinkard and The Associated Press
▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲
▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼
●USA Today 2003年10月23日
http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20031023/5613358s.htm
Page 6A
Rumsfeld memo prompts praise and told-you-so's
By Dave Moniz and Tom Squitieri
USA TODAY
WASHINGTON -- Reaction to a Pentagon memo highlighting Donald Rumsfeld's concerns about the war on terrorism was mixed Wednesday. Supporters applauded the Defense secretary's candor, and some Bush administration foes cited it as proof the war is floundering.
The Oct. 16 memo, sent to four top Pentagon officials, offered an unusually candid assessment of the U.S. fight against global terrorism and raised a number of pointed questions about the government's strategies. First reported by USA TODAY, the memo said the United States has no way to measure whether it is winning or losing the war, has not made ''truly bold moves'' to fight terrorists and is in for ''a long, hard slog'' in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden, the senior Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said the Rumsfeld memo shows the administration is facing the prospect that its Iraq policy is not working.
''Rumsfeld has never admitted the facts before,'' Biden said. ''This is the first scent of introspection that I have even whiffed out of the civilian side of the Defense Department.''
Others saw the memo as a sign Rumsfeld has a firm grasp on the challenges in the war on terrorism.
''I think it is pretty impressive,'' said Loren Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute, a conservative think tank. ''It shows he is doing what a CEO does -- asking the hard, strategic questions.''
In his two-page memo, Rumsfeld said that it is ''not possible'' to change the Pentagon fast enough to ''successfully'' fight the war on terrorism, that the government has made little effort to craft a long-term plan for fighting terrorism, and that U.S. forces have achieved only ''mixed results'' in destroying al-Qaeda. The memo suggested that the government might need a ''new institution'' to fight the war and should consider a way to counter radical Islamic schools that are churning out terrorists.
Asked about the document during an appearance Wednesday afternoon on Capitol Hill, Rumsfeld said he was glad a number of important issues cited in the memo were being debated.
''How many people are being taught to go out as suicide bombers and kill people? How does that inflow get reduced? No one can answer that,'' Rumsfeld said.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan, traveling with President Bush in Australia, voiced support for Rumsfeld.
''That's exactly what a strong and capable secretary of Defense like Secretary Rumsfeld should be doing,'' McClellan said. ''The president has always said it will require thinking differently. It's a different type of war.''
James Dobbins, a former U.S. ambassador and now director of international security and defense for the Rand think tank, said Rumsfeld's call for a critical review of the war effort is well founded. Dobbins said the efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq could ''stand some significant re-evaluation.'' Dobbins said solving the problem may call for ''restructuring institutions.''
Many members of Congress said it was critical that the questions Rumsfeld raised be addressed.
''This is a far-reaching call for his advisers to think outside the box,'' said Rep. Jim Turner, D-Texas, who met with Rumsfeld Wednesday.
''Are we winning or losing the global war on terrorism? Those questions need to be answered,'' said Missouri Rep. Ike Skelton, the senior Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee.
Rep. Harold Ford, D-Tenn., was more critical. He said the memo showed the administration has exaggerated its success in the war on terrorism.
A former Pentagon official said there were few new ideas in the memo. Robert Andrews, former head of the Pentagon's Office for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict, said Rumsfeld has been pushing his subordinates for two years to craft new and innovative ways to fight terrorists.
''These are the questions he has been asking since Sept. 11,'' Andrews said. ''The fact that he is still asking them said something.''
▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲
▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼
●USA Today 2003年10月23日
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/shapiro/2003-10-23-hype_x.htm
Posted 10/23/2003 10:19 PM
Rumsfeld memo offers honest display of doubts about war
"The terrorists hide and strike within free societies, so we're draining their funds, disrupting their plans, finding their leaders."
-- George W. Bush, speech to the Australian Parliament, Wednesday
"Is our current situation such that 'the harder we work, the behinder we get?' "
-- Donald Rumsfeld, internal Defense Depart-ment memo, Oct. 16
The Secretary of Defense undoubtedly wishes that his private, non-classified musings about the war on terrorism had not been leaked to USA TODAY. As Rumsfeld put it Wednesday at the beginning of a Capitol Hill press conference, "Well, if I had wanted it published, I would have issued it as a press release, which I didn't do."
But viewed from the perspective of ordinary citizens, this latest version of the Pentagon Papers represents one of the healthier developments to hit Washington in months. For the first time in recent memory, a high-ranking administration official has been quoted expressing honest doubts about the long-term conduct of the global war that defines this decade.
It is easy to play gotcha games and contrast Rumsfeld's observations in his private memo with his recent comments in public settings. During an Oct. 10 discussion about Iraq on Fox News, Rumsfeld said, "Coalition forces do something like 1,700 patrols a day, and of those, less than one-tenth of 1% end up with any conflict of any kind. That's a relatively small percentage." That bit of statistical spin is akin to an airline executive boasting that 99.9% of all commercial flights land safely.
But six days later in his two-page memo sent to four top Pentagon civilian and military officials, Rumsfeld observed, "It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog." That sense of gritty realism seems, of course, at odds with the "Mission Accomplished" triumphalism that accompanied the president's aircraft-carrier landing May 1 to celebrate victory over Saddam Hussein.
At a Pentagon briefing Thursday, Rumsfeld playfully defended his word choice by pointing out that the Oxford English Dictionary's first definition of slog is "to hit or strike hard." But a second definition, drawn from The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, calls it "a spell of hard steady work" and makes far more sense in the context of his memo.
No matter how you define the word, the phrase "long, hard slog" is not likely to pop up in next year's gauzy TV commercials urging Bush's re-election. Instead, the Bush team seems to be following the dictates of political message discipline in constantly accentuating the positive.
Perhaps the most difficult question for outsiders to unravel is the degree to which the president and his top advisers believe their own public rhetoric. A decade from now, historians will probably still be arguing over whether Bush and Company went into Iraq convinced that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction or whether they consciously slanted ambiguous scraps of intelligence to make a political case for war. A similar debate is likely to be raging over the reasons Rumsfeld and other senior Pentagon officials appear to have been woefully ill-prepared for the chaos and the continuing attacks that occurred following the regime's collapse.
This is why the Rumsfeld memo offers such a fascinating window on the thought processes that animate the 71-year-old Defense secretary. Designed to frame the discussion at a high-level Pentagon meeting, the memo raises a series of shrewd questions about the nature of America's new global war. Undoubtedly aware of the way battlefield body-count numbers deceived Defense Secretary Robert McNamara during the Vietnam War, Rumsfeld writes, "Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than ... the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?"
At his briefing Thursday, Rumsfeld acknowledged a certain pride in his handiwork: "I re-read the memo in the paper and thought, 'Not bad.' " But rather than expanding on his provocative notions, the Defense secretary instead took refuge in tough-guy oratory when he declared, "We're finding these terrorists where they are and we're rooting them out. And we're capturing and we're killing them. It's difficult work. It won't be over anytime soon."
Such sentiments represent a safe harbor for Rumsfeld. There is never any risk for a public official in endlessly repeating the obvious. But under the curious folkways of Washington, too much truth-telling and question-raising can only spell trouble. For all his jaunty tone Thursday, Rumsfeld obviously realizes that this leaked memo can only further weaken his position with the White House at a time when national security adviser Condoleezza Rice has already asserted a coordinating role in the Iraqi reconstruction.
It would be unfortunate if the flap over the Rumsfeld memo stifles candor within the administration. For as the Defense secretary recognized, the long, hard slog against terrorism requires innovative ideas and public officials bold enough to express them.
Walter Shapiro's column appears Wednesdays and Fridays. E-mail him at wshapiro@usatoday.com
▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲
▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼
●USA Today 2003年10月24日
http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20031024/5618338s.htm
Page 5A
Rumsfeld memo offers honest display of doubts about war
By Walter Shapiro
''The terrorists hide and strike within free societies, so we're draining their funds, disrupting their plans, finding their leaders.''
-- George W. Bush, speech to the Australian Parliament, Wednesday
''Is our current situation such that 'the harder we work, the behinder we get?' ''
-- Donald Rumsfeld, internal Defense Depart- ment memo, Oct. 16
The Secretary of Defense undoubtedly wishes that his private, non-classified musings about the war on terrorism had not been leaked to USA TODAY. As Rumsfeld put it Wednesday at the beginning of a Capitol Hill press conference, ''Well, if I had wanted it published, I would have issued it as a press release, which I didn't do.''
But viewed from the perspective of ordinary citizens, this latest version of the Pentagon Papers represents one of the healthier developments to hit Washington in months. For the first time in recent memory, a high-ranking administration official has been quoted expressing honest doubts about the long-term conduct of the global war that defines this decade.
It is easy to play gotcha games and contrast Rumsfeld's observations in his private memo with his recent comments in public settings. During an Oct. 10 discussion about Iraq on Fox News, Rumsfeld said, ''Coalition forces do something like 1,700 patrols a day, and of those, less than one-tenth of 1% end up with any conflict of any kind. That's a relatively small percentage.'' That bit of statistical spin is akin to an airline executive boasting that 99.9% of all commercial flights land safely.
But six days later in his two-page memo sent to four top Pentagon civilian and military officials, Rumsfeld observed, ''It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog.'' That sense of gritty realism seems, of course, at odds with the ''Mission Accomplished'' triumphalism that accompanied the president's aircraft-carrier landing May 1 to celebrate victory over Saddam Hussein.
At a Pentagon briefing Thursday, Rumsfeld playfully defended his word choice by pointing out that the Oxford English Dictionary's first definition of slog is ''to hit or strike hard.'' But a second definition, drawn from The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, calls it ''a spell of hard steady work'' and makes far more sense in the context of his memo.
No matter how you define the word, the phrase ''long, hard slog'' is not likely to pop up in next year's gauzy TV commercials urging Bush's re-election. Instead, the Bush team seems to be following the dictates of political message discipline in constantly accentuating the positive.
Perhaps the most difficult question for outsiders to unravel is the degree to which the president and his top advisers believe their own public rhetoric. A decade from now, historians will probably still be arguing over whether Bush and Company went into Iraq convinced that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction or whether they consciously slanted ambiguous scraps of intelligence to make a political case for war. A similar debate is likely to be raging over the reasons Rumsfeld and other senior Pentagon officials appear to have been woefully ill-prepared for the chaos and the continuing attacks that occurred following the regime's collapse.
This is why the Rumsfeld memo offers such a fascinating window on the thought processes that animate the 71-year-old Defense secretary. Designed to frame the discussion at a high-level Pentagon meeting, the memo raises a series of shrewd questions about the nature of America's new global war. Undoubtedly aware of the way battlefield body-count numbers deceived Defense Secretary Robert McNamara during the Vietnam War, Rumsfeld writes, ''Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than . . . the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?''
At his briefing Thursday, Rumsfeld acknowledged a certain pride in his handiwork: ''I re-read the memo in the paper and thought, 'Not bad.' '' But rather than expanding on his provocative notions, the Defense secretary instead took refuge in tough-guy oratory when he declared, ''We're finding these terrorists where they are and we're rooting them out. And we're capturing and we're killing them. It's difficult work. It won't be over anytime soon.''
Such sentiments represent a safe harbor for Rumsfeld. There is never any risk for a public official in endlessly repeating the obvious. But under the curious folkways of Washington, too much truth-telling and question-raising can only spell trouble. For all his jaunty tone Thursday, Rumsfeld obviously realizes that this leaked memo can only further weaken his position with the White House at a time when national security adviser Condoleezza Rice has already asserted a coordinating role in the Iraqi reconstruction.
It would be unfortunate if the flap over the Rumsfeld memo stifles candor within the administration. For as the Defense secretary recognized, the long, hard slog against terrorism requires innovative ideas and public officials bold enough to express them.
▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲
題名には必ず「阿修羅さんへ」と記述してください。