[marcosdumay]

If I remember it correctly (it was a long time ago), he never fully supported the war. It didn't take a genius to notice that the goals set by the presidency were (literally) impossible and not the kind of thing you do achieve a war.

But whatever position he had, Iraq turning into a clusterfuck wasn't a sign of bad leadership by his part. It was a sign of bad ethics, but not leadership. His options were all of getting out of his position, disobeying the people above him, or leading the US into a clusterfuck.

[mickdeek86]

Rumsfeld personally advanced the de-baathification directive - the lynchpin of the clusterfuckery - all on his own, and he certainly would have known to expect the 'unexpected' results to be similar to de-nazification. This was absolutely his choice. Another point you have (unintentionally?) brought up is the dignified resignation option. While it is often a naive, self-serving gesture, we can reasonably imagine that the Defense Secretary publicly resigning over opposition to a war during the public consideration of that war, might have had some effect on whether that war was started. I want to like him too, with his grandfatherly demeanor and genuine funnyness ("My god, were there so many vases?!") but, come on.

[js2]

I don't think you remember correctly:

> In the first emergency meeting of the National Security Council on the day of the attacks, Rumsfeld asked, "Why shouldn't we go against Iraq, not just al-Qaeda?" with his deputy Paul Wolfowitz adding that Iraq was a "brittle, oppressive regime that might break easily—it was doable," and, according to John Kampfner, "from that moment on, he and Wolfowitz used every available opportunity to press the case."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld#Military_decis...

[earthboundkid]

As history, this is completely incorrect, but beyond that, if you don’t believe in the mission of the President in committing an act of war, you have a responsibility to resign, and it can’t be bracketed as “bad ethics”.

Anyway, another historical point besides what the other commenters have said is that Rumsfeld believed in “transformation” which meant you could do more with less in modern war. He was totally wrong about it.

It wasn’t his fault Turkey didn’t let the US attack from the north, but other than that, the fuck up is his responsibility, among others.

[Miraste]

There's a distinction missing here. Rumsfeld's Transformation idea was correct with regard to the invasion, which was one of the most successful invasions in history, period. No one has ever taken over such a large country, so far away, so fast, with so few troops, before or since.

The occupation afterward was where the clusterfuck came in, and (somehow) none of the preparation had been directed toward that.

[eru]

Funny enough, if you go by what's written in the US constitution, their president can't actually go to war.

But thanks to enough loop holes, they can get into 'special military operations' (to misappropriate a recent term).

[meepmorp]

At no point in US history was it ever the case that every military operation was considered a war, nor that a war declaration would be necessary and/or appropriate to conduct such operations. What's more, Congress has frequently and explicitly given the President authority to conduct large scale military operations and held oversight hearings, etc. of the execution of those operations - all without formal declarations of war; Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan being prime examples of this.

Calling them "special military operations," poor taste aside, especially with a focus on the formal process used, ignores the fact that all of those conflicts were entered and conducted with the full knowledge and involvement of Congresss.