"Welcome Home, Don--And Don't Ever Go Back!"

I consider Jeff Haas a friend, but I have to disagree with his recommendations-- see http://us2.newsmemory.com/crawler/pma_index4/taosnews/dar_33/cd_20070222/What-to-say-to-Rumsfeld--and-why-say-it.htm--on how to deal with unexpected encounters with former SOD Donald Rumsfeld. Haas raises the hypothetical (probably sparked by a real-life sighting): If we see him, say on the ski slopes, how should we treat him?

To Jeff Haas, we should confront him as a war criminal, a destroyer of innocent lives and trusted volunteers, a man who has made a wreckage of our force readiness, who has defended coercive treatment of prisoners and denial of civil liberties.

Others to whom I've spoken argue for the slightly different treatment of ostracism. Let him feel the hostility, expressed through shunning of normal human consideration. Banish him, as best we can, and send him on his way.

I feel differently. Things have improved mightily in this nation since the November elections, in terms of the mood of the public, and even the quality of discourse. It is, of course, no accident Rumsfeld was finally fired the day after the Republicans' election day debacle--one would think he was occupying Karl Rove's province--electoral hijinks--instead of occupying Iraq and the other zones directly afflicted by GWOT. No, the electoral defeat finally provided sufficient real-world proof of his complete and total failure--Bush's general one, and Rumsfeld's specific one in Iraq.

I was never one to climb on the "Fire Rumsfeld" bandwagon. His firing would be mere scapgoating, I realized, and we see that in the actual fact. The real point of my argument was that his dismissal would come, in due time, with the definitive collapse of the forces of Bushism, of which he was as central to the Bushite proposition as Dubya himself.

So, the odd thing about having Rumsfeld around here in Taos is that Bushites can still be found on the political battlefront in Washington, although retreating as fast as their lame little waddling feet can trot. This awkward period will continue for another twenty-two months. Although the pragmatic thrust of current maneuvers (co-opting McCain on Iraq, co-opting Baker-Hamilton and participating in talks with Syria and Iran, the surprise agreement with North Korea) suggest the Bushites are not looking for more trouble (like trying to deal with Israel-Palestine, for instance), they are still capable of great mischief.

Here in Taos, Rumsfeld has the least possible chance of influencing events in the world at large. Yes, it would be better if he were in a Saddamesque spider hole, electronically monitored. I think this is our opportunity to show ourselves to be better than he. Confronted with the defeated, boxed-in, but unapologetic Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, he chose to attack that caged, but untranquilized, beast, as animal handlers around the world cringed at the faulty technique.

The worst outcome would be for Rumsfeld's advice or counsel to be sought once again in Washington. Undoubtedly he and Cheney share an irredentist urge to somehow get a changed outcome, away from this one of electoral defeat, repudiation of their theories, and the world moving on without them.

I say that we should sacrifice, give him shelter, and make sure he never raises his neocon profile in public again. We only shout him down if he stands up to speak to us.