Tom Ricks's Inbox
Tom Ricks's Inbox

Sunday, May 13, 2007

Retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey and Lawrence Di Rita, who was the chief spokesman for former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, recently engaged in a tart exchange of e-mails, excerpted below. I suspect that those involved in taking the nation to war in Iraq in 2003 will be writing similar notes for the rest of their lives.

The exchange was forwarded to me by McCaffrey, a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War and the Persian Gulf War, and is used with his permission.

* * *

From: Lawrence Di Rita

Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 6:32 AM

To: BRM

Subject: your recent comments on rumsfeld

general mccaffrey--

i happened to catch you on one of the cable programs monday nite. in response to a question about whether or not condi ought to engage iran, you said that she no longer has donald rumsfeld 'as an anchor around her neck' and, thus, should be able to be more effective as secretary of state, or something to that effect.

that is a harsh characterization and it was quite unfair to both rumsfeld and rice. in particular, characterizing the matter as you did with respect to iran is also a non sequiter in that rumsfeld was explicit publicly and privately that iran was a diplomatic matter to be managed by the president and the secretary of state.

more generally, though, to characterize the regular interactions between two serious people dealing with serious issues as you did is, to be frank, beneath someone who has operated at the level you have operated.

rumsfeld had a job to do as secretary of defense, and i'm quite aware you may believe you would have done it differently if you were doing the job. but he did his job as best he could to support the president's and the nation's objectives, and he did it with considerable effect.

although he was the least parochial leader i ever served, he also was always mindful that, at times, his actions or actions of others at DoD butted up against the institutional views/priorities of other departments. still, at the level he, condi, colin powell, tenet, and the others operated, they accepted that sometimes there are bound to be those kinds of conflicts and they worked through them in a respectful and responsible fashion. . . .

rumsfeld is an honorable patriot and deserves better and, whether you accept that or not, you do yourself a disservice by resorting to name calling to characterize your disagreements with his views.

finally: about a year ago i had an email exchange with [military affairs reporter] joe galloway that i -- stupidly, it turns out -- assumed was a discussion between two people. joe was playing for the galleries, though, and released our exchange through various blogs. i had no problem with anything i said, but thought it was pretty unsporting of joe to have done what he did. i mention only because i do not intend to distribute this email, or any response you may care to offer, and i suppose i should have stipulated that with galloway, too!

best . . . larry di rita

* * *

From: BARRY MCCAFFREY

Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 5:29 PM

Subject: Fw: your recent comments on rumsfeld

Larry . . .

Appreciate your admirable loyalty to Mr Rumsfeld. However, I see him as a huge failure as the Secretary of Defense. A patriotic, dedicated, intelligent, charismatic man of great experience -- with a crippling sense of arrogance and hobbled by terrible instincts. In large part, because of his mistaken decisions and micro-management of the tactical aspects of this war -- we are now stuck in a mess with 29,000 US troops killed and wounded . . . with $400 billion wasted . . . and no good way out.

It is my view from direct dealing with the current senior leadership of this Administration . . . and the Congress . . . and the Armed Forces -- that Mr Rumsfeld is viewed by many as a ruthless and mostly self-serving official who dominated the policy process to the ultimate detriment of the nation.

He claimed credit when it was not his due -- and adroitly evaded responsibility for his failures. Finally, by the end -- it was my belief that he was disingenuous at best when confronted by the media for his failures. This is as polite as I can be to characterize his deliberate denial of evidence that contradicted his public mis-statements of the facts.

The new Secretary Bob Gates is going to make a serious contribution to getting us out of this dangerous situation in the short time remaining. He is brilliant and has common sense -- and is an official of great integrity.

Dr Rice is no longer anchored by the constraints of Mr Rumsfeld -- and now plays a pivotal role in a new aggressive public diplomacy. Dave Petraeus and Ryan Crocker will jointly play a creative leadership role in Iraq -- minus the widely hated interference which came from Mr Rumsfeld. The White House Chief-of-staff and the National Security Advisor will now have a chance to open a dialogue with Congress to possibly get some sort of bi-partisan solution to the disaster that Mr Rumsfeld left us.

Again -- I understand and respect your sense of loyalty -- but I think Mr Rumsfeld's leadership failure as the Secretary of Defense got the nation and the Armed Forces in a very dangerous position.

Would also suggest that your very pointed emails -- such as the one to Joe Galloway and now me -- which defend his disasterous tenure . . . are very much part of the public record and debate.

Appreciate the chance to respond to your views. Best wishes.

Barry McCaffrey

* * *

Tom Ricks is The Post's military correspondent. This feature aims to give readers a snapshot of the conversations about Iraq, Afghanistan and other matters that play out in Ricks's e-mail inbox. Have an interesting document? Send it to TheInbox@washpost.com