Paradoxically, the 2 1/2-year-old war that has cost 2,000 American lives might not be Donald Rumsfeld's No. 1 priority.

David Von Drehle, whose article about the secretary of defense appeared in yesterday's The Washington Post Magazine was online today to field questions and comments.

David Von Drehle is a Magazine staff writer.

____________________

David Von Drehle: Welcome--thanks so much for reading the piece and for coming around to chat. I know the piece was not exactly light reading, and I will try ... try ... to keep this exchange comparatively crisp.

Let's get started.

_______________________

Washington, D.C. : i enjoyed the article, but it seemed as if you did a lot of background research and were all ready for a good interview with Rumsfeld. however, he kept delaying and not responding to follow up, so you wrote a not so complete article to show him he could not delay your work indefinately.

Is this the case and what more would you have liked to write about?

David Von Drehle: It is a fairly common technique of press management: When you hear someone is writing an article, offer an interview right away in hopes of shaping the story before the writer has done the research.

The writer is in a tricky spot, then. Do you take the interview that is offered, or wait for a later opportunity that might never come to pass? As I explained in the article, I took the opportunity to conduct a general, introductory conversation with Secretary Rumsfeld. I had high hopes for a follow-up, but unfortunately that never happened.

I would have liked to have more of his voice in the article--he is a compelling speaker when he wants to be. But I didn't feel hamstrung.

_______________________

Atlanta, Ga.: I am a Vietnam Veteran with a real Purple Heart. I hve two sons serving in the Army. One of my sons is in his 11th month as an Infantry Platoon Leader in Iraq. Last week I attended the funeral of his best friend and battle buddy who was killed on 31 October. What possibly other then the war could be the #1 Priority for the Sec'y of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld? I wrote a letter to the President before the last election and told him that the election should not even be close except for the fact that "Rumsfeld had totally screwed this war up" and after he got elected to a second term "Rumsfeld shoud be the first Cabnet member to go". I voted for President Bush the first time because I believed he was the best candidate. I voted for him the second time because Kerry was not even a choice. However, after the election Rumsfeld was the only one to stay and now look at the Presidents approval ratings ratings - bad and much blame must go to keeping Rumsfeld! I thought (I know Colin Powell knew) that wars take total commentment to WIN and a war should have every resourse thrown behind it to win quickly. Rumsfeld has totally mismanaged this war while trying to micromanage the military and its Transformation - which could have been put on hold until the war was over. GEN Shinseki was right when he said it would take 400,000 troops and five years to get the job done right in Iraq. For that statement he was basically run out of his position as C/S of the Army and a clear signle was sent to every career military officer to agree with the Rumsfeld party line or have your career ruined. I can not believe that more (SEN McCain knows)soldiers/marines in Iraq would not increase or chances for success by providing more security and our ability to get the top insurgent Al-Zukari (SP).

Please tell me what is the #1 Priority for Donald Rumsfeld - while I wait for my son to finish his one year tour of duty fighting this war in Iraq?

David Von Drehle: I can't add to this except to say that I spoke to many active duty troops during my research for this piece who shared your exasperation. The piece is as close as I can come to an answer to this riddle.

_______________________

Richmond, Va.: One thing I noticed about your article was that there wasn't much discussion of the planning and execution of the invasion of Afganistan. I seem to remember various dire predictions of a "quagmire" in Afganistan prior to the invasion which did not come to pass. Do you believe that the relative success of the Afganistan operations caused the Defense Department to be come overconfident and dismiss similar criticism during the Iraqi planning?

David Von Drehle: Great question. I do think, based on various things Secretary Rumsfeld has said over the years, that the success in Afghanistan led to some wrong assumptions about Iraq. One main difference that was overlooked: Afghanistan was essentially an ungoverned power vacuum. Even the Taliban had not controlled the country long enough or widely enough to shape the social order. In Iraq, by comparison, Saddam's social order completely shaped the lives, thinking, outlook and expectations of all all Iraqis under late-middle age. He held power in Iraq longer--much longer--than Hitler did in Germany. You can't expect such a traumatizde country to just wake up one morning free and self-governing. But the U.S. did not enter Iraq with a workable plan to renew and reconstruct the country.

This isn't my theory: It is the conclusion of, among others, Rumsfeld's own Defense Science Board.

_______________________

NY, NY: I would submit that General Myers shares a large portion of the blame. Contrary to the "lessons" of the Powell Doctrine, it was Myers who, as Woodward has shown, allowed the military to be coerced into signing on to a war plan that history has shown was insufficient.

David Von Drehle: A number of people I spoke with -- including some very dedicated men in uniform -- urged that this point be part of the piece. The failure to prepare for post-war Iraq was not only a failure of civilian leadership, but also of the senior generals. Gen. Myers was criticized in this regard, and a number of officers criticized Gen. Tommy Franks, who seemed to be in an enormous hurry to get out of Iraq.

I chose to focus this article on Secretary Rumsfeld.

_______________________

Rockville, Md: I really liked your piece on the Sec of Defense, but wondered when you mentioned the officers who think he is "out to get them." I have no doubt that some have been "out to get him" for some time now. But I don't know what individual officers fear. Blacklist? No promotions? Cuts in funds? How does he "get them?"

Personally and from my experience with the First Infantry Division in Vietnam, I think his decision on artillery was very poor. there are many situations when an air craft can not deliver munitions. Artillery saved us in Vietnam. Or has the technology really improved that much?

David Von Drehle: You touch on an important point -- thanks. No doubt some of the internal criticism of Rumsfeld at the Pentagon comes from hidebound bureaucrats who resent his efforts to modernize the force.

As for artillery, I'm not the right guy to answer that. It is my impression, though, that the combination of guided munitions matched with human and drone targeters, is more lethal than anything seen on earlier battlefields.

_______________________

Dahlgren, Va.: After reading Plan of Attack and your article, I get the impression that Rumsfeld is only interested in asking questions and discovering or predicting problems. Does he ever provide answers or attempt to implement solutions? Has he ever answered a question with asking another question?

David Von Drehle: This is his signature technique. Sometimes you can see him doing it during television briefings--answering questions with more questions, and more questions, and more. It drives people over there crazy.

_______________________

Winnipeg, Canada: Regarding the "success" in Afghanistan compared to Iraq: Afghanistan is a success only in that fewer troops are comitted there, and conswquently fewer have died. Much like Lebanon a generation ago, the "government" controls a small area around the capital, and warlords control much of the rest. The poppy trade is flourishing again, and the Taliban is once again gaining strength.

If the Pentagon used this "success" as a model for Iraq, no wonder they are in the mess they are in.

David Von Drehle: I've never been there, so I can only say that inside the administration Afghanistan is viewed as a success story. Thanks for the other view.

_______________________

Washington, DC: Absolutely brilliant article--solid reporting, insightful writing, and I found myself looking at Rumsfeld and the Pentagon and Iraq afterwards through completely different eyes. How on earth did you come to your thesis, of Rumsfeld balancing the war against other concerns?

David Von Drehle: Hi, honey! How are the kids today?

Basically, I went into the piece with a simple question: Is Iraq Don Rumsfeld's war? An editor asked me that at lunch one day, and I couldn't answer it. I tried desperately to learn enough about his thinking, and the work product of the Pentagon these past five years, to present a plausible answer.

_______________________

Albuquerque, NM: Is the gap so wide between what Rumsfeld proclaims is going on in Iraq with what is actually happening in Iraq? I cannot understand how troops in the field have no interpreters to either coordinate with Iraqi government troops or conduct effective operations. The "Clear and Hold" concept sounds more like a sound bite than realistic given the inability of the Iraqi troops to effectively implement the "Hold" element of that strategy, how does Rumsfeld square the dismal reality with his and Bush's upbeat rhetoric?

David Von Drehle: I had several versions of the same conversation with a variety of really smart military people. It went roughly like this: "I was in Iraq recently, and boy, was I surprised. I expected more of the same old chaos, but instead I saw some signs of progress." Slow progress, tentative progress--not necessarily understood or supported by the Pentagon. But progress.

And then they all said, "But it won't matter if the civilians can't hold the support of the American people long enough for the strategy to work."

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: What should be first?

Good question about priorities. One can even imagine that the Administration has spent little time or thought on Iraq. But it is ruining them. Do they have other information that predicts a turn around without further effort?

I have to say that when I was in Vietnam (three tours all together) the Government always saw it as a "sideshow." The Soviets were always the main interest.

But this is strange. Why aren't they focused on Iraq?

David Von Drehle: You've put your finger, I believe, on a spot where the parallels break down between Vietnam and Iraq. I don't believe (and I think you don't either) that Iraq is a sideshow to the war on terror. I'll leave it to others to argue over whether it was a side issue in 2003. But as of now, it is a key battleground.

_______________________

Wichita, Kan.: I enjoyed your Rumsfeld article. Particularly amusing were the wrestling metaphors through-out. My question: has there ever been a time in U.S. history where a Secretary of Defense has operated as independently from the direction of the president's office as this one has?

Rumsfeld's apparent decisions to limit funding on the Iraq war, so he could devote funds to programs he thought were more important seems especially arrogant to me. Surely, this is not something that routinely happens in the Defense Dept., is it?Thank you.

David Von Drehle: Thanks for reading -- I think President Bush and ice-president Cheney must be reasonably satisfied with Secretary Rumsfeld's performance. They have not been shy about replacing Cabinet members. In fact, Rumsfeld is the only one of the original Big Four (State, Treasury, Defense and Attorney General) still on the job.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I also found the article gripping.

However, I wondered why, given the play on his now infamous statement that you fight with the Army you have, not the Army you might want, that there were not really any follow up questions about that particular application of his thinking.

I understand that he has been tasked with thinking strategically about the future of the Armed Services, and the competing demands of the conveyor belts make it difficult to commit resources to the war, but, please. We're at war. If the Army we have can't properly equip our troops in Iraq, then how on earth can we have troops in Iraq?

David Von Drehle: Excellent point. One of the questions I wanted to ask in a follow-up interview was why ... if this was not the Army he wanted in March 2003 ... hasn't he aggressively sought a different Army? A bigger one? One with more Arabic speakers? One with more Civil Affairs officers?

_______________________

Pasadena, Calif.: Since you have obviously spoken to many people in the military, do they still support the Powell doctrine at all, or do they share some of Rumsfeld vision of transformation? What does the military think of someone like Tommy Franks, who seems to have gotten a lot of credit for a war that in the long term has not gone very well?

David Von Drehle: I think there is broad support for elements of "transformation." From a tactical standpoint, both the initial Iraq invasion and the initial Afghanistan operation were milestones in terms of joint operations and special forces tactics.

I picked up a lot of anti-Franks sentiment. As one officer said, "as soon as the Saddam statute fell, he was off to write his book."

_______________________

"ice-president Cheney": Was that intentional?

David Von Drehle: Whoops.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: I'm an electrical engineer with no particular expertise in foreign affairs. Yet to me it was glaringly obvious (and I told anyone who would listen) in March 2003 that if you sever the head of an artificial country teeming with centuries-old ethnic tensions, a civil war would ensue. Why am I so much "smarter" than the people at the controls of our country? I find that pathetic.

David Von Drehle: Personally, I still can't believe, given the incredibly high stakes of this operation, we didn't have a plan in a desk drawer somewhere, marked: "Just in case ..."

_______________________

Boca Raton, Fla.: David,

Many thanks for your outstanding article about Secretary Rumsfeld.

I can remember during the calls for the Iraqi invasion telling my friends that an invasion would be disastrous giving my "29 pitfalls." The response was: (a) I was unpatriotic in spite of my Marine Corps service, (b) I did not know what I was talking about even though I have Arabic language fluency and have traveled to the Middle East including Iraq, (c) and that I was a bleeding heart liberal in spite of being a life long Republican and having voted for Bush in the first election.

Your article shows the rank amateurism in the White House and at the top levels of the Department of Defense.

The shame of this matter is that Rumsfeld will be with us for another three years.

Maybe your next question to Donald "Ask me something harder" Rumsfeld could be "Are you able to sleep at night?"

David Von Drehle: I know a lot of people have been frustrated, over the past 3 or 4 years, by the suggestion that the only way to express patriotism is to ignore questions about the leadership of the war effort.

_______________________

Miami, Fla.: It was interesting to see in your article that the Defense Science Board concluded that "It is clear that Americans who waged the war and who have attempted to mold the aftermath have had no clear idea of the framework that has molded the personalities and attitudes of the Iraqis."

Do you believe that this situation still exists in the Pentagon? Does Mr. Rumsfeld have any advisors with a real undersandting of the region and of its people? More important, is there anyone who speaks truth to power in the Pentagon, particularly to Mr. Rumsfeld?

David Von Drehle: I found widespread praise for the CENTCOM commander, Gen. John Abizaid, and the current U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad. They are credited with much deeper understanding of the region, and therefore greater credibility.

_______________________

Richmond, Va.: How willing everyone is to forget, with all of this stuff about "completing the mission" and "staying the course", that the stated mission was to rid Iraq of WMD. Iraq is rid of WMD. Mission accomplished. Any other justification by the administration is an admission of the illegality of the invasion.

The U.N. charter forbids member states from attacking unless attacked or unless there is an imminent threat of attack. Article VI, section 2 of the Constitution states that treaties ratified by the Senate are part of "the supreme Law of the Land". As Pat Tillman so eloquently stated, "this ------g war is illegal!"

The Post should mention this every time the administration attempts to change the claimed mission. They do so because they are confident you will let them get away with it. They are confident of this because to date they have never known you to do anything else.

David Von Drehle: My recollection of the period before the invasion is more complicated than yours. I remember a lot about WMD, but I also recall the president talking about other justifications for deposing Saddam Hussein. For one thing, Saddam's anti-aircraft batteries were routinely shooting at U.S. planes, which for centuries would have been more than neough justification for a war. Congress, with the consent of the Clinton Administration, made it official U.S. policy in 1998 to pursue regime change in Iraq. What the Bush administration brought to the table was a willingness--some would say a desire--to do this by invasion.

_______________________

Albuquerque, NM: I'd like to follow up on your respone to my earlier question, where military members have claimed that albeit slow there are "some signs of progess." I have to scratch my head on that one. Those military members must have stayed at the Green Zone or remained in the northern part of Iraq's friendly Kurds. When the footprint of the Green Zone in Iraq has shrunk, and the frequency and rates at which our troops are dying is increasing, and we cannot effectively hold any area we kick the insurgents out of, plus the effectiveness of Iraqi soldiers (predominately Shiite) is a paltry two battalions I sure would hate to see what they would describe as setbacks. In other words if the Pentagon is looking at the public's will to to keep them in the fight, rather than addressing the military situation properly then what kind of outcome can we expect in Iraq?

David Von Drehle: These folks had been all over the country, including into the Sunni triangle. And let me underline, they had no illusions about how tough the task is. What they were saying is the tactics of units in the fight are more sophisticated, and therefore more hopeful, than they were before.

_______________________

The "key battleground" lie.: Sir, why do you insist on parroting this Administration mantra, when numerous studies, generals, and in-country journalists have concluded precisely the opposite - the proportion of the insurgency affiliated with Al Qaida is tiny: somewhere around 5%. These analyses (such as the one from the CSIS) are available to you all over the internet, but you never report them. We are in the middle of a civil war over there, for the most part. Let's start dealing with truth, eh?

David Von Drehle: I have a one-word response: Lebanon.

Here's a few more: Lebanon was "a civil war," and when it was allowed to run rampant it destabilized the region, empowered our enemies and contributed enormously to the rise of terrorist strategies and tactics in the Middle East.

_______________________

David Von Drehle: Also, for what it's worth -- "lie" is not a synonym for "disagreement." It is possible for two people to hold differing views without one of them lying.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: I was one of the several Arab Americans contractors who served as translator-interpreters in the Military Intelligence Service during and immediately after the fall of the Iraqi regime. We served in a variety of intelligence functions and served under a variety of organizations and in every major campaign. We have learned that good intelligence is the best weapon against both insurgents and international terrorism. We have learned the overall scale and complexity of intelligence effort and organizations. We learned that intelligence required massive investment of talent, numbers, tenacity, and courage. It involved not just the big intelligence coups such as capturing Saddam, but also the grinding day-to-day work, interrogating prisoners, translating intercepts, evaluating and translating captured documents. The knowledge of the Middle East culture and society they had absorbed from their parents and upbringing gave them a unique perspective on the enemy they faced.The perspective of these linguists could be that key in the war on terror. Perhaps these linguists can help these agencies find their way through this maze of counter terrorism and collect more reliable information on terrorism. Yet neither of these agencies nor to my knowledge, anyone else who has examined this issue has made use of the unique perspective of the Americans linguists of Middle Eastern ancestry who fought and still participating in the war on terror.

David Von Drehle: Thanks so much. Maybe someone at the Pentagon will take a gander at your post and take a hint.

_______________________

Mission, Tex: First of all, thank you for writing an informative piece.

I was interested as to your take on how Rumsfeld and his immediate staff reflect and/or respond (or don't) to views critical of their planning for the Iraq war. The almost-revelation of the "memo" is a curious bit of protection that seems to indicate at least some sensitivity to the issue.

And speaking more broadly, do you sense an awareness of concepts that run counter to the Rumsfeld model of defense and future wars? How open to competing warfighting theories do you think Rumsfeld is? Clearly, Iraq is not turning out to be positive proof for transformation, if only because it has been an "anachronism" as seen from the top.

Thank you in advance for your response.

David Von Drehle: Based on my reading and my interviews, I believe Secretary Rumsfeld THINKS he is much more open to competing ideas than he really is.

_______________________

Southwest Pennsylvania: My husband served in Iraq in 2003 and thankfully got home okay. He is an Army officer with 18 years in and promptly upon returning home scraped every Army decal and sticker off his truck. He hasn't said much about the politics of the war but he has been tempted to get a bumper sticker that says "Sometimes you go to war with the Sec Def you have not the one you might wish to have." Do you think Mr. Rumsfeld and the administration will be expanding on the idea that it is America's mission in the world to spread democracy?

David Von Drehle: I'm glad he got home and am grateful to him for his service.

Clearly, if the U.S. does not achieve the goal in Iraq, it will be harder to make the case elsewhere.

_______________________

Albuquerque, NM: Hi David,

I appreciate the opportunity. I've recently read articles from "embed" journalists (see Time's recent edition) in Iraq who are out there on the frontlines observing troops proscecute the war.

Despite the Rumsfeld and Bush's upbeat assessment, more troops are dying than ever before and at faster rates. Additionally, for all the billions we are paying to run this war, at the end of that pipeline we find: insurgents still control wide swaths of the country and travel unfettered, American units are undermanned relative to the mission before them, and most telling, some frontline units do not have interpreters to assist them in their operations--essentially American firepower is eroded, isolated, and ineffective.

And the key strategy to train and build up Iraqi government forces has been an outright failure in that solely one battalion has been deemed as combat effective. In short, is there a sense that Rumsfeld, et al truly grasp just how seriously the mission in Iraq is failing? With Rumsfeld's cheerful pronouncemenets, relative to the dismal state of things in Iraq, one could argue that Rumsfeld is becoming a caricature similar to the famously disconnected former Iraqi Information Minister, "Baghdad Bob" in this case we have "Pentagon Bob."

Appreciate the opportunity all my best! Frank Gonzales

David Von Drehle: Thanks for your thoughts, which I know many people share.

I would add a gloss to that notion of "just one" Iraqi unit at peak readiness. The Pantagon and the military could easily make that number look a lot better, simply by lowering their standard. It is a VERY high standard--the same one applied to U.S. units, which are the finest in the world. Just because Iraqi units are not at U.S. levels of capability doesn't mean they are useless.

This is an area where the government is applying an honest standard and reporting it candidly, as near as I can tell.

_______________________

Olney, Md..: Wonderful article. Thank you for writing it, and for chatting today.

Am I correct that Sec. Rumsfeld does not believe it is his place to offer his opinion to the President on matters such as whether or not we got to war; or, to offer his opinion on the execution of a war? If so I find this interesting, since I clearly remember a radio interview from a few years ago in which he opined that a Cabinet Secretary that was unwilling to look the President in the eye and say "Mr. President, you're wrong" on an important matter was not deserving of Cabinet rank.

David Von Drehle: I shared your surprise ...

Out of time -- but as I go let me post a few more contributions so you can see what people had to say. Sorry I can't get to them all!

_______________________

Central Virginia: Mr. von Drehle,

Thank you for hosting so brisk a topic! (Excellent article, by the way.)

Okay, so Rumsfeld does a great job of whacking his bureaucratic opponents, but is (and has been) failing miserably at being SecDef. His judgement is rat-poison bad - it was more important to him to whack Colin Powell than it was to make adequate plans for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. He rejected the idea of having a clear idea of what we're doing and how we're getting out before we invade another country; and, after kicking the State Department's Iraq reconstruction plan into the toilet, he refused to consider how to do it himself.

He has lost the respect and confidence of the military leaders, he is responsible for the burgeoning presence of mercenaries in Iraq, and he has presided over the development and institutionalization of torture and mistreatment of prisoners by the armed forces.

No doubt about it - Rummie's doing one hell of a job!

And now he's talking loud and long about a memo that says hey, he knew all along that Iraq would be tough.

Do you think he's trying to be a team player and distract us from Bush's crises de jour? Or is he trying to distance himself from them?

David Von Drehle:

_______________________

Annandale, Va.: For our Atlanta poster: Why did you vote for someone, twice, who has fired dissenters who turned out to be right and you feel should have been kept on staff, and kept the one man you feel should be fired? Don't complain about poor performance when you continue to support it.

David Von Drehle:

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: Thank you for the interesting article on Rumsfeld and the war. The whole thing saddens me so deeply that it is difficult to take in, but I appreciate your efforts. I think that it is important for readers to recognize the ludicrousness of Rumsfeld's claim that he did not make a recommendation on the war one way or another. It is inconceivable that someone with his ego would not offer his opinion, particularly to someone as unschooled in military affairs, diplomacy, or history as the president. The second point is the saddest one; that Rummy would really prefer not to spend his money on this war. He would rather leapfrog a generation of weapons systems so that we can gear up for the really big war with China. This is the inevitable march towards death and destruction that the masters of war would lead us on. I would urge readers to look back at how disappointed Dick Cheney was when the cold war ended. When will we find leaders who are willing to declare peace?

peace,jim

David Von Drehle:

_______________________

San Diego, Calif.: As to the "memo" of Oct. 2002, in which Rumsfeld listed 29(?) results of invading Iraq, does he say that he "vetted" those possibilities, planned for the contengencies they posed? The impression one gets is that he chose to ignore the unpleasant consequences, and that he has lived in a state of denial while "transforming" the military, like someone remodelling his house while it's on fire, or trying to pave a highway during an earthquake.

David Von Drehle:

_______________________

Friendship, Md: What caused Colin Powell to cave in to Cheney and Rumsfeld? He was obviously against the war early on but did a complete 180, to the point of trying to sell the administration's war plans at the United Nations. If only he had stuck to his beliefs to the point of resigning (if necessary) we would not be in the mess we are in now. It was a good article, I enjoyed it, but it will take alot more to convience me that Rumsfeld was really opposed to the war.

David Von Drehle:

_______________________

Thanks. And what explains Cheney?: Thanks for finally giving me some insight on why a smart (and no neocon-idealist) like Rumsfeld was so stupid about post-war Iraq. Along the way, did you pick up any insight on why Cheney and Wolfowitz were so blind? After all, you could have a justified or unjustified mania to get Hussein, but still see that post-war needed to be planned and handled carefully. The reasons usually cited (over-optimism, arrogance, Rumsfeld's reform agenda, a disdain for anything out of the State Dept or CIA) don't seem sufficient explainers for the omissions that hurt their own cause.

David Von Drehle: A lot of people wondered where the Vice-president, then-deputy secretary Wolfowitz and other architects of the war fit in. All I can say is, I had my hands full with Secretary Rumsfeld.

_______________________

Pittsburgh, Pa: Hi David, thanks for the v. interesting Magazine piece. Could you expand for us on your impression that Mr. Rumsfeld was tip-toeing away from personal responsibility for the genesis & prosecution of the Iraq war?

David Von Drehle: Wow -- I never would have expected someone wanting an EXPANSION of that piece.

Thanks, and please keep reading!

_______________________

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.