But four other leading senators of both parties say that while mistakes have been made in Iraq, now is not the time to remove the defense secretary.

01:00 AM EST on Monday, December 20, 2004

BY MARK ARSENAULT
Journal Staff Writer

PROVIDENCE -- Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Jack Reed yesterday joined a Senate colleague, Nebraska Republican Chuck Hagel, in a blistering, televised criticism of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Hagel expressed "no confidence" in the defense secretary.

Reed went further, saying that Rumsfeld needed to go.

Their comments came in a roundtable discussion on the CBS political program, Face the Nation. Reed appeared on the program by video from Providence.

Georgia Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss, also on the program, defended Rumsfeld's leadership of the Department of Defense, while acknowledging that the secretary recently made some insensitive comments.

Under questioning from CBS newsman Bob Schieffer, Hagel said that Rumsfeld had bungled the peacekeeping after the invasion of Iraq. Nearly two years after the invasion, "things are worse than they've ever been," he said.

"I think those in the Pentagon, specifically the civilian leadership, failed this country in addressing a post-Saddam Iraq," Hagel said. "They underestimated, they understated, they undervalued the complications and the difficulties and the dangers. I think it is absolutely unpardonable not to have prepared our troops, now we have lost 1,300 -- dead in Iraq."

Reed added: "I believe that the country will be better served by Secretary Rumsfeld's departure. There's been a series of significant miscalculations: underestimating the scope of this insurgency, not adequately addressing the issue of supplying our troops."

Reed cited his July 2003 visit to Baghdad, during which he spoke to members of the Rhode Island National Guard on duty there.

"They told me they needed armored Humvees," Reed said. "They were doing dangerous things. I came back and I wrote to the secretary, and I urged my colleagues -- worked with my colleagues. But the response was slow. I think the secretary and his civilian colleagues were hoping it would all go away. There was a certain degree of denial, and there were thoughts that this would be temporary, not a long-term endeavor. For all of these issues, it is important that he depart."

Reed also called Rumsfeld's management style "more corrosive than constructive," citing the secretary's recent remark to a soldier who had complained about a shortage of armored vehicles. Rumsfeld's response -- you go to war with the army you have -- was "disdainful" and "dismissive," Reed said.

"There's a young man going off into a dangerous place," he said. "You can't just ignore his comments and make a glib remark."

But any chance that the defense chief might be forced from office soon appeared to fade when four other leading senators of both parties in charge of national security and foreign affairs committees said he should stay at his post.

Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, both said emphatically that this is not the time to change leadership at the Pentagon, even as they acknowledged that serious mistakes in U.S. policy have been made in Iraq. They were echoed -- with notably less enthusiasm -- by the ranking Democrats on their respective panels, Sen. Carl Levin, of Michigan, and Sen. Joseph Biden, of Delaware. All spoke on NBC's Meet the Press.

Rumsfeld's job appeared in jeopardy recently as a rising chorus of critics said they lacked confidence in him, given the state of affairs in Iraq.

If Senate committee chairmen with the stature of Warner and Lugar had joined those calls, the political winds might have been too strong even for President Bush to resist much longer. But Warner and Lugar held the line, as had Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, of Tennessee, and his top deputies in statements issued Friday.

"We should not at this point in time entertain any idea of changing those responsibilities in the Pentagon," Warner said.

"We really can't go through that ordeal now," Lugar said, contending that it would be too "disruptive" to change leaders at the Pentagon now. Rumsfeld, he said, "should be held accountable and he should stay in office."

Chambliss defended Rumsfeld's leadership, saying that the nation has moved as quickly as possible to put armor on military vehicles used in dangerous areas. "I think this secretary is very sensitive to the needs of the military," he said. "He seems insensitive when he makes comments and that seems to be what gets him in trouble."

Reed also said that the U.S. military is stretched too thin, that the Reserves and National Guard have been overtaxed, and that a military draft is no longer inconceivable.

"I think the draft has gone from impossible to the very last option, and that speaks volumes," Reed said. He said the military would try hard to avoid a draft by using incentives to attract and keep volunteers.

However, "six months ago, a year ago, the idea of a draft would be impossible, but now -- if this struggle continues as I think it will for years and years and years, with extensive cost to not only personnel but resources -- then it's no longer inconceivable, but it is the very last option."

All three senators criticized Rumsfeld for apparently using a machine to sign his name on letters sent by his office to the families of soldiers killed in Iraq -- a practice that has been abandoned.

Hagel said: "I think it's very reflective of how out-of-touch this crowd is. My goodness."

Reed added: "This is not just a big corporation that Secretary Rumsfeld is running. It's a military force . . . we ask these young men and women to sacrifice themselves . . . I believe as part of that leadership in that department, that the Secretary of Defense would personally write these letters, or personally sign them, at least . . . I think this goes to his ability to continue to serve."

Material from Knight Ridder Newspapers was included in this report.