The calls for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to step down amid evidence of military personnel having tortured Iraqi prisoners grew stronger throughout last week. Democrats lashed out at the Secretary, asserting that he should be held accountable for actions committed by those under his command. Rumsfeld testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he was aware of the investigation into prisoner abuse in mid-January, but was not exposed to the pictures detailing the abuse until the news media showed them to the public on April 29th. He was "deeply" apologetic, saying, "If there’s a failure, it’s me." Many Republicans have also been critical of the Secretary. Sen. John McCain, R-AZ, blasted Rumsfeld for what he saw as "a pattern on the part of the Defense Department of not keeping the Congress informed on a variety of issues." In general, the mood seems to be that Secretary Rumsfeld has underperformed his job. However, a closer look into the Abu Ghraib prison torture scandal will show this assumption to be a hasty rush to judgment.

The Secretary of Defense is responsible for overseeing the Defense Department and all of the military branches within it. Rumsfeld reports to President Bush on issues relating to the use of force, the development of weapons, and the amount and scope of force needed in a military operation. Essentially, Rumsfeld is responsible for the overseeing of national security matters as they pertain to the use of force.

Now, if we take the torture incidents that occurred in Abu Ghraib prison and ask what policy best upholds US national security, it is quite obvious that Rumsfeld did in fact choose the correct policy. Why? Because by keeping the problem undercover, by trying to root out the problem at the lowest level possible, he hoped he could preserve the United States military's image as a "liberating power." Clearly, by pictures being shown across the world (especially in the Arab region) of prisoners being abused by US soldiers, the impression of the US as having a moral high ground and as "liberators" was severely damaged (which Rumsfeld hoped to avoid). Because while it was only six soldiers that In Defense of Rumsfeldactually committed the crimes, their actions have influenced how the whole military is viewed. Though this may seem irrational, it is the reality. The result will be heightened anti-American sentiment in Iraq and an increase in soldier deaths. So it is my guess that Rumsfeld, understanding the consequences of making the situation public, decided that it was in our military’s as well as our country's best interest to keep the prisoner abuse allegations out of the public sphere.

There are some problems that arise from this approach however. There is a critical point at which a problem can grow so out of hand that an institution (in this case the Pentagon) begins to hide the problem and in doing so fails to bring much needed reform. If steps are not taken to correct an incident and it spreads out of control, an officer higher up in command would rather just look away and tell subordinates to correct the problem. Though the current situation started as a small incident, the problem eventually became institutionalized and efforts were made to conceal the problem rather than fix it.

It would appear then that Rumsfeld initially knew about the allegations, but decided it was best to see if things would work out. Unnecessarily letting the world know of the prisoner abuse would only put more soldiers in harm’s way. In fact, in mid-January, US Central Command released a memo in which they stated, "The release of specific information concerning the incidents (prison abuse allegations) could hinder the investigation, which is in its early stages." However, as time wore on, and the problem remained, Rumsfeld knew that going public this late in the game (especially since he hadn’t informed the President) would be extremely volatile and ultimately could cost him his position, which, ultimately, would take things out of his hands.

But unfortunately for Rumsfeld, the story did break and the media is portraying his indecisiveness as incompetence though he did have a rational plan behind it. He was concerned about the safety of the troops and the integrity of the mission, and now it seems both have been thrown into jeopardy. More attacks on US soldiers are sure to follow, and the battle to win hearts and minds is without a doubt bogged down. Furthermore, many on Capitol Hill, including the President, believe that to save the integrity of Operation Iraqi Freedom, heads must roll. They believe it is now necessary to make drastic changes within the military to change the world’s perception of our effort. Essentially, the prevailing view is that in order for the US to be a genuine implementer of democratic ideals, it must be perceived as a just society in which wrongdoers are punished (unlike Iraq under Saddam). And unfortunately for Rumsfeld, he happens to be one individual whose departure would help in strengthening that perception, since he will make a nice, easy scapegoat.