|
Letters from alumni about Donald Rumsfeld '54 It is natural, instinctive, that we are proud of fellow Princetonians who have risen to prominent place. But does "Princeton in the nation's service" mean only the holding of high office. Is not more required? Must we not also ask to what end our fellow Princetonians exercise power? Do they aim to shift the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class while cutting programs for the poor, or to create massive federal debt to undercut Social Security and Medicare as universal programs, or to install an ideologically supercharged federal bench, or to advance foreign policies which isolate our nation and make us the enemy of former friends? Are they extreme and partisan while giving lip service to moderation and bipartisanship? Before Daniels or Frist or Rumsfeld or anyone else are honored by Princeton or featured by PAW, we should know how their leadership has been "in the nation's service." J. Wilson Morris '61 Respond
to this letter A Modest Proposal: In tribute to America's greatest Secretary of Defense, Princeton should rename the Forrestal Center the Rumsfeld Center. Jordan Katz ’81 Respond
to this letter If history is any indication, someday in the foreseeable future Princeton will bestow some sort of honor on alumni members of the Bush administration for examples of "Princeton in the nation’s service." The potential awardees include Robert Mueller ’66, head of the F.B.I., and Donald Rurnsfeld ’54, secretary of defense. Based on his recent performance as the leading spokesperson for President Bush's illegal, immoral, unnecessary, and politically motivated assault on Iraq, Rumsfeld should, instead, be cited for "disservice to humanity." The looting of the Iraqi antiquities while the U.S. military protected the Ministry of Oil shows where his priorities are. Even repeated warnings by experts were unheeded. "This is war, and things happen," he said. That is so much hogwash as this war is clearly about oil and U.S. imperialism. The Ministry of Oil was "well" protected by U.S. troops. The history of 7,000 years of civilization means nothing to an administration that thinks only about next year's oil company profits, polluting the earth's air and water, raping the treasury for the benefit of the wealthy elite, and causing a deepening chasm in the social and economic structure of America. Shame on them. One wonders if Bush, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz could be tried as war criminals. The propaganda machine wielded by the administration and its cohorts in Fox News would earn the admiration of Joseph Goebbels. America's government has sunk to a new low in morals, leadership, and intellect since December 2000. Robert Givey ’58 Respond
to this letter The recent destruction of the national museum in Baghdad and its main library is a devastating loss not only to the people of Iraq but to all mankind. What particularly shocks and saddens me is this: The U.S. military chose to protect the Oil Ministry and the Interior Ministry (national intelligence services) but not the museum or library. This action speaks volumes about the values and priorities of our armed forces under its current civilian leadership. The cavalier reaction of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ’54 to the looting ("Freedom is untidy.") and the subsequent statements by military officials under his command suggest an effort to minimize responsibility for what has taken place. I am writing because as an alumnus it shames me that Mr. Rumsfeld graduated from Princeton. Whatever position one may have taken on the U.S.'s invasion of Iraq, one would hope that no individual associated with our university will do anything but condemn the failure of the U.S. armed forces under Mr. Rumsfeld's leadership to protect the world's ancient heritage. Philip L. Fetzer '65 Respond
to this letter April 2003 In late spring 1951, Princeton undergraduate grappler, Don Rumsfeld competed individually in the Metropolitan AAU wrestling tournament at New York City's West Side YMCA, and won his way to the finals. For the 155-pound weight-class championship, Rumsfeld faced Dr. Robert G. Kroll, a young NYC dentist who, a few years earlier had wrestled for the University of Minnesota. Besides being the "Y" assistant coach of boxing, I was a carded wrestling official who, by the chance of the draw, became the referee for that medal match. The bout was clean, classic, and close. Waged by two skilled, poised protagonists, it could be described best by the oxymoron, excitingly prosaic. It gave the referee little to do except call the points as they would occur, and observe the unfolding contest that confirmed Newton's third law, "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." At the end of the regulation three periods, the earned point score was tied. The time-keeper reported both "riding times" were identical, thus there were no advantage points. Of the two judges, one opted for Kroll, the other for Rumsfeld. All seemed as even as any match ever might be, yet there could be only one victor. Unhappily, it all came down on me. My vote would determine the champion. An old Russian proverb counsels, "You cannot see the spark in the flint, nor can you see the drive in the boy." But there are exceptions. With sufficient intuitive insight, any aware person can perceive "the right stuff." At that moment, everyone anxiously awaited my decision. Mentally running what the scoreboard, the clock, and the judges indicated as a dead-even contest, one translucent but obvious element then emerged clearly to me. Kroll was the stronger and more savvy, yet his velocity never emerged: he lacked the drive, the killer instinct. Rumsfeld, consistently in the catch-up mode, showed the raw determination that if he didn't produce enough grit to win, he'd find enough not to lose. That sheer survival factor also determined my call. I voted Rumsfeld. My conscience was right with that fair decision. That was, at that moment extremely painful for me: Bob Kroll had been my room mate. Now, five decades downstream, I can reflect on the wayside aftermath from that traumatic happening; actually nothing has changed. Dr. Robert Kroll, a human-scale gentle "giant," has just retired from an eminently successful career as: an oral surgeon to troubled and "special" children; a professor of dentistry at Columbia University; and a coach of high school wrestlers. He never showed any unhappiness or animosity toward me for my call, insisting he would not want a title that a friend had given to him. Although it disturbed me at the time, I've since become comfortable with myself about that decision; first because my friend understood; and, because it was the right thing to do. Finally, the fact that Donald Rumsfeld is again in charge of our National Defense substantiates that element of his character, that all else being equal, he can keep himself, and his defense establishment ahead of the opposition, on sheer grit. M. D. Morris Respond
to this letter Thanks for printing my letter. I hope I don't now
become the latest Peter Singer or Shirley Tilghman whipping boy
for all the reactionary old Tigers. Poor Daniel Erdman..... Ken Scudder ’63 Respond
to this letter May 3, 2002 Respond
to this letter April 30, 2002 Respond
to this letter April 30, 2002 Although Secretary Rumsfeld is an articulate and even amiable spokesperson for the administration, I am dismayed by his and most of the administration's tendency to think reflexively in win-lose terms, which seem to be based on the underlying assumption that international relations, and presumeably the rest of life, is a zero-sum game; that is, the amount by which someone else wins is equal to the amount by which I or others lose. In such a world, winning is all, and the gain of another is a direct threat. That view has extraordinary power and acceptance, given the constancy with which experience proves it to be false. A marriage, friendship, or business relation that is truly and humanely satisfying is so because those involved continually and effectively seek win-win solutions and activities. The international implication of this truth is that a future in which the U.S. attempts to refashion the world unilaterally by forcing its views on others, with military spending exceeding that of the next 25 nations combined and human needs at home and abroad only marginally addressed, will be neither a satisfying and a worthy one for the U.S. nor a safe one for Americans or for other world citizens. It is exceedingly dangerous to value only ourselves; it is in our interests to develop a broader and deeper appreciation of all life on our planet. We have reason as a society to examine our underlying myths and assumptions, to consider the nature of humanity, human purpose, and human fulfillment. In times like these, it may be that nothing is quite so practical as idealism. Clark McK. Simms '53 Respond
to this letter This letter was prompted by the continuing debate
over the images of FBI Director Robert Mueller ’66 and Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld ’54. Respond
to this letter April 24, 2002 Respond
to this letter March 18, 2002 Respond
to this letter March 16, 2002 Respond
to this letter March 15, 2002 Respond
to this letter 15
March 2002 It is hard not to be impressed
that in the aftermath of 9/11, when so many innocent Americans have
suffered and died, some people seem so absorbed with the superficial
aspects of the treatment of the Al Qaeda prisoners at Guantanamo
Bay. Daniel Erdman '73 complains that he is
"disappointed" that Secretary Rumsfeld '54 has labeled
these men as "unlawful combatants." Aside from the triviality
of the semantics involved, no one has alleged that these men are
being killed or tortured. The Geneva Convention was written for
soldiers. Among other things, treating these terrorists as soldiers
would deny the U.S. the ability to interrogate. Such treatment might
increase the risk of further attacks and loss of life. Erdman is
"frightened as well as embarrassed" by Rumsfeld's actions.
Such vitriol would be better reserved for those who seek to murder
innocent Americans. Respond
to this letter March
11, 2002 Respond
to this letter March 12, 2002 Respond
to this letter The extent to which we Princetonians fail to look critically at
Donald Rumsfeld’s actions mirrors our nation’s historical
amnesia and collective denial. Our leaders are contributing to the
world’s exploitation and misery by leading with greed and the
fist. If this is truly a global village, what’s with all the
rich chiefs, toiling children, and sharp swords? How much power
and material wealth do we need before we say enough? Respond
to this letter February
10, 2002 If Rumsfeld
does not know that the Geneva Accords have no such category as "unlawful
combatants", I worry about the quality of his education —
Princeton grad or not. If he does know and still insists a creating
a new category for his momentary convenience, I worry about the
quality of his integrity. Either way, I'm frightened as well as
embarrassed at the illegal and arrogant actions of a highly-placed
U.S. official on the international stage. February
5, 2002 These
two give the U.S. a bad name, and by doing so reflect badly on our
university. I'm glad more people don't know they went to Princeton.
Mueller, who as an attorney should know better, has stonewalled
counsel for more than a thousand immigrants being held incommunicado
and without charge. And Rumsfeld, with his puffed-up, self-righteous
manner and his seeming lack of a "decent regard to the opinions
of mankind" — to say nothing of the lives of anyone other
than Americans — projects just the kind of arrogant, imperialist
persona that is driving even our allies up the wall. I was embarrassed
when he tried to deflect the international outcry over the shocking
photos of drugged, shackled, hooded prisoners in cages with the
lame remark that he was a law school dropout. This was on a par
with President Bush's dumb-and-dumber remark that he'd slept through
his years at Yale. Respond
to this letter December 20, 2001 With reference to your November 21 issue, I want to thank PAW for the articles on Donald Rumsfeld ’54 and Robert Mueller ’66. I was not aware that they were alumni, and I am very proud of them. These articles should also be made available to all undergraduate and graduate students to show Princeton in the nation's service. I also read in the same issue Abhi Raghunathan ’02’s article "The New Reality" (On the Campus), where he indicates that there have been peace activists on campus, debates between students and professors about war and terrorism, plus scathing letters to the editor and stern criticisms of professors on the editorial pages of the Daily Princetonian. I think that Princeton alumni would be very interested in what has been transpiring on campus after September 11, very little of which I have seen in PAW. It would give the alumni some idea of what is going on. For instance, I logged onto the Daily Princetonian today and saw the article by Nicholas Guyatt, a graduate student from England, which basically criticized U.S. policy in the Middle East, not his own country's. Are students getting both sides of the issue? Alumni like me want to know. Allan L. Griffith '60 Glendale, Calif. Respond
to this letter I doubt the accuracy of Marvin Zim's statement in his profile of Donald Rumsfeld '54 in the November 21 issue, that, when Rumsfeld became director of the Office of Economic Opportunity in early 1969, "Parts of the OEO, the Community Action Programs in particular, had become highly politicized; posters of Che Guevara hung in some offices." As assistant director for operations and, later, deputy director of community action, I participated in the recruitment, screening, and interviewing of nearly every one hired by CAP from its inception until September 1966. The only significant exceptions were those employed in the small training unit and in the research and demonstrations unit, which was staffed largely by personnel transferring from the President's Committee on Juvenile Delinquency. Although there were changes due to turnover in the two-plus years between my departure and Rumsfeld's appointment, the general temper, character, and competence of the staff were much as they had been in the fall of 1966. Personnel selection was our highest priority and, to that end, we undertook a strong recruitment effort in areas likely to yield good prospects and devised and iapplied an unusually rigorous system to screen job candidates. This required an extraordinary amount of time and energy but, in our judgment, it produced a staff of a quality superior to that of virtually every other comparable federal operating program. We began with a cadre consisting largely of career civil servants with solid track records of high performance. Jules Sugarman who directed the Head Start program, Bill Bozman, my deputy and successor, and I had all known each other from the Eisenhower Bureau of the Budget. We were able to recruit fewer individuals with significant relevant experience than we needed because we insisted on credible evidence that they had appreciably improved performance in their prior positions. A successful effort to find qualified minority candidates resulted in the hiring, among others, of Vernon Jordan, later head of the Urban League and an adviser to President Clinton, Mel Humphrey, later an assistant secretary of HUD in the Nixon administration, and Everett Crawford from the Ohio Legislative Reference Services. We recruited from those returning volunteers most highly regarded by the Peace Corps and even found a few good prospects among the veterans of the village pacification program in Vietnam. The most numerous group of those hired were recent graduates of universities and professional and graduate schools, nearly all from the top 10 percent to 20 percent of their classes. Because of our lack of enough experienced hands, many of these young people took on and successfully carried out responsibilities well above their grade levels. This brainy crew included Rhodes Scholar Bill Drayton, later founder and head of the Ashoka Institute and Peter Goldmark, now publisher of the International Herald Tribune after previously heading the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Job prospects were never queried about their political affiliation or views although it is obvious that we were unlikely to attract many with strong conservative views. The ’60s were a tumultuous period, and some of the young people we employed undoubtedly had political views characteristic of their generation. Many, for example, refused to participate in the payroll deduction scheme for the purchase of savings bonds because of their opposition to the Vietnam War. But, I know of no one among them inclined toward radical politics or even the militant activism common during that period. Che Gueverra posters allegedly found in some CAP offices were more likely to be expressions of antic humor than of support for Che's ideology of revolution. Aside from two or three controversial demonstration projects, the Community Action staff was involved in no activities that even remotely warranted a radical label. The roughly 1,500 local community action agencies funded by CAP were rarely much more revolutionary, drawing their programs, in almost every case, from the same standard repertoire of training, education, counseling, and referral programs. The radicalism often attributed to Community Action came, rather, from the raucous demonstrations for increased participation on governing bodies mounted not by but against the local agencies, often with the involvement of the neighborhood organizations funded through the local agencies. Rumfeld's mission was clearly to effect an orderly termination of Community Action and OEO, an outcome dictated by the loss of public support resulting from the demonstrations but deferred until it was not apt to trigger another round of city riots. Nonetheless, he is given high marks by senior members of the CAP staff who remained through the transition. Frederick O'R. Hayes
'45 Respond
to this letter Thanks to your Editor’s Letter in the issue of November 21, 2001, I got exactly what I needed to prepare remarks to be presented to a group of about 30 Coast Guard Reservists who had been recalled to extended active duty at Mayport, Florida, for further deployment stateside or over seas. My assignment was to give them a rousing send off. message. Your quote from Defense Secretary Rumsfeld ’54’s speech on the occasion of his being awarded the Woodrow Wilson Award about freedom was precisely what I needed to get started and to capture and retain the attention of these young American patriots. It worked with telling effect. I was careful to attribute the quote to Mr. Rumsfeld. I am much indebted to this most distinguished member of the Class of 1954 for his inspiring words. James H. Lipscomb III
’50 Respond
to this letter I think I understand that the editorial policy of PAW is no policy, and that it's subject, rightly, is Princeton. But when the magazine showcases a national policy maker, then, by definition, it's opened another editorial door. Then it's that old "Princeton in the nation's service" – or not - slogan we're dealing with and if the man sits in as powerful and fraught a chair as Secretary Rumsfeld does, I believe your readers deserve something other than the usual love letter to a celebrity. Don Rumsfeld is not an un-contraversial figure; many disagree with much of what he's promoted in the more recent past, in particular, his peculiar, seemingly unquestioning and extraordinary support for "Star Wars", Ronald Reagan's Missile Defense Shield. I think if PAW is going to profile someone like the secretary of defense (and I hope you will; it would make the magazine so much more interesting), serious investigative reporting, with thoughtful interviews with those who don't necessarily admire or share the subject's politics or philosophy as well as those who do, is called for. Samuel W.Gelfman ’53 respond
to this letter PAW's profile of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld '54 (cover story, November 21) recalls his advocacy of the development of missiles that "later played an important role ... in NATO's campaign in Kosovo, where no lives were lost." I am reminded of Huck Finn's arrival downriver at Aunt Sally's, who mistakes him for Tom Sawyer. Huck, playing along, invents a steamboat accident to explain the timing of his appearance: "It warn't the grounding – that didn't keep us back but a little. We blowed a cylinder-head." "Good gracious! anybody hurt?" "No'm. Killed a nigger." "Well, it's lucky; because sometimes people do get hurt." The line is only the more heart-stopping for fitting so smoothly into the conversation's flow. That the PAW writer (or editor) who blundered would hasten to disclaim Huck's and Aunt Sally's naive racism does not alas soften the blow entirely. Each year, teachers nudging acolytes toward the seriousness and depth of the craft of writing drive home that failure of written precision is failure of thought. Please think again. Ric Merritt ’75 Respond
to this letter Congratulations on the November.21 articles on the important leadership roles of Donald H. Rumsfield ’54, secretary of defense, and Robert S. Mueller III ’66, FBI director. Princeton has reason to be proud of the contributions that these two are now making to the national welfare of America. Is Princeton today graduating seniors who will be equally qualified to perform major roles in national leadership in future years? Ralph S. Cannon Jr. ’31
*35 Respond
to this letter Advice for Donald Rumsfeld '54 April 9, 2001 Donald Rumsfeld and I both graduated from Princeton early in the Eisenhower administration. We would all be well served if Secretary Rumsfeld were acquainted with the wisdom gained by Dwight Eisenhower in the crucible of war. In addition to ignoring the demonstrated ineffectiveness of the Star Wars technology that he supports and the likelihood that terrorist attacks would come by ship or pick-up truck, not by plane or missile, Secretary Rumsfeld is absurdly wrong in his assertion that billions of dollars spent on a Star Wars missile defense would do no harm. In an April 16, 1953, address to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, President Eisenhower said, "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its childrenThis is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. Clark Mck. Simms '53 respond
to this letter |
||||||
