Connect: Donald Rumsfeld is "toast". The era of one-party rule in the US ended this week as President Bush prepares to share power with congressional Democrats for his last two years in the White House. The removal of a US defence secretary who made light of torture at Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay and at secret CIA sites in third-party countries is worth celebrating.
It's too late, of course, for hundreds of thousands of Iraqis either killed or maimed in a senseless invasion. It's also too late for almost 3,000 soldiers. It's taken more than five years since 9/11 for Rumsfeld to go. He's being replaced by Robert Gates, a former CIA director and friend of James Baker and George Bush mark 1, the president's father.
It's not as if Gates is going to be a liberal. Indeed, the term has such negative connotations in the US that, until this week, anybody fractionally to the left of Genghis Khan could be - and frequently was - condemned and traduced for unpatriotic, treasonous, "un-American" behaviour. It requires a fatally narrow definition of "American-ness" to admit such guff.
The 9/11 attacks would always define the US position vis-a-vis the rest of the world. Financially and militarily, the US has no equals. But it takes more than money and military equipment to win a "war". It needs at least minimal reason to do the deeply unpleasant deeds necessary to prevail. Without any reason, how could you possibly kill people and feel okay about it? Ever since Nuremberg, the excuse of "only following orders", has been inadequate. This doesn't, of course, suit a fighting army, the grunts of which are taught to see their own interests as identical with the interests of their controlling power.
Yet the mood revealed by this week's American elections showed that the grunts have sundered themselves from their country's defence secretary.
Perhaps it's disappointing that the Democrats' victory has been built on the backs of often conservative contenders. Such cowboy-boot wearing, tobacco-chewing, abortion-hating, pro-gun and anti government spending candidates were recruited to compete in traditionally Republican areas. Sure, they won but the price of victory has been to endorse some dodgy values.
Since early in the invasion of Iraq - as soon as the "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD) lie was proven - it's become impossible to justify it. Practically nightly we've watched as the death toll from Iraq climbs inexorably higher. Nobody knows the true figure for the dead although the Lancet's recent estimate of 655,000 Iraqis killed is alarming.
That's about eight full Croke Parks. What has it all been for? Killing the equivalent of eight full Croke Parks of overwhelmingly innocent people was not necessary after the attacks on New York and Washington. Why was it done? Was it just to show George Bush and his cabal as tough? Was it simply to exercise US military might? Was control of oil supplies the real reason? The reasons for the invasion can be argued from any or a number of such viewpoints. Most people know that 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. This would indicate therefore that Saudi might have been attacked. After all, it's not a democracy - in fact, it's quite the reverse - but Iraq was invaded instead. Why? It could be some Oedipal desire to show up his father that drove Bush junior to Baghdad. After all, Saddam Hussein had no ties to al-Qaeda and his allegedly ambitious weapons programmes - chemical, biological and nuclear - did not exist. Perhaps Bush junior decided to attack Iraq because he alleged that Saddam Hussein had "tried to kill my dad".
One anti-war demonstrator in Washington DC shortly before the attack of March 2003 carried a placard that read: "I love my dad, too, but come on!". There is not even proof that Saddam Hussein tried to kill George Bush, the elder. It's possible, of course. Either way though, eight Croke Parks full of people bombed, shot or otherwise killed seems excessive.
It's strange that in the week in which Saddam Hussein has been condemned to die by hanging, George Bush has effectively been condemned to watch his presidency die by hanging about. He'll remain president of the US but expect his belligerence to be muted in future. Still, it remains an outrage that he - as Rumsfeld did until this week - has held office for so long.
"There are known knowns," said Rumsfeld once. "These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."
At least one of this week's known knowns is that Rumsfeld is no longer US defence secretary.
The US administration of the last six years has been appalling. It has cost its country hugely in terms of reputation and goodwill. It may, in fact, be the worst presidency in US history but perhaps such a judgment requires more time. Either way, it's worst or among the worst that America has ever provided. That too is now a known known.