I don't see how removing the Secretary of Defense helps either the country or the Republicans, especially given the pre-election vote of confidence in his full tenure. He was on the right track reforming the military; the removal of the Taliban and the three-week victory over Saddam were inspired.
So we are down to his supposed responsibility for the later effort to stop the 3-year plus insurgency, whose denouement is not yet known. Rumsfeld's supposed error that drew such ire was troop levels, i.e., that he did not wish to repeat a huge presence in the manner of Vietnam, but sought to skip the 1964-1971 era morass, and go directly to the 1972-5 Vietnamization strategy of training troops, providing aid, and using air power.
Just chum in the water that will draw the sharks of retreat. I hope I am wrong and his departure will prove to be a necessary sacrifice for the sake of the bigger picture. But I don't think the critics of Rumsfeld from the retreat side can even see the big picture.
Right now I am not happy about the prospects of a Gates tenure. I could be persuaded but right now this seems bad. Will this really mean that we will talk to Syria and Iran in a misguided effort to get them to help us in Iraq? If so, I advise Gates not to shake anybody's hand. If we end up fighting Iran in five years, those who cheer him now will point to the pictures of him shaking hands with Ahmadinejad and accuse him of being responsible for Iran so how can we fight Iran?
We will miss Rumsfeld before too long, I fear.
