An advance copy of the article titled "Time for Rumsfeld to Go" was obtained by the NBC News and posed on its website late Friday. It is scheduled for simultaneous publication Monday by the Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times, the network said.
"Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large," the advance copy said.
"His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised," the editorial continued. "And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt."
What a load of BS. Under President Clinton, who lacked the guts to act as the commander-in-chief because of his troubled history with the military, the military got used to doing what it wants. No matter that the constitution does not require the President to have any military background to be the commander-in-chief. As I've noted before, President Clinton enjoyed the trappings of the presidency without carrying out the responsibilities of the presidency. Under his watch, civilian control of the military eroded. As much respect as I have for our military and those who serve in it, civilian control is essential for our military to protect our territory and political freedoms.
Secretary Rumsfeld has reasserted civilian control over our military and has made decisions much of the upper ranks of the military don't like. As much as I worried about Rumsfeld prior to 9/11 with his dismissal of the importance of ground power--and especially the Army's value--now that we are at war, Rumsfeld is a secretary who fights and who is changing our military in needed ways.
And I fail to see the so-called lack of confidence by the enlisted troops.
All those who continue to clamor for 40,000 more US Army troops so we can add more combat units don't recognize that under Rumsfeld we've added at least that many troops to the operational army already, adding about 10 brigades to our active force structure. This increase in combat brigades is at least as much as adding 40,000 more troops without changing the Army as Rumsfeld has done. Plus we have more troops such as Military Police, more Marine combat units, and new Naval Infantry.
And I thoroughly reject that our strategy in Iraq has failed. We must get Iraqis to fight and we are doing this. This is so basic to counter-insurgency that I fail to see how anyone can actually complain about it.
And given that the loyal opposition has pilloried Runsfeld, I don't know why we should sacrifice Rumsfeld for the self-fulfilling prophecy of reducing Rumsfeld's standing with Congress and the public.
And if you think the rabid critics of Rumsfeld want him gone in order to fight more effectively or to have a better military, take a reality check and by all means don't operate heavy machinery until you've slept it off. The firing of Rumsfeld is just a step to retreating from Iraq and defanging our war effort.
Keep Rumsfeld. He fights.
UPDATE: Instapundit notes that Gateway Pundit has a defense of Rumsfeld.
Remember, this is all just a proxy war against the war in Iraq. Don't become confused. Few calling for Rumsfeld's head on a pike want to put in another Secretary of Defense who will fight the war more vigorously. It's all about forcing a retreat from Iraq for all but a small percentage of the critics.
POST-ELECTION UPDATE: Rumsfeld is resigning. I believe this is a mistake by our President. This won't satisfy critics. It is just chum in the water and the sharks are already circling. I will sorely miss you, Secretary Rumsfeld.
