Redstate

of the Israeli "land for peace" debacle, or Chamberlain's appeasement?  If we only give them what they want, they'll be happy and we can all have peace.  

Except reward never convinced a thug, not even one cowering behind the freedom of the press.

Even if you do so, you are left with the oft-ignored but unmistakable conclusion that Rumsfeld's resignation would not be the end of the backbiting. Rather, it would only be a beginning and would be used as a crowbar to pry away any and all remaining consensus opinion behind working for a successful reconstruction effort. This is not a good faith position.

Precisely. The main reason why I oppose Rumsfeld's resignation (as opposed to, reasons why I support his tenure, which is an entirely different matter) is because, if the generals had their way, you'd see something like:

• Generals complain about incumbent SecDef.
  
• SecDef resigns.
  
• President appoints new SecDef.
  
• New SecDef gets white-anted in same manner.

Lather, rinse, repeat until November 2008. That is why Pejman quite correctly stresses that a consensus going forward must precede personnel changes.

...who don't like eating their vegetables, have to learn that throwing a big tantrum won't work. Nanny is not going to get fired just because you don't like broccoli.

Dubya should tell Harry Reid that Rumsfeld will resign effective with the confirmation of his successor, Michael Savage.

I don't grant the premise that Djerejian is a good faith critic, Pej. His various "criticisms" of the prosecution of the war are nothing so much as vacuous moral preening.

for this...but I'll let it go anyway;

I find it worriesome not that generals are questioning Rummy.  After all, there seems to be a tendancy for generals to evolve politically.

I'm more concerned at the frequency troops below in rank are speaking out, joining the left.

This to me shows a deeper, more serious concern for the long term.  

I think it is perfectly acceptable to criticize Rumsfeld, and there is a lot to criticize. However,

for him to go now would only "feed the trolls".

sums up the reason why Rumsfeld should go:  accountability.  Even the Secretary of State admits thousands of tactical errors were made in Iraq; the consensus, even here, is that the war and aftermath could have been executed much more competently.  So, accountability.  If nobody answers for mistakes, nobody will believe those mistakes are behind us.

Accountability.

He's also hopelessly naive to believe that a change in SecDef will result in a change in policy.

About a handful of troops out of the hundreds of thousands grousing about the war? Last I read, there were all of 40 veterans running as Demcrats this year. Hardly a staggering number

Personally, I can't count on one hand the number of Democrats, let alone antibushites, I've met in my service here or overseas.

How many rank and file enlisted men or even field grade officers have come out against the war? An even more telling number would be how many of these Democrat Veterans are sh-tbirds and how many are accepted and respected by their peers? Sure the MSM/Kossacks label the as heros but what do those that serve with them have to say?

After the way the Dems tossed a decortated veteran the the curb (it was commented on here at RS, but I've spaced the name), I doubt alot more will come running.

As I was only a wee child during VNam, I don't know if there were many soldiers that came back and spoke out/ran for office against involvement.  Were there?  I still think that the number 40 seems large.  In any event, it is a concern of mine that the erosion isn't just at the top, but that it is throughout.

are made in any war. It may or may not be true that Rummy should leave but mistakes/trial and error should not be the reason. Thats just the norm for the human race especially in war. Unless you're so over cautious that your not doing anything for fear of blundering. Now if it were the case that this is whats happening, then maybe he should go. If the case were made, convincingly, that we were holding back, retracting, playing it too safe, not being aggressive enough within the bounds of the playing field that we have, then maybe. But I haven't really seen that case made. I see the 6 or 7 generals as jockeying for some kind of book deal or political position.  

I've also never gotten a sense of exactly what he wants in a SECDEF.

A CSM article saying this was the largest turnout of veterans since 1946.

I guess most Vietnam vets that were anti war were into the tune in drop out thing. That never did make sense to me...........

'After the way the Dems tossed a decortated veteran the the curb (it was commented on here at RS, but I've spaced the name),...'

That is the name I spaced

Why 40 out of hundreds of thousands seems large. I can find more people on base that would disagree with which Axe body spray attracts the most babes.

One thing they will all agree with is their derision for anti war veterans. They abandoned their Brethern in the field (if they were ever accepted inthe first place)

left the military to become widget makers, no big deal.  but in profession that tend to have longevity, 40 coming out and aligning themselves against their chosen profession, and with the slime of the left, to me it's a significant number.  Is it sig if 40 win election?...30?

McCellan made very few mistakes, but did very little.

Grant made more than a few mistakes, but won the war.

Which would you prefer?

I can find 40 people in the military that can disagree about ANYTHING. It's not surprising to me that there are 40 veterans that the Dems can talk into running. I've met, in my career, a total of 2 outspoken Democrats.

What is more important is how these 40 are held by those they served with. Were they respected or were they reviled? That would be telling, I think

...are part of the reason it is so messy and everyone wants to avoid it when ever possible. The old saying of no plan ever survives contact with the enemy is as true now as it was 2000 years ago. I would rather have Rummy and his plans (good or bad) keeping the enemy guessing rather than a poll pleaser who is afraid to commit to an idea that is outside the box.

And not only in the DoD. How long do you think it'd take for some "former distinguished ambassador" to complain that Condi is ruining State?

Eisenhower resign for the Battle of the Bulge?

even if you thought Rumsfeld should go, and I most definitely don't, it could never happen because of the partisan dems and the impossible chore of getting another sec def through the Senate without a filibuster. By effectively shutting down the Senate, they have made their own bed....

...and the obscene casualty rate of WWII, Mineral would probably go farther up and fire  SecDef Forrestal, instead of naming a class of aircraft carrier after him.

is not participant in tactical operations. How can he be held responsible for errors at that level?

Besides, there are errors and there are errors; errors in judgment, errors in planning, errors in logistics, errors in execution, all sorts of errors. Some of them unfortunately cost lives, but that doesn't mean that they are punishable offenses. War is full of tactical "errors", in and of themselves that doesn't make anyone "culpable" in the errors.

How many of the ex-generals refused to take an aggressive approach in Iraq? Who never was there? Which one led the attack that toppled Saddam? And who today endorses Rumsfeld?

Why are people voting in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Iran is building nukes, why don't you feel they are afraid of Rumsfeld...?

How would Rumsfeld's disappearance affect Iraq's confidence?

Explain the DNC's perspective torwards U.S. intelligence.

What is the real war in this case?

Carl

of the diplomatic panjandrums who are scorned and prodded by Rumsfeld.  Maybe there would be no big policy changes if Rumsfeld left, but DOD effectiveness would probably decrease as the "new management" settled in. It would be a nice breather for the go-slow/appeasement/nuance bureaucrats.

...wasn't the military operation! It was trying to institute an American interim government!

The SecDef was not responsible for that!!!

Even if you were to wrongly hold the SecDef accountable for tactical errors

There's a BIG difference between tactical errors and incompetence, incompetence being the reason for removal not errors!

Could it because his father was in the state department?Bingo. Notice how he recommends state department officals for Rumsfeld replacement. There is no  love lost between the State Department and DOD.

The lack of love between Defense and State has been a long-simmering issue--what's amazing to me is that Rumsfeld and Rice get along as well as they do.

Dick Cheney to SecDef, Condi to VP..... heh, heh, heh.  Won't happen, but watching Dem heads explode at the mere mention would be worth the price of admission....

...better people to handle the war in Iraq, probably, but that's not the big war that the Bush Administration's in danger of losing. It's the Left's all-out propaganda war at home that Bush is in danger of succumbing to. The Left is just better at doing no-holds-barred propaganda. And because I don't see anybody better than Rumsfeld to fight back against it--the Left's defeatism and cynicism--Rummy has to stay.

the left has no compunction about flat out lying to suit their objectives.

hello all. I'm your newest member...

After all, if the only bar in the way of having a whole host of good faith critics lend their support and talents to helping make the reconstruction effort work is one man, then utilitarian theory may very well compel that one man to leave the policymaking scene.

Who in their right mind thinks the "critics" have much if any impact on whether reconstruction is working or not? An op-ed does not blow up a pipeline. Iraqis, both loyalists and insurgents, are more interested in their domestic politics than what we go on about. I'd rather have this discussion focus on whether what Rumsfeld has inspired is working or not.

Look, the reason that most of the Iraq war veterans running for office are anti-war Democrats is that they are the ones that get out. The Republicans (who make up the bulk of our fighting forces) are still in, and therefore can not run for office. It is sort of difficult to wage an effective Congressional campaign from the front lines in Iraq or Afghanistan. With few exceptions (Wesley Clark), the "Fighting Dems" are those who serve a stint and then get out to run for office. The "fighting GOP" serve until the battle is won. They don't get out after a couple of months and bragg on their war record to get them elected. (see John Kerry et al.)