The latest round of complaints

In Friday's big news, six retired generals called for Donald Rumsfeld to resign as Secretary of Defense, according to the New York Times.  Their spontaneous demonstrations of dissatisfaction with Rumsfeld is so reminiscent of the flurry of books, including some from disgruntled former administration officials, critical of Bush's handling of the War on Terror. 

Current and former officers said they were unaware of any organized campaign to seek Mr. Rumsfeld's ouster, but they described a blizzard of telephone calls and e-mail messages as retired generals critical of Mr. Rumsfeld weighed the pros and cons of joining in the condemnation.

By odd coincidence, the same day that unhappiness with Rumsfeld among the former generals makes front page news in the Times, David Ignatius of the Washington Post editorializes the same sentiment.

Rumsfeld has lost the support of the uniformed military officers who work for him. Make no mistake: The retired generals who are speaking out against Rumsfeld in interviews and op-ed pieces express the views of hundreds of other officers on active duty. When I recently asked an Army officer with extensive Iraq combat experience how many of his colleagues wanted Rumsfeld out, he guessed 75 percent. Based on my own conversations with senior officers over the past three years, I suspect that figure may be low.

Is it at all conceivable that this flurry of telephone calls and emails was originated by reporters to generals, trying to drum up a flood of criticism suitable for front page framing?  In any case Bush Administration criticism, always a lucrative industry, now has a new product offering -- military criticism of Rumsfeld.  The viewpoint is not universally shared.

Some officers who have worked closely with Mr. Rumsfeld reject the idea that he is primarily to blame for the inability of American forces to defeat the insurgency in Iraq. One active-duty, four-star Army officer said he had not heard among his peers widespread criticism of Mr. Rumsfeld, and said he thought the criticism from his retired colleagues was off base. "They are entitled to their views, but I believe them to be wrong. And it is unfortunate they have allowed themselves to become in some respects, politicized."

Gen. Jack Keane, who was Army vice chief of staff in 2003 before retiring, said in the planning of the Iraq invasion, senior officers as much as the Pentagon's civilian leadership underestimated the threat of a long-term insurgency.

"There's shared responsibility here. I don't think you can blame the civilian leadership alone," he said.

What a victory it would be for opponents of President Bush if he were to replace Rumsfeld, particularly at this stage of the war.  Such a move would amount to a concession that the critics are right.  I rate the chances of it happening somewhere between slim and none.

The reality is, in each progression of the war an enemy sees defeat, starting with the initial invasion in which Saddam Hussein's army went down.  That was followed by a Baathist/Sunni insurgency in urban areas such as Mosul that was defeated largely by American military action. Then a Sunni/al Qaeda insurgency took root in the western provinces that was defeated by coalition action with significant contributions from an increasingly effective Iraqi Army.  It hurt the al Qaeda cause when western Sunni's began to show disenchantment with al Qaeda and al Qaeda responded with terror.  The result was an Anbar Sunni's declaration of war on al Qaeda.  With the western provinces largely under control, al Qaeda extremely unwelcome in the west, terrorism has returned to Baghdad in what we can hope is their last ditch effort at preventing formation of a democratic Iraqi government.

Even though I'll admit to underestimating the staying power of the terrorist insurgency in Iraq, I'm not willing to conclude that it means the rationale behind the liberation of Iraq were wrong, or that the goals are unrealistic.  Nor am I willing to say that the strategies or tactics were failures.  What is unrealistic is this apparent expectation that victory should have been achieved without any cost and without any loss of life.  It's war.  It's a war we have to fight, and a war we have to win.  The fact is this.  In spite of all the carping and criticism, we're winning the war.

Comments

[Taylor]

WaPo pro-war columnist David Ignatius’s estimates that 75%+ of officers want Rumsfeld out... crazy stuff.

[Tom Bowler]

Yes, he said he asked "an Army officer with extensive Iraq combat experience," but doesn't mention his name. I suppose an officer could be considered guilty of insubordination for publicly coming out with something like that, but the column goes counter to the stories we hear of the troops' high morale. From my own military experience, it's hard for me to imagine that discontent is so focused on Rumsfeld. It sounds like a made up story to me.