Rumsfeld is not the problem

For a reputed "liberal" columnist, a darn good article:

"The drums along the Potomac are growing louder and angry crowds carrying lighted torches are gathering at the Pentagon, calling for the head of Donald Rumsfeld.
Hardly a day goes by without the appearance of another retired senior general officer demanding that Rumsfeld resign, telling stories of what a terrible Secretary of Defense he has been. Six of them so far have come forward with various indictments of Rumsfeld?s competence.

The charges range from failure to adequately plan for the war in Iraq to a refusal to listen to the advice of military professionals on how many troops we would need for the job.

**********************

???.blaming Rumsfeld for incompetence or doing this or not doing that that, fosters the idea that there was a good way to fight this war.

The argument is that if we?d only had more troops on the ground in the beginning and perhaps not disbanded the Baath-led Iraqi army we could have nipped this insurgency nonsense in the bud and things would be hunky-dory.

I don?t think so. We would still be trying to put a rope around a country whose every natural inclination is to fly apart, a country divided by religion, ethnicity, history and oil.

We could have fought a much smarter war (and what war can you not say that about?) but in the end I think the result would have been pretty much the same: A long road with chaos, virtually indistinguishable from civil war, at its end.

I am at once glad that the generals are speaking out and at the same time made uncomfortable by it. There?s something vaguely South American about military leaders trying to unseat the civilian leader of the armed forces. Down that road lies Juan Peron.

None of this would be happening if Congress were alive, of course. Pity that it?s not."

Full article: http://www.minutemanmedia.org/BB%20KAUL%20042606.htm