I agree with your assessment of Sec Rumsfeld. When he became Sec of Def, he butted heads with the Army generals because they did not transform their service in line with the DoD plans. This tense relationship hurted the initial phases of the ground war in Iraq, The Army wanted more troops and spares before attacking Iraq. Rumsfeld felt that the generals were too cautious and ignoring the miracles of computer management and communications technology which does not require many troops to fight battles nor long logistics trains. He was partially correct, but his technique of handling opposition was very corporate. He kept firing the generals who supported more troops until he got one that said yes. (This is typical in corporate America, if the CEO wants to structure a deal and if the lawyer or accountant said it was illegal or not possible, hardheaded CEO's kept firing them until he got one that said yes). The battle for Iraq certified Rumsfeld faith in technology over caution and large numbers, but the occupation of Iraq proved that the generals' propensity to have more men and spares just in case things don't go right was equally valid. I think the professional soldiers and Rumsfeld learned from each other. I will criticize Rumsfeld initial corporate viewpoint of war and technology, but I will admire him for learning very quickly, and striking the right balance between pushing GWB's needs and listening to his generals a bit more. Unlike the Democrat critics, I do not think he should resign. Rumsfeld has learned and from it he is the most experienced Secretary of Defense we ever had.
Well said, but I can't criticize him on his viewpoints regarding his assessments of the war forced upon us nor his desire to create a leaner meaner fighting machine (military).