[alnick]

But, the fact that so many Generals are pointing the finger at SecDef (the civilian in charge of the military) is a problem and cannot simply be brushed aside by those who worship at the altar of Rummy.

So many? What? Four or five? That cannot be honestly described as "so many." "A few" would be accurate.

[misterrob]

I think that too many true believers around here are afraid to look at Rumsfeld with any critical eye. The men who are criticizing him are not just random REMFs who have never seen combat or exactly the Wesley Clarks of the world. The military strategy planned for the Iraq takedown was amazing and the execution was flawless. It's the postwar campaign, civil planning and security that has not panned out. I suspect that Rumsfeld gets a free pass on results simply because he is Republican SecDef. Security has been piss poor, border incursions have largely gone unchecked and really, unchallenged. The Iranian supply of IEDs is an act of war. The Syrian pipeline of terrorists has been a problem as well. No actions have been taken. Why?

Did anyone stop to think that the Shia weren't going to be looking for payback? That the minority in power were going to go away quietly? That the terrorists trained and living in Iraq weren't going to be a problem? What about the political landscape? Trying to cobble together a government of life long enemies? That Iran wasn't going to stir up trouble or work their agents to influence the government? They picked Chalabi as a leader and then turn around and smear him as a spy for Iran when they figure out no one liked him.

That soldiers die due to their leaders' errors is an outcome that cannot be avoided 100%. But, the administration chose to listen to the views that supported their line of thinking and the results show.