I don't believe in the 'repeating history' thing. History never repeats itself. It might run in a fashion that is similar to something in the past but there will always be new factors involved that make each situation totally unique. This situation is no different. You can point back at Vietnam and see similarities but it is folly to assume the same solutions to Vietnam would apply in this situation.
We can use history as a rough guideline but only if we keep in mind that our own situation is new and unique and might require a different solution than any history has to offer us.
That the media are reporting in a negative manner is totally mundane and predictable. Nothing new or amazing there. The Pentagon used this to their advantage in the build up to and during the initial invasion in 2003. That things wouldn't go according to plan was also an elementary assumption (things never go according to plan).
If President Bush had hoped to have Iraq and Afghanistan all 'tidied up' by the elections, this was a faulty assumption. I have yet to understand why he sacked Rumsfeld in the manner he did. You don't stand by a guy 100% and then turn around and fire him. If he really believed in Rumsfeld he should have stuck with him- come what may.
What the administration needs to focus on now is committing us to a policy in the Middle East that will be impossible for any subsequent president or congress to withdraw from. Personally, I think that was already accomplished when we invaded Iraq. To withdraw now would be the ultimate humiliation for America and I don't even think the democrats are that stupid (although I know some Freepers will comment on that one).
If we withdraw, we'll be right back over there again in no time at all. This is obvious. Must be obvious to even the most embittered liberal.
It's possible that Rumsfeld simply attempted to resign yet again, and this time could not be convinced to stick around.