No. The difference is that Rummy has actually fought in wars and our generals have not. The generals we have now are political animals and Rummy has 'Been there--Done that'.
Quite simply: McNamara was a pogue, his generals were warriors--now, the generals are pogues and the secretary is a warrior. Huge difference!
Which wars?
You need to check your facts. Does not the record show that the SECDEF was a Navy fighter pilot, but did not serve in combat (post Korean War, I believe)? He is a former member of Congress and serves as a political appointee.
SEC ARMY White served two tours in Vietnam, as did GEN Shinseki (2 Purple Hearts, lost part of one leg), GEN Franks (2 Purple Hearts), etc., etc.
Your arguments may have some merit, but in order to make them, you must retain some credibility - comments like this will cause people to wonder.
My opinion of Rumsfeld is that he is a brillant man who is determined to implement the new defense policy of preemption and to undertake a much needed reform and transformation of the defense department. On these points he is on the mark and will serve our country well.
But, he is also egotistical and arrogant and is carrying out a vendetta against the Army. His views of modern warfare are colored by his experiences as a fighter pilot and like many airmen he overestimates the ability of airpower. He is going to get rid of anyone who disagrees with him, and will never listen to advice from others. If he's right, then we will have a better military. But, if he's wrong, God help us.