"These guys" are in the distinct minority. Rumsfeld is the youngest and oldest SecDef in our history. He knows and understands the workings and culture of the Pentagon and the world's largest bureaucracy. Unlike many others who have held this job, Rumsfeld wants to be more than just a civilian figurehead and defer to the military and career bureaucrats. Moreover, he can't be snowed like his predecessors, some of whom take months just to learn how to navigate their way around the building.
Rumsfeld has wanted to institute certain reforms in DOD, which have not doubt riled some in the military. He has also had to make some hard decisions on the conduct of the war in Iraq. Even Tommy Franks was criticized by some of the generals for his war plan.
Rumsfeld has also had to battle Colin Powell as part of the bureaucratic infighting. There is no doubt that some of Powell's old fellow generals have been crying on his shoulder about what Rumsfeld is doing to the Pentagon. Powell had been planting stories about Rumsfeld while Powell was still SecState. They were archenemies, each vying for influence within the administration.
Rumsfeld is probably one of the best and most effective SecDefs in history. I consider him to be Bush's best Cabinet appointment.
These few naysayers are being given more credence and importance than they deserve. Also, there has been a politization of the military. Remember Kerry parading at the Dem convention the ex-generals/admirals who supported him. Admiral Crowe received an ambassadorship to London in return for his support of Clinton. Wesley Clark has tried to turn his criticism of Bush into a run for the Presidency. Zinni is trying to sell books (No one seems to mention that he was CENTCOM when the USS Cole was bombed or was appointed by Powell to be a special middle east envoy after Zinni retired from the USMC.) Others are becoming paid military consultants for the MSM.
There may be other reasons why Baptiste turned down his third star and opted for retirement.
Effective for whom? The Iraq war is really dragging us down, bringing us perilously close to a Dem House or Senate. A country with no (at least accessible) WMDs, no defense, a shadow army, and a ragtag insurgents (mostly Iraqi deadeners, <10% foreigners) bogging down the greatest military machine on earth? At least Viet Nam had a real leader.
I know personally that many people in the armed services had no use for Clinton, but there was nothing like the unease that's being expressed now. The generals could have written books and Colin Powell was considering a run as POTUS. I think we are fooling ourselves if we think there isn't a serious problem here.
I'll take the word of a general who was actually commanding troops in battle in Iraq, over a civilian government whose personnel have no direct experience in warfare.