Some of the relevent comments made in Sunday's paper:
Errors and arrogance
Rumsfeld claims that commanders were given all the troops they wanted. That's a lie. His micromanagement of troop deployments did grave damage. Furthermore, the office of the secretary of defense made it clear that commanders were not to ask for more troops.
The fact that post-Saddam Iraq failed to turn into a democratic Atlantis overnight caught Rumsfeld by surprise, and he never recovered. His failure to act decisively allowed the insurgency to take root.
Rumsfeld has been notoriously arrogant with military leaders --- who, by law, cannot respond to his insults. He has lost the confidence of our military leaders beyond the circle of sycophants with which he has surrounded himself.
But there are other reasons the SecDef must be dismissed. With Orwellian disregard for the truth, Rumsfeld has claimed credit for "transformation" at the Pentagon, for pioneering innovative approaches to future warfare. Yet, far from building a more effective fighting force, he has disregarded every lesson of our recent wars in favor of continuing massive and wasteful purchases of weapons systems conceived in the 1980s to fight the Soviet Union. What he labels transformation is a shameless defense of the acquisition status quo and the last decade's bankrupt schemes for waging bloodless techno-wars.
In addition to the widespread disgust among senior officers with the way the secretary botched the fight for Iraq, another trigger for the current round of criticism has been the latest Quadrennial Defense Review, the document that instructs our military on which weapons to buy and how to organize. Trumpeted as revolutionary---with phenomenal cynicism---the QDR failed to kill a single Cold War-legacy weapons system.
At a time when our troops have pressing needs, from sufficient numbers in uniform to replacement vehicles for those destroyed or worn out in Iraq, Rumsfeld's latest QDR proposes squandering hundreds of billions of dollars on useless, overpriced, outdated and counterproductive weapons, such as the Air Force's F-22 stealth fighter (the utility and reliability of which have been questioned) or the Navy's DDX destroyers (intended to fight a Soviet Navy that no longer exists).
Money used for junk
Every one of our services has serious needs, and Rumsfeld's "transformation" addresses virtually none of them. He would cut troop levels to buy worthless junk --- systems that would deform our military for decades to come and result in decreased readiness. The SecDef is supporting our defense industry, not our defense: We are getting the military Lockheed Martin wants to sell us, not the military we need.
If these problems are so serious, why has it taken so long for the generals to speak out? I've personally heard dozens of generals complain about Rumsfeld's incompetence and vindictiveness for years --- and have yet to hear one say a private word in his praise. Why didn't they go public? There are several reasons, some practical, others institutional.
Loyalty is deeply inculcated into our military, as is obedience to civilian control (something I have never heard questioned). Furthermore, no senior leader wants to abandon his troops in wartime --- he generally reasons that he can do more good by sticking to his post. And, of course, even the most well-intentioned internal criticism is a career-ender under a regime as intolerant as Rumsfeld's.
Nonetheless, it's been disappointing that so few retired generals have spoken out until now --- retirees do not face the same legal or ethical restrictions as those still in uniform. A few men of integrity, such as Gens. Anthony Zinni and Barry McCaffrey, did take principled stands on Rumsfeld's worst policy blunders, but most retirees simply kept quiet.
