I disagree with your hypothetical situation based on what I've read. I first heard of an ex-military commander calling for Rumsfeld's head a couple weeks ago when Zinni was on meet the press. But he didn't go into details on why.

That was the week the article came out in the New Yorker. The article fully explains why the failure to-date in Iraq can be squarly placed at the feet of Rumsfeld. The beginning of the article states how military colleges, specifically on in the UK, have developed war plans for dealing with an insurgency.

Bottom line, you must use 80% political, 20% military. I believe this is why Murtha has a plan that calls for withdrawing all troops, to somewhere outside Iraq. And sending in the political teams. Where politics fails, we would have a very strong force we could then send in to deal with the insurgency.

However, Rumsfeld has steadfastly refushed to acknowledge that there is an insurgency in Iraq. So he refuses to call for a political/military solution.

There are several military leaders who have significant time investing in studying military history. In cases where they have been placed in charge, there is a successful transition in the city. Very few casualities.

In cases where the military has gone in with a kill the insurgents strategy, is where we are suffering the vast majority of our casualities. Not too mention all the Iraqi casualities that have occurred.

If we continue down with the same strategy, there will never be a turning point. History shows that. Expecting anything else is blind optimism.

>Isn't it possible that what we're seeing is the refusal to admit mistakes *publicly?* Why is pure speculation... again. My opinion is that they feel that they'd be giving the enemy some idea as to what will change in their plan.
>
>And while we're talking simple, don't you think it's overly simple to believe that our strategy has remained the same... unchanging, as if our leaders are blindly marching repeatedly into a brick wall? I think that would be confusing nothing changing in the situation's overall appearance with nothing changing in the strategy. Wouldn't it make more sense to believe that the situation on the ground changes so rapidly in this sort of unconventional "war" that tactics would be in an almost constant state of flux? And maybe all we're hearing is that "nothing's working" so it gives the illusion that nothing's changing?
>
>Twisting your basketball analogy to fit the situation, this would be like team A playing Team B and then suddenly Team C starts mingling on the court, interfering as much as possible with team A. Then some "fans" start lobbing debris on the court. All the while the referees are... wait, there's no referees! Team A's strategy changes... and changes rapidly... but that fact could easily be lost if all the reporters have to say is "look what a tough time Team A is having"
>
>More opinion here, but I think a lot of the problem the media has is that they're being kept in the dark and they take their frustration out by cheap shotting as much as they can to either show how powerful they can be or maybe to force someone to prove them wrong and finally get some information moving?
>
>And yes, I agree... that New Yorker headline summed it up. It could have just as easily been "What We Need to Do in Iraq"... instead they chose to take political potshots in an unfortunate, but fashionable and predictable manner.
>
>>We obviously have far, far different perspectives on this. The heading on the New Yorker article last week, "How Donald Rumsfeld's failure to understand the insurgency has prevented the military from getting it right in Iraq", sums it up.
>>
>>Have you ever watched a basketball game where Team A has an outstanding center. So the other teams strategy is to collapse on the center. But they forgot the team also has a guard who could be deadly from 3 pt range. If the guard gets hot and they stick with their strategy of collapsing on the center, there's a good chance that Team A could have a lead. And if the guard stays hot, the lead could grow. Team B's likelyhood of winning is dependent on their coach being flexible enough to see that they need to change their defense to account for the guard.
>>
>>Our govt has placed us in a situation where because they went in with a flawed strategy from the getgo, there were major problems. And, I'm not sure why, but they are also extemely inflexible. So they refuse to acknowledge their failures. And as the situation gets worse, they refuse to change their strategy.