>As a side note, this whole thing about Rumsfeld seems to be a lot about "nothing".
>
>http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008249

Well, Sam, it's my observation that supporters of the Iraq war and Secretary Rumsfeld are hiding more and more behind generalizations (not related at all to military Generals < s >).

The two biggest that I hear these days are:
1) Democracy doesn't come easy and we'll see if Iraqis are up to the task;
2) Every war ever fought was full of mistakes and this one's no different.

The first doesn't hold water.
The Iraqis never "asked" for democracy, and no one in any country would be aiming for "democracy" when invaded and occupied. Job #1 would be to rid ourselves of the invaders. And, in addition, Iraq is a very special place given its breakdown of 3 large ethnic groups that each have separation as a goal.
Not to mention the bombings, killings, kidnappings (of Iraqis for ransom), water absence, sparse electrical service, unemployment and sky-high prices now prevalent. It's gotta be tough to be "up to the task" (of grabbing/building a democracy) with those little distractions.

The second - every war has been full of mistakes - also doesn't apply in the case of Iraq or Afghanistan. Why, you may ask.
Well, quite simply, because fighting an aggressor is bound to be error-prone because the aggressor knows their own plans and the defenders have to guess/react. In THESE cases the U.S. is the aggressor and THERE IS NO DEFENDER!
In other words the mistakes by the U.S. and the Allies (WWI, WWII, Korea) occurred as defenders who were not knowledgeable of German/Italian/Japanese or North Korean plans and tactics and diversionary ploys and...
In these two cases the U.S., as the aggressor, failed to plan and execute in a manner consistent with "giving freedom" to the vanquished. Sure, they conquered handily. But they didn't have the troops to keep the peace. They didn't have the troops and wherewithal to rebuild the destroyed (by themselves) infrastructure. They knew that unemployment would be a huge problem but had no plan to address it. In fact they dis-employed the whole military when anyone with half a brain knows that idle hands look for something to do. The Baathist ran everything, so people who might otherwise have had jobs had no bosses from whom to take direction (because Baathists were outlawed).
So you've got a war where the actual PROVISION of "democracy" to the conquered had NO PLAN. None whatsoever!!! Such a mistake, and all that flows from it, demands resignations, including the President's.
"Mistakes" made in the heat of battle with aggressors are one thing. The egregious errors that continue unabated in Iraq are a totally different kettle of fish.