Some General remarks on Rumsfeld

I had a chance to see General John Batiste’s interview with Jim Lehrer on the New Hour last night. He’s one of a growing chorus of retired Generals who are singing for Rumsfeld’s head. One of the more interesting claims he made was that he and several of his compatriots did ask for more troops, but were denied those assets. This, of course, flies directly in the face of what Rumsfeld and Bush have been saying in public, which should come as no surprise to anyone who has paid attention to the story. Such criticisms of Rumsfeld are perhaps an important step forward in the process of eventually getting the troops out, but at this point I suspect that they are really only part of one baby-step forward that will lead to two giant steps backwards. I say this because Batiste is still refusing to criticize Bush and the decision to go to war. In fact, he was arguing that if we would only replace Rumsfeld and change tactics, such as adding more troops on the ground, then we could still win this thing. This is the same argument that John McCain and Lieberman have been making and it’s an attractive one for the dead-enders. But if this argument carries the day, and I think it very well may given that the admission of defeat is anathema to most Americans, then surely this will mean that there will have to be a draft and 4 more years of war after Bush is gone. At that point we will have reached 10 years in Iraq -- a figure eerily similar to another war in history (and I’m not talking about the Trojan War).