WSJ is right today. Rumsfeld is testifying before both houses of Congress. The target isn't Rumsfeld, but his boss, GWB. Just look at who is most adamently out to get him - the same people who voted against the war and its cost.
My view is that Rumsfeld is the right man for the job. Part of our problem has been that we still have a Cold War army, to a very great extent. We have pretty much useless heavy armor divisions in Europe, most notably German, surrounded today by other NATO countries. We probably also have too many troops in South Korea and Japan.
Rumsfeld came into office attempting to make the transition to a more modern armed forces. Things appeared to stand still, with the military dragging its heels, until 9/11. And then he started making progress.
My father the other day was complaining that we went into Iraq too quickly, and as one indication, we didn't have enough uparmored Humvees there. As you probably know, almost all of them in our inventory today are in Iraq. They are building them as fast as they can. It just takes a while. Our inventory of M1 tanks and M2 Bradleys took a decade or so to build. The problem is that prior to Afghanistan and Iraq, our military figured that Humvees would be behind the advance of our armored Abrahms and Bradleys. Not any more.
Rumsfeld remaining as SECDEF is key to continuing this transformation. He asks the hard questions and the right questions, and then demands answers. It is working. He is right, we probably don't need more troops, just differently trained troops, with more appropriate equipment. Move all that heavy armor and artillery to the reserves. Concentrate on lighter, more nimble active duty troops, and in particular, esp. in view of this scandal, more and better trained MP and intelligence active duty troops.
