Should Rumsfeld Go?

The drumbeat for Rumsfeld's resignation is growing louder and more intense. The calls have come from predictable places like anti-war liberals, but they have increasingly come from the military establishment and Republicans who are not rushing to his defense. The answer to the question of whether Rumsfeld should go is yes, but very careful attention to the timing and rationale are extremely important for the global war against Islamo-Fascism.

Before I delve into the reasons why Rumsfeld should go, I'd like to make it crystal clear that it has nothing to do with the war in Iraq being a mistake. It is not a mistake. It is a critical central battle in the overall war, and victory in Iraq is absolutely essential to establishing lasting peace and security in the future. Therefore, allowing the Democrats to use Rumsfeld's job performance as a hook to hang a debate over the validity of the war itself would be disastrous. That is why the President Bush should definitely not pull the trigger during the current political season.

So when should Rumsfeld go and why?

Rumsfeld should go shortly after the mid-term elections and he should go, because he has failed to win the war in Iraq in a timely manner. For this plan to be successful, the Republicans must retain control of the Senate so that Mr. Bush can get his choice for the job confirmed. Although Mr. Rumsfeld has enormous experience and provides tireless dedication, something is badly amiss when the USA is pinned down by a ragtag group of cowardly militants. It is easy to get into a debate about tactics and strategy. Was his war plan sufficient? Are there enough troops committed to the job? Are Iraqis being trained fast enough? The fact is that there is any number of rational points to be made on either side. But, the bottom line is that the war is still raging and the USA has not yet won . This should be unacceptable to the Commander in Chief, and I hope he will not allow personal loyalty to get in the way of sound judgment.

Mr. Bush should immediately begin secretly interviewing candidates to replace Mr. Rumsfeld to be available to take over shortly after the mid-term elections. He should determine the best candidate based on canvassing their views on the following questions:

1. What should the war plan be to win the war by the end of 2007 and do the rules of engagement support a quick end to the war?
2. What should the plan be to rally full political support from Republicans, "conservative" Democrats and the military establishment?
3. What plan should be put in place to engage in offensive, first strike operations against enemies around the world?

The President must insure Mr. Rumsfeld's replacement has a plan that provides a victory in Iraq to the next occupant of the White House. The future of the country and Mr. Bush's legacy are dependent upon that victory and as talented, committed and briliant Mr. Rumsfeld may be, he has not succeeded yet and there isn't any time left to wait and see if his plans will come to fruition.