Sticking Up for Rumsfeld

The op-ed in the Chicago Tribune is strongly supportive.

And it makes a point I've not seen many other places:

It would be curious to know, though, how many of [the generals speaking out against Rumsfeld] advised against plans to invade Afghanistan with a light and nimble force--and were proved wrong. Some in the military and many outside analysts argued that such a strategy carried too much risk for failure. They would have allowed Al Qaeda and its host, the Taliban, to operate much longer while the U.S. assembled a large force to invade. They were wrong.

And Tony Blankley even raises the issue of whether some of these generals should face a court of military inquiry for insubordination. Yes, the remedy seems somewhat harsh, but he (along with this oped from The Washington Post) nonetheless raise some very troubling questions about the implications of this "revolt" for civilian control of the military.

It seems ironic, somehow, that the left -- long hostile to the military -- are the ones inadvertantly working to weaken civilian control of it. That's where Bush hatred will lead, it seems. But it hurts the left more than the right in the end; given liberals' reputations for being soft on defense, establishing a precedent whereby disgruntled generals are praised for ex post facto criticism of an administration under which they served is more likely to hurt those who seem weak on defense than to damage conservatives over the long run.