Ok, that's not really my opinion, but the opinion of Boston Herald columnist, Jules Crittendon, whom I've linked to a few times in the past.
Usually Jules is right on the mark with his columns and I agree 100% without reservation. However, I'm not quite on board with him right now.
While I agree that Rummy has led the US into a war where more would have been better, and he chose less, where armor and strength would have been better than diplomacy and neutrality, I'm not 100% sure that it was his fault.
It seems we've fought this war like we fought Desert Storm, where we were worried about world opinion and the opinions of the others in the coalition. While we do have to take the opinions of the others in the coalition into mind, we need to fight the war as it needs to be fought. Brutal. Ruthless. Dirty. And with some finality. Either we win, or we die. Just that simple. If we don't win in Iraq, the terrorists will have another training base for operations, government funded, and backed by the full faith and credit of yet another middle eastern government.
And I agree that Rummy hasn't exactly shown that willingness fight it with an overwhelming force described in 'Shock and Awe', but not displayed by our attack. Yes, we kicked their asses in record time, but that didn't eliminate the enemy. Just gave them a chance to be assimilated into the citizenry. And with the fear that Saddam's government had instilled in the people, they were terrified to give them up, for fear that Saddam would come back, and there would be repercussions.
My question though, and obviously this is strictly for discussion purposes is, who would be the head of the DoD then? I think Sam Nunn would be a good choice. He's a DINO (Democrat in Name only) former Senator from Georgia who was extremely influential in the defense department and was always a strong defender of American interests.
But perhaps someone outside the beltway...like General Norman Schwartzkopf. Now THERE would be a DoD leader.
Just a thought.