Once again, the Left are ramping up their campaign for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, just so they can use the word "embattled" in a sentence. The media has tried to tie every military misstep in the War on Terror directly to Rumsfeld as a way of discrediting President Bush, blaming him for every problem from helicopter crashes to Abu Ghraib. Their political purpose is so obvious that the main result has been a general dwindling of trust in the media. Of course, Rumsfeld has already offered his resignation at least twice, but President Bush refused to accept it.

Since their attacks on Rumsfeld haven't had the desired effect, those on the Left have decided they needed to quote an authority. Lo and behold, a group of retired generals "spontaneously" decided to call for Rumsfeld's resignation, and just in time for the 2006 campaign season to get underway! And the Liberals -- the same people who call members of the military "murders" and "torturers," consider them no better than Nazis, and scream in outrage when they recruit on college campuses -- now want us to believe they hold these six generals and their opinions in the highest regard. The thousands of retired generals who don't attack Rumsfeld and Bush -- those guys don't get the time of day.

Retired Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni, for instance, wants Rumsfeld to resign for "throwing away 10 years worth of planning, plans that had taken into account what we would face in an occupation of Iraq." What Zinni really means is that he's bitter because Donald Rumsfeld and General Tommy Franks did not adopt the plan he created. Zinni's 2001 plan, drafted without any recent knowledge of conditions inside Iraq, called for 300,000 troops to invade Iraq, advancing city by city. Well, 300,000 trained and equipped heavy troops didn't happen to be available when events led to a confrontation with Iraq, so someone else's plan had to be implemented. Franks created a more aggressive, fast-moving invasion plan using fewer troops, instead of trying to stick to a plan that wouldn't work with the available forces. In a war, sometimes even generals have to get their feelings hurt.

Retired Major General Charles Swannack thinks that Rumsfeld "carries way too much baggage" and that he micromanages his generals in Iraq. Retired Major General John Riggs feels Rumsfeld and the civilians who run the Pentagon are too "arrogant" for him. Retired Major General John Batiste also feels that Rumsfeld should be fired for not taking his advice, this time on how to secure Baghdad post-war. Retired Major General Paul Eaton claims to have issues with Rumsfeld "strategically, operationally and tactically." Retired Marine Lieutenant General Greg Newbold called Iraq an "unnecessary war" in his complaint, but it's hard to understand why he doesn't call for all the members of the House and Senate who voted for it to resign, instead of the man who merely heads the Pentagon.

Most of the complaints are really rooted in the way Rumsfeld has worked to change the military from a Cold War-era blunt instrument into a modernised precision force. A military built for large-scale set piece battles is difficult to use properly in the current war. Officers whose careers were tied to obsolete or expensive weapons systems like the Comanche helicopter and Crusader self-propelled 155mm howitzer -- or to the ponderous Pentagon bureaucracy -- suddenly found themselves on the outside looking in.

Some of the calls for Rumsfeld's resignation may have more personal than professional reasons. General Zinni, for example, is currently on tour promoting his book, and could use the publicity. General Riggs retired at reduced rank in 2004, under investigation for misuse of contractors and civilian personnel, and after publicly criticising the decision to kill the Comanche helicopter program and the conduct of the Iraq war. General Newbold didn't receive his expected fourth star, after he mistakenly announced that the Taliban had been crushed while major fighting was still underway all over Afghanistan, and likely holds Rumsfeld personally responsible for the missed final promotion. General Eaton was responsible for training Iraqi troops during 2003 and 2004, and surely felt personal as well as professional embarrassment when the troops he trained broke under fire. Perhaps he blames Rumsfeld for asking him to train the Iraqis too fast. On the other hand, Lieutenant General Dave Petraeus seems to be doing a bang-up job training the Iraqi military, if you'll pardon the pun.

Taken together, all these complaints add up to... nothing much at all, really. Not every general's pet plan can be put into operation, but that's no reason for anyone's resignation. Decisions have to be made without the luxury of hindsight. Nor should civilians automatically defer to the opinions of generals; free nations place the military under civilian control for a reason. This is certainly not the first time there have been conflicts between the Pentagon military and civilian leadership, but it's rare that the conflict becomes so blatantly politicised.

Though the Left are excited over getting a few Real Live Generals to join in their crusade against Donald Rumsfeld, he's not leaving the Pentagon any time soon. It would be idiotic in the extreme to shake up the entire military structure as we face a possible conflict with Iran this year or next, just because a few retired generals didn't like their last boss. Those demanding Rumsfeld's resignation under the current circumstances are not serious, either about wanting the resignation, or about wanting America to be ready in case the Iran situation suddenly comes to a head.