Bush rewards loyalty

So do I. Even though the chorus is growing, I still believe Rumsfeld is the right man for the job. So do the writers at National Review. They make a very good point.

The comment that has most angered Rumsfeld's detractors is his statement that you go to war with the Army you have. That may have been too frank in such a forum, but it was true. We went into Iraq with a military not yet fully transformed to adjust to 21st-century reality, which turned out to include an insurgency launched in a harsh urban environment. If Rumsfeld's hawkish critics, some of whom were banging the drums for the Iraq war for years, thought that war could be responsibly fought only with an Army equipped with 8,000 up-armored Humvees, they had adequate time to make that known -- or at least lessen their enthusiasm for the enterprise accordingly. Of course, they didn't.

If the naysayers were so concerned about the troops, then why didn't they do something about it? After all, they hold the purse strings.

Blaming Rumsfeld may be fun sport, but it's misguided and dishonest.

UPDATE: Transterrestrial Musings has an interesting take on the Rumsfeld flap, and Lance in Iraq points out the hypocrisy of crying for Rumsfeld's head now. (Both via Instapundit.)