More of Ralph Peters' criticism of Rumsfeld:

"No military professional looking at this objectively could argue that we had an adequate number of troops on the ground," said retired Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, a military analyst and author. "If Tommy Franks had had a free hand, this is not the plan he would have come up with. There wasn't a debate -- there was an argument. And the civilians [in Rumsfeld's office] had the upper hand."

To an extent, Peters said, Rumsfeld is paying a price for the way he has treated the Army, which -- rightly or wrongly -- has come to believe that the defense secretary is an air power advocate who is disdainful of heavy armored forces as relics of the past. And to an extent, Peters and others say, Rumsfeld is paying a price for what many in uniform perceive to be his lack of trust in their judgment.


But more than anything else, Peters said, Rumsfeld has become a lightning rod for criticism because he has not been frank with the public about the flawed assumptions and level of force that was on hand at the start of the war as a result.

"Rumsfeld is obviously brilliant, talented and driven, but his vanity is such that he can never admit when he's wrong," Peters said. "The war is going wonderfully. The performance is just remarkable by any standards. But it's not going according to plan."

It all boils down to "these damned civilians keep meddling in military matters." But so far, Rumsfeld's ideas seem to be working well, in spite of the unexpected refusal of Turkey to allow us to move our troops through its territory into Northern Iraq and a day or two of sandstorm.

I think that Peters and those like him have hitched their wagons to the wrong stars. Rumsfeld has highly popular briefings. Peters' sources have to comment "on condition of anonymity." What kind of military judgment tells Peters and his fellow critics that they can win this fight?