The editorial hinges on the assertion that officers are "breaking publicly" with Rumsfeld.

"It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation's current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads," states the editorial.

It cites as evidence Central Command chief Gen. John Abizaid's comments to Congress in July that sectarian violence in Iraq "is as bad as I've seen it." He raised the specter of civil war if the violence is not reverse.

The editorial then cites the leak of a Central Command chart assessing Iraq's move toward chaos because of the same violence.

Neither are actually public breaks with Rumsfeld. The first was Abizaid giving his professional assessment of the situation in Iraq; there was no criticism or praise for the defense secretary policies or leadership either way. Abizaid certainly has a private opinion about Rumsfeld but one would be hard pressed to divine it from his public statements.

The second indication is of course not a public break at all - it was a media leak from a source whose identity was protected by the New York Times. Leakers always have agendas, but again there is not enough information to divine the agenda was to undermine Rumsfeld. It could be political - to undermine the Republican party just prior to the mid-term election. It could be an honest leak - the person who handed it off may feel as though the American people don't understand the extent of the difficulty U.S. forces face in Iraq, and need to see it graphically. It could have been part of a larger briefing, and the person giving it did not understand the political weight of that one chart.

The editorial then gets to the real point: that many active duty officers privately question the policies and conduct of the war. That is undoubtedly true - most reporters with an ear in the military hear carefully worded but always private criticism of Rumsfeld from senior officers. Others smile knowingly when asked their opinion but don't utter a word, hewing to a strong tradition of civilian control of the military and respecting the chain of command.

While many officers are feeling freer these days to criticize him behind the scenes, it is a far cry from a groundswell of public opposition among active duty officers. While they may bristle at Rumsfeld and his autocratic management style - "typical fighter pilot," one infantry officer recently commented -- they take even more seriously their professional duties not to undermine the chain of command.

The editorial is far from the first time someone has called Rumsfeld's ouster and it is unlikely to have a different effect now: Days before it was published U.S. President George W. Bush said he has no intention of replacing either Rumsfeld or Vice President Dick Cheney for the last two years of his administration.

"Both those men are doing fantastic jobs and I strongly support them," Bush said last week.

Bush has compelling political and personal reasons to keep Rumsfeld on.

To jettison him now would be read as a political admission that the Iraq war was wrong and poorly executed. Neither Rumsfeld nor Bush seem to believe that. Rumsfeld is a supremely self-confident person - a characteristic often labeled "arrogant," - with a long and successful career as a CEO in the private sector. He collects the information that he has at a given time, makes the decision he believes right given that information and then moves on.

He is not given to second-guessing himself. If the facts change beneath him, then he makes a new decision based on the new information. He rarely, if ever, admits to being wrong.

Rumsfeld holds a long view of history, frequently calling up previous wars and American experiences to put into context the effort in Iraq now. Twenty of 50 years from now, Iraq may be calm and prosperous. Rumsfeld believes it is far likelier to get that way sooner if he and Bush remain steadfast. Ultimately, he belies, history will laud them for their foresight and fortitude.

Bush evinces the same view, telling CNN's Wolf Blitzer in September that the current levels of violence will face with time against the backdrop of a presumably functioning and stable democracy.

"I like to tell people when the final history is written on Iraq, it will look like just a comma because there is -- my point is, there's a strong will for democracy," Bush said.

The Bush administration has been marked by its personal loyalty. Those booted from the administration are those who have publicly questioned or undermined the official line. Rumsfeld has done neither.

However, with the Democratic Party posed to gain control of the House of Representatives in Tuesday's mid-term election, there may be a new wrinkle in the equation.

The new Deomcratic committee chairmen will have subpeona powers and they are likely to call Rumsfeld to appear in multiple, lengthy hearings -- something he has limited patience for in even a Republican-controlled Congress. The hearings could so constrain his time as to render him unable to carry out his duties at the Pentagon for long stretches of time. In the unlikely event Rumsfeld is asked to fall on his sword for Bush, incapacitation by a hostile Congress might be just the political cover they need.

Related Links
Iraq: The first techonology war of the 21st century