Blood Sacrifice

No sooner had Democrats captured one House, than President Bush began cleaning another. First on the presidential chopping block was Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who will now step aside in favor of former CIA director Robert Gates. The president's new choice is a foreign policy "realist" who believes Iran "could play a potentially significant role in promoting a stable, pluralistic government in Baghdad."

Rumsfeld's strong support for the war effort has made him enemy number one for Democrats -- Nancy Pelosi, in her inaugural act as House speaker, demanded a "change in the civilian leadership of the Pentagon" -- and the president seemingly concluded that the Democratic Party's success in the midterm elections necessitated his ouster.

The logic is flawed on several counts. Anger at Rumsfeld from the Left is only tenuously connected to developments in Iraq. In July 2003, with the war only months old and U.S. forces fresh off a successful military siege unmatched in military history, pundits like Boston Globe columnist H.D.S. Greenway were already demanding that Rumsfeld be given "the boot." Likewise, the notion that the midterm elections represent a national repudiation of the Iraq war does not survive scrutiny. It fails to explain, for instance, why hawkish Joe Lieberman triumphed over DailyKos darling Ned Lamont, while Republican opponents of the war, like Rhode Island's Lincoln Chafee, went down in defeat. And so far from sating Democratic critics, Rumsfeld's exit has only emboldened their attacks on the war. John Kerry, ever the opportunist, yesterday dismissed the significance of the personnel change: "The best way to honor the brave men and women of our armed forces is with a strategy for success that brings our troops home," Kerry droned.

Jacob Laksin

Apparently Bush must be of French descent. He seems to have surrendered before the war even started.