Greg P. Richards writes with some perceptive comments on the "get Rummy" campaign:

Somewhere along the line the press has come to conceive of itself as inhabiting some type of hyperspace suspended above the quotidian world of us mere mortals.  So the question of our winning in Iraq is entirely an arbitrary one for them.  They have no stake in the outcome.  If we lose, they think the world goes on as it is.  Nothing can shake the US of A in their view so they can be "impartial" gadflies.

Someone with the strength of a Rumsfeld comes along infrequently.  It has been the amazing good fortune of the Republic that we have thrown up such leaders when the times have required them.  All one needs to do is to look at France to see the alternative — not the France of today but the France first of World War I and then of World War II. 

Rumsfeld......even the name sounds like a weapon.  Who else could anyone have wanted at the head of the military on 9/11? 

The Secretary of Defense is a bone—cracking job.  Two men have certifiably gone crazy in the job — James Forrestal and Louis Johnson — and you could make the case that Robert McNamara was in the process of having a nervous breakdown when he was retired by Lyndon Johnson (and although I am not an admirer of McNamara, I say that with no smirk on my face). 

Rumsfeld is the Ulysses Grant of this war — the man in charge who makes everything work.  Is he arrogant and aloof?  I very much bet he is.  Is he hard to work for?  I very much bet he is.  But someone has to be in charge and Rumsfeld is up to that task.

And, as we all know, Rumsfeld's critics are not afraid that he is going to lose the war; they are afraid he is going to win it.