Donald Rumsfeld's lesson in a working democracy

The United States has given Iraq what is, perhaps, the greatest lesson in democracy yet. When the American voters speak, there are consequences.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was finally held to account for the flawed prosecution of a war in which he stifled his generals in the name of maintaining civilian oversight of the military and in which he managed to wrest from the State Department all responsibility for rebuilding Iraq after the success of the initial invasion.
Until Tuesday, no one held Rumsfeld accountable for taking a war that was supposed to result in freedom-loving Iraqis showering U.S. tanks with flowers and turning it into a quagmire that only a supreme optimist sees as anything but a civil war.
Tale of two gaffes
While there was a pre-election uproar this year over a stupid remark by U.S. Sen. John Kerry to a college audience, Rumsfeld got away with replying to a question from a guardsman in Iraq in 2004 about inadequate armor plating by telling him, "you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have."
Not only was the remark dismissive of the soldier's concerns, but it ignored the fact that Rumsfeld was one of the few men who chose to enter this war on March 19, 2003. It is 1,305 days later, just 40 days short of the time that elapsed between the attack on Pearl Harbor and VJ Day. It is true that these wars are different in so many ways -- the most obvious being the death toll. The deaths in Iraq today are less than the average for 10 days in World War II. More than 400,000 soldiers, sailors and Marines died, an average of more than 300 each day for the three years and eight months of the war.
But the United States fought World War II on three continents a world apart, while Iraq is smaller than Texas.
Rumsfeld knew how to win the war, but he failed to secure the peace. He rejected the advice of people who had a plan and stifled dissent. He was dismissive of those who questioned his wisdom, whether the question came from a soldier, a senator or a reporter.
On the day his replacement was announced, Rumsfeld acknowledged in understatement that the war had not gone "well enough, fast enough."
New set of eyes
President Bush has chosen former CIA director and national security veteran Robert Gates to replace Rumsfeld, with a prediction that he would bring "a fresh perspective" to the war.
The returning Senate should confirm Gates as quickly as possible. Some senators will have to resist the urge to turn the confirmation process into a hearing on Rumsfeld's failures. In time of war, Defense needs a strong leader at the helm.
Also, a report is being prepared by a study group headed by James Baker, who was secretary of state for the first President Bush, and Lee Hamilton, the former Democratic congressman from Indiana and a co-chair of the 9/11 Commission.
The group is not expected to predict a quick pullout from Iraq, but is expected to help chart a course for extricating U.S. forces from the country without ceding the area to radical Islamic elements or anarchy.
Whatever recommendations the group makes will require departments of Defense and State to have strong leadership, flexibility and a sense of purpose. That will be easier to achieve with Rumsfeld gone.