Rummy: "Ain't my war"

Bob Novak "explains" that Rumsfeld never really wanted the war with which he will forever be associated.

Rumsfeld is often bracketed with the neocons, but that is incorrect. In a long political career that dates back to his election to Congress in 1962, he has not even been associated with the traditional conservative movement. In the run-up to the attack on Iraq, he was not aggressively pressing intervention by force of arms, but instead was shaping a military response to fit President Bush's command.

My first prediction for 2005: Following the "election" in Iraq, Rumsfeld will declare victory and resign. My second prediction: His replacement -- which loyal Bush minion will take the job, I know not -- will applaud the military's stunning success in Iraq and begin pulling troops out.

If I'm right, years of chaos and further instability in the mideast. If I'm wrong, the butcher bill will become rather more difficult for Americans to stomach.

Critics of the war may use this analysis as one more piece of ammunition to attack the effort; some supporters may continue to refer to casualties as "light," noting that typically tens of thousands of Americans must die in war before domestic support crumbles. Both miss the point. The casualty statistics make clear that our nation is involved in a war whose intensity on the ground matches that of previous American wars. Indeed, the proportional burden on the infantryman is at its highest level since World War I. With next year's budget soon to be drafted, it is time for Washington to finally address their needs accordingly.