The NY Times continues its coverage of the revolt (my hyperbole, not theirs - alliteration is all!) against Rumsfeld.
At one time, as exemplified by the dispute over the Crusader, grumbling from the Pentagon could be dismissed as the Old Guard defending the Old Army against Rumsfeld's attempts to transform it away from a heavy force meant to fight the Soviet Army in Central Europe and towards a smaller, lighter, more nimble force.
However - these latest generals served in Iraq and are directing their criticism towards the effort in Iraq.
Gregory Djerejian, not a long-time fan of Rumsfeld, has more.
In the media watch department, we are groaning over this:
Mr. Rumsfeld's critics often point to his treatment of Gen. Eric Shinseki, then the Army chief of staff, who told Congress a month before the 2003 invasion of Iraq that occupying the country could require "several hundred thousand troops," rather than the smaller force that was later provided. General Shinseki's estimate was publicly dismissed by Pentagon officials.
Yes, the critics often point to that - can't fault the Times for literal accuracy, although we wonder whether they should recycle fantasy like this. Prior to that Congressional testimony Rumsfeld had neutered Shinseki by announcing his replacement 15 months prior to Shinseki's scheduled retirement in June 2003. They had a variety of disputes, as noted in the WaPo link, or more here.
MORE: The "Crusader"? What PR visionary picked that name? Obviously that name wouldn't bother the Soviets, but what if we used it in, oh, let's say Iraq?