Things are definitely going south in the Pentagon according to most reports:

In a remarkably frank New York Times column published on March 19, retired army Maj Gen Paul Eaton, who had been in charge of training the Iraqi military during the first year of the occupation, argued that Rumsfeld “has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically” and “has put the Pentagon at the mercy of his cold warrior’s view of the world and his unrealistic confidence in technology to replace manpower”.

“In the five years Mr Rumsfeld has presided over the Pentagon,” Eaton wrote, “I have seen a climate of groupthink become dominant and a growing reluctance by experienced military men and civilians to challenge the notions of the senior leadership.”

Bush probably doesn’t know what to do any more because the people who tell him what to think and do are the ones now being identified as less-than-competant (or worse). He could have avoided this hassle by removing Rumsfeld earlier when his lack of talent was made obvious by Powell. But for some reason there is a weird sense of supreme loyalty to those around him even when they are forcing good leaders to “retire early” and are directly causing a loss of American lives (yes, I include citizens serving in Iraq among those killed by terrorists). Incidentally, I don’t understand how the White House can trump up the fact that there have been no attacks on American soil since 9/11. First of all, there’s hardly a need for a complicated attack on American soil when there are so many easy targets in Iraq and Afghanistan. Second of all, domestic security actually has not been all that great either when you consider the devastation caused by Katrina. So the real picture has Americans dying due to unnatural causes both at home and abroad, and yet the White House tries to say that they’re doing a good job at security. Sad.

I don’t think I can put it any better than Paul Sperry who warned us with the following words of wisdom back in 2004:

You can no longer honestly say the war was to protect America. The weapons of mass destruction fraud has been exposed. Even Colin Powell admits peddling lies. And we now know the secret National Intelligence Estimate Bush used to justify invasion concluded that Saddam had no role in al-Qaeda’s operations or its attacks on Americans.

Try as you may, you can no longer argue Saddam is behind the insurgency, given that more than a third of our GIs killed have been killed since his capture.

Nor can you claim to support the war to support the troops when many don’t want to be there, and others are torturing, massacring and looting innocent Iraqi civilians. And you can’t rationalize the prison brutality as a necessary tactic against terrorists when Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba testified he couldn’t find a single terrorist in custody during his prison investigation.

Face it, there’s nothing heroic or worthy left about this war in Iraq. It’s just a pile of lies. Unless you support lies, the only thing you’re supporting by supporting the war now is Bush. That’s obviously good enough for Limbaugh and Hannity, but is it good enough for you?

[…]

Other Republicans on the Hill, most notably Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, are outraged by the ongoing fraud called Operation Iraqi Freedom, and they don’t think the solution is adding more troops. They care more about protecting young lives and the nation’s founding principles than Bush’s political fortunes.

And listen to former Reagan official Paul Craig Roberts, who recently said: “Bush lied us into war and continues to lie to keep us there.”

Not conservative enough for you? Then consider the advice a former foreign policy aide to conservative giant Sen. Jesse Helms gave me last month. “I would believe nothing you are told by anyone in the Bush administration,” he warned. “We are in a world of official lies as a method of government.”

Rumsfeld’s lies are starting to catch up to him and he’s on the defensive, but the real question is will Bush do anything about it or just leave the place a mess for whomever will inherit their combined failures. Some cynics have said that failure was all part of the plan, and that bankrupting the country is the best thing for the neocons who want to get fire-sale pricing and dismantle public policy that interferes with their development plans. But I think that’s giving the neocons way too much credit. It’s more just a case of sheer pride and incompetance by some out-of-date thinkers — like colonials trying to live out their last visions in a wholly non-colonial world. Rumsfeld probably just can’t adjust to reality. In other terms, he’s the boss and everyone who works for him will have to think the way he does, no matter what they see, hear or are capable of doing. Business management 101 tells you that’s a sure-fire recipe for disaster. Such a shame that this neo-conpoop hasn’t already been exposed for the fraud he truly is and summarily forced out of office by the men and women who know how to save lives while achieving victory…but then again, the inaction on Rummie is just another reflection on a horribly misguided Commander in Chief.