Chief, I don't disagree with you. Even though the skipper no longer goes down with the ship literally, there are certainly plenty of examples of the skipper taking the blame and punishment when something goes wrong under his command, and that is as it should be. The US submarine that surfaced in the Pacific last year under a Japanese fishing boat filled with high-school kids was a good example; I believe the skipper took the fall for that (appropriately), and it ended his otherwise exemplary career.

I'm just saying that this is -- or should be -- less about Rumsfeld as a person, and more about what we need to do to fix what's wrong and move on. The more we learn about what happened and why, the more we'll know whether removing Rumsfeld is the right decision in this case (whether or not Bush actually does it is another question). If this incident, or series of incidents, reflects a basic flaw in Rumsfeld's leadership, then he should go -- for the good of the service and the country, primarily, and only secondarily as punishment (it would only be punishment insofar as his pride and reputation would be affected; he's a wealthy man, and so far nobody in a position of power has suggested sending him to prison). If it reflects a pervasive between-the-lines message from the Bush administration to the CIA and military about the way to treat captives generally (which is increasingly being suggested), then Rumsfeld should go, and Bush should also be held directly accountable, as the guy who signs off on our policy towards prisoners of war, "illegal combatants," or what have you. If further analysis shows that it's a more-or-less inevitable outgrowth of Rumsfeld's cherished revamping of the military and scaled-back troop numbers for the invasion, and of the privatization of many functions formerly handled directly by the military -- which also appears likely -- then Rumsfeld and others who pushed for those changes should recognize the flaw in their earlier reasoning, and make adjustments in future war plans.

In other words, what is important is that we identify the cause(s) of this appalling incident, and take corrective action. Sure, a lot of us would like to see heads roll over this (metaphorically), and it may be that we have to offer up a high-level sacrifice like Rumsfeld to show the rest of the world that we are taking this seriously. But firing Rumsfeld isn't enough, and may in fact be counter-productive, by shaking up the top levels of our leadership when we're still in a shooting war, and -- more importantly -- by allowing everyone to avoid the more crucial issues about what brought this on. If further investigation shows that this was a limited, localized problem, then Rumsfeld should continue to take public responsibility for it, and implement changes to ensure that it doesn't happen again, but not necessarily resign his post.