William F. Buckley says Rummy staying on might be a "strategic mistake." William Safire says "Democratic politicians" are out to make Rummy a scapegoat and declares that, "Nor does it make strategic sense to remove a war leader in the vain hope of appeasing critics of the war." So there's that.
What I do not get is how every leader in the Pentagon is utterly blameless in the matter. Isn't shock and maul a logical progression from shock and awe? Isn't every Iraqi just one near-miss JDAM or glow-stick away from punking out and being America's bitch? This is a contest of wills isn't it? The strategic goal of the invasion and occupation was to demonstrate the will to invade and occupy, after which all the bad guys would think twice about trying to flip Uncle Sam.
I think Dubya should glow-stick Saddam at high noon on the Fourth of July. By God, that'll show 'em.