"Dave" wrote
"Much of the acrimony expressed by Secretary Rumsfeld's military critics
appears to stem from his efforts to 'transform' the military by moving to a
joint expeditionary force that is lighter and more mobile in the future to
meet the nation's current and future threats. ....

I'm disappointed if that is their only beef and I suspect that the above quote
is spin designed to turn attention away from the dual blunders of attacking
Saddam to begin with, instead of concentrating on the real threat, and then
sending too few resources to subdue the country once Saddam's forces were
beaten.

Saddam was never a threat to the USA, he had no WMDs and had NO part in the 9/11
or other attacks on us. His support for terrorism was limited to support for
Palistinians attacking Israel. OTOH, he was a bulwark against the real threat -
Islamic extremists like al Qaeda. Attacking him was the equivalent of attacking
Stalin while trying to beat Hitler in the middle of WW2!

Worse, by sending only enough troops to topple Saddam, but not enough to control
the country thereafter, Rummy has effectively turned Iraq over to the real
enemy - the Islamic jihahists - and fostered their goal of world domination.

Modernizing the military to suit new weapons, technology and threats has nothing
to do with it.