Revolt against Rumsfeld

PRESIDENT BUSH made a serious mistake yesterday when, responding to devastating criticisms of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld by retired military generals, he asserted that Rumsfeld's performance is ''exactly what is needed at this critical period."

The officers speaking out against Rumsfeld deserve serious consideration. They are making a judgment that career military officers are almost always reluctant to make, since they respect the principle of civilian authority over the nation's armed forces. This is an essential principle, one that accounts for the stability of the American political system and distinguishes it from countries in which elected civilian governments are intermittently supplanted by military regimes.

To go public as they have, these generals had to conclude that the harm done to the national interest and military institutions by Rumsfeld has become so great that they had to make a rare exception to their code of silent deferral to the Pentagon's civilian chiefs.

Instead of rushing to defend Rumsfeld as if the generals' public criticism is a purely political problem to be finessed with a routine show of presidential resoluteness, Bush ought to reflect long and hard on what they have said.

Major General John Batiste, who commanded the Army's First Infantry Division in Iraq until last November and who turned down a promotion and the role of the number two military officer in Iraq because he did not want to serve under Rumsfeld, said on NBC's ''Today Show" yesterday: ''We went to war with a flawed plan that didn't account for the hard work to build the peace after we took down the regime. We also served under a secretary of defense who didn't understand leadership, who was abusive, who was arrogant, and who didn't build a strong team."

He also said, ''We have no option but to succeed in Iraq." And he made a point of affirming his support for civilian control of the military. What he and the five other outspoken generals have been asking is that Rumsfeld be subjected to the same rigorous standard of command responsibility as the men and women in uniform. They are probably speaking for many of their fellow officers who are still serving.

For the good of the country and the morale of military institutions that have been degraded under Rumsfeld, they are asking their commander-in-chief to accept Rumsfeld's resignation. Bush -- who long ago should have been asking hard questions of Rumsfeld and others in his administration who would not heed the practical wisdom of uniformed officers -- ought to accept his own command responsibility and liberate the Pentagon from Rumsfeld.