There are renewed calls on Donald Rumsfeld to resign from some quarters, such as this article written by Carl Luna, a professor of Political Science at San Diego Mesa College.

Just a passing thought. Back in 1993, following the infamous “Blackhawk Down “ disaster in Somalia, Clinton’s Secretary of Defense Les Aspin resigned amidst allegations that he had failed to provide the troops in Somalia with the armored support they needed to do their mission. House and Senate Republicans, including several who hold majority leadership positions today, were in the forefront calling for Aspin’s ouster.

Why then aren’t these same voices calling for the resignation of Donald “As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.” Rumsfeld? Aspin’s Somalian botch resulted in the deaths of 18 US servicemen and the wounding of 75. Rumsfeld’s apparent failure to insure proper armor protection for US troops has already, to date, resulted in more lives lost or maimed than happened in Somalia.

There are several important distinctions between then and now, among them:

- Les Aspin reportedly rejected requests for additional armor in Somalia, while Donald Rumsfeld has overseen an increase in production which his organization helped push through Congress. The current lack of protection in Iraq comes from a change in enemy tactics to attack our rear positions, not a rejection of a request from the commanders in the field.

- In 1993, the country was upset and embarrassed by our defeat at the hands of some unknown African warlord. At a time when there was no war going on, it allowed our enemies to believe we were weak and ineffective - this created a greater groundswell of anger against the Defense Department. In Iraq, while we are having soldiers picked off here and there, there has been no combination of events that would cause anyone to believe that the U.S. means business. Any direct engagement with the enemy results in an extremely disproportionate amount of enemy casualties. Also, after two years of war in the Middle East, and the re-election of George Bush, no one is doubting our military's resolve.

- The "Black Hawk Down" incident was an isolated incident with no counterbalance. No one was claiming that our efforts in Somalia were otherwise successful, or would be in the long run. Most of the errors committed by the military in Iraq have been incidents which, though upsetting, do not have a significant effect on the outcome of the war, which is a much more complex effort that Somalia was. No war was ever engaged in without lost battles or mistakes, even by the victorious parties. We can't have the Secretary of Defense resigning every time someone decides that a partiuclar policy decision could have been better made.

In my opinion, what this professor lacks is some perspective. Say Iraq is a horrible blunder if you will, but to assume that the results of an isolated military debacle in peacetime should be the same as a poor strategic decision in wartime doesn't seem very insightful.