Instapundit comments:

It's possible to disagree with the specifics of Rumsfeld's campaign to shake up the Army brass, but I think the need for such a shakeup is pretty plain, as is the unfortunate tendency of the brass to resist critiques of their performance.

I'm not sure the pro-Rumsfeld/anti-brass case is so obvious.

First, over the last forty years, the military, has shown a substantial ability to transform and reform to cope with changing circumstances. It came out of the post-Vietnam period and created the force that won GW I. Then, in less than 10 years it downsized, modernized, and won Afghanistan and Iraq faster and with less forces than most anyone expected.

That's a record which shames our universities and the journalism profession. Neither of these seem to have moved much beyond 1968.

Second, i think the jury is still out on Rumsfeld as a transformational leader. At this point we don't have enough information to determine if he is John Scully or Jack Welch. Both CEOs talked a good game about transforming their organization. Welch knew how to lead the effort; Scully just made ineffectual pronouncements and flailed around.