President George W. Bush's Iraq policy took fresh blows on Saturday, just a few days before US midterm elections, as some conservative allies abandoned him and media covering the military called for Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to step down.
Four independent US newspapers that cover the four branches of the US armed forces will publish an editorial on the eve of the November 7 congressional elections, demanding Rumsfeld's resignation, according to NBC News.
An advance copy of the article titled "Time for Rumsfeld To Go" was obtained by the television network and posted on its website late on Friday. It is scheduled for simultaneous publication on Monday by the Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times, NBC News said.
"Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large," the advance copy said.
"His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised," the editorial continued. "And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt."
Addressing Bush, who reaffirmed his confidence in Rumsfeld just this past week, the newspaper group assured him they were not trying to influence the elections.
"This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins November 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard, bruising truth: Donald Rumsfeld must go."
There was no immediate comment from either the Pentagon or the White House about the report.
"Despite the best efforts of American trainers, the problem of moulding a viciously sectarian population into anything resembling a force for national unity has become a losing proposition," the editorial adds.
"For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for the money, don't show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves. Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money," it says.
"And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand. Now, the president says he'll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House. This is a mistake," it stressed.
"It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation's current military leaders start to break publicly with their defence secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads."
It added: "Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt."
Meanwhile, in separate interviews with Vanity Fair magazine, former top Pentagon adviser Richard Perle, former White House speechwriter David Frum and Reagan administration arms control negotiator Kenneth Adelman continued to insist that toppling the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein was a noble thing to have done.
But they argued that the execution of the plan by Bush, Rumsfeld and others was nothing short of "incompetent."
Perle, who once chaired the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board and in that capacity argued that Iraq was "a very good candidate" for democracy, said bluntly that if he could turn back the clock, he would not recommend invading Iraq.
"I think if I had been Delphic, and had seen where we are today, and people had said, 'Should we go into Iraq?' I think now I probably would have said, 'No, let's consider other strategies,'" he told the magazine.
He insisted he still believed Saddam Hussein had the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction and there had been a threat he could transfer these weapons to terrorists.
But three and a half years later, with more than 2,820 US troops killed, Perle asked a rhetorical question: "Could we have managed that threat by means other than a direct military intervention?"
"Well, maybe we could have," he replied.
He went on to complain, without specifying, that decisions that should have been made in the execution of the war came either late or not at all.
"At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible," the neoconservative ideologue concluded.