Fading star of 'matinee idol' Don Rumsfeld

How different it was 18 months ago. The Taleban regime had been crushed in Afghanistan, top al Qaeda operatives were being rounded up, and in Iraq "shock and awe" had swept away Saddam Hussein's regime in four weeks.

Back then in 2002 and early last year, Donald Rumsfeld could do no wrong. His wartime Pentagon news conferences were the bureaucratic equivalent of rock concerts.

His elliptical, teasing answers to questions were moulded by admirers into a form of poetry. "Rumsfeld's snowflakes", the terse memos fired round the Pentagon, were hailed as the last word in cutting-edge modern management. Even President George W. Bush called his Defence Secretary a "matinee idol" - and, in Washington terms, there was no greater heart-throb in the corridors of power.

No longer. Gone (almost) are the press conferences. Rumsfeld's other public appearances have dried to a trickle, invariably before audiences and interviewers of proven sympathy.

His most recent attempt to resurrect the old Rummy swagger backfired at a Kuwait meeting this month with the military, intended to lift morale among troops heading for Iraq.

Instead, his breezy reply to a question about the lack of proper armour for military vehicles - "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might wish you had" - drew the ire of soldiers and Republican Senators alike.

Just who, they asked, was responsible for "the army you have" if not the Secretary of Defence?

Rumsfeld was pilloried for his seeming lack of concern for the soldier in the field, and his tendency to blame anyone but himself.

In fact, that was but his latest blunder. Ignoring his generals, he sent too few soldiers to Iraq to secure the occupation. Then came the prison abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib.

As the insurgency grew, tours of duty for troops were extended and extended again - sapping morale and contributing to a potentially disastrous decline in National Guard recruitment (the National Guard and reservists account for 40 per cent of the force in Iraq).

Now comes the revelation that Rumsfeld has had his letters of condolence to the families of fallen soldiers signed by an auto-pen. Further proof, according to critics, of his lack of concern for the ordinary GI.

Democrats have long demanded his head, especially after Abu Ghraib. But now the calls are coming from Republicans.

Discontent at Rumsfeld's brusque personal style is only a part of it. The deeper reason is the growing unease over the war. Americans read newspapers, watch TV and, increasingly, know soldiers who have been killed or maimed in Iraq.

About 1300 American servicemen have died in a war founded on miscalculations - from the rationale on weapons of mass destruction to the number of troops required, the cost of the war and the reaction of the Iraqi people. Now Americans are told their soldiers will stay for five years or more.

In short, Iraq may not be Vietnam, but similarities grow. And now, as 35 years ago, it is only human nature that members of Congress, even Republicans, seek a scapegoat.

It is no surprise that the civil leadership of the Pentagon - Rumsfeld and his even more ideologically driven deputy, Paul Wolfowitz - are being held to account.

If anything Wolfowitz has vanished even more comprehensively from the public eye than his boss. Administration officials are quick to offer explanations: both men are keeping a lower profile to ensure the focus in Iraq is on the political rather than the military process.

Rumsfeld, it is added, is busy not merely with Iraq and Afghanistan, but with the overhaul of the military that was his priority before September 11, 2001 changed everything. But there is no dispute that he is under fire as never before.

For all his troubles, Rumsfeld will not go, or at least not yet. For one thing, he is not one to bow to critics. More important, a Defence Secretary ultimately performs for a constituency of one, the President.

Most important of all, his departure now would be an implicit admission by Bush of serious mistakes in Iraq - something to which he is pathologically averse.

Indeed, he positively revels in defying his critics. Take, for instance, last week's White House ceremony when Bush bestowed the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the country's highest civilian honour, on three architects of the Iraq war: George Tenet, the former CIA director who declared that the case for assuming Saddam had weapons of mass destruction was a "slam-dunk"; General Tommy Franks, the commander who invaded with too few troops; and Paul Bremer, the US viceroy who disbanded the Iraqi Army, a blunder still felt today.

When the Abu Ghraib scandal erupted last spring, Bush went out of his way to defend Rumsfeld; thus his ringing endorsement of "the really fine job" being done by his Defence Secretary should have been no surprise.

"I know Secretary Rumsfeld's heart ... He's a good, decent man. Sometimes his demeanour can be rough and gruff, but beneath there's a good human being, who cares about the military."

That may be true. But one may ask whether he is living up to the most relevant of "Rumsfeld's Rules", the principles of public life he first published in December 1974 when he was White House Chief of Staff. "In politics", this particular rule states, "every day is filled with numerous opportunities for serious error. Enjoy it."

- INDEPENDENT