Anyone notice a little revolt that seems to be occurring in the Pentagon?

The New York Times leads with two new public calls for Rumsfeld's resignation by retired U.S. generals, bringing the total to six. Even more retired generals have anonymously expressed similar opinions in the last few days, according to the NYT.

The newest general is Charles H. Swannack Jr., who led ground troops in Iraq until 2004. He is the second general who commanded troops in Iraq to "break ranks" with Rumsfeld, after John Batiste did so earlier this week. (Slate's Fred Kaplan reports that another public critic was in charge of training Iraqi troops.) No active-duty officers, however, have spoken publicly—and the NYT is frustratingly vague on whether current officers have explicitly expressed new criticisms to the paper, writing only that "some say privately they disagree." The WP reports inside that Bush believes Rumsfeld "is doing a very fine job," according to the president's press secretary, who also quoted the country's current top general in praise of Rumsfeld.

Sure, they're retired. But you know they are expressing ... more safely ... what active duty collegues are thinking and saying. The military is a tight knit community. Add to it, the prodigious leaking to Sy Hersh and John Murtha about the military's dissatisfaction and you have a virtual mutiny.

Will Bush do anything about it? Everyone knows that the military will dutifully do what they're told. But isn't it also the case that when there is this kind of disenchantment with the civilian leadership that morale suffers terribly, and resistance develops? What impact does that have on military efficiency (an oxymoron in the best of times).

On another front, I'm betting that the quiet withdrawal of troops in Iraq is going full force. All the recent Iran planning has shifted focus to a full invasion, not just air war. To implement such a plan, the troops need to be available ... don't you know ..... Wouldn't successful enrichment of uranium qualify as a "trip-wire" to someone like Bush? It's the old irrestible force meeting the immovable object. Bush will, under no circumstances allow a legacy of a nuclear Iran, and Iran will under no circumstances stop the development of a nuclear weapon. And what about other regional powers, the Russians, and the Chinese? Even William Arkin, who had initially expressed skepticism about the recent Hersh "hype" seems to be sounding more like an invasion is not just in the "contingency" stage. I know the old saying is, "may you living in interesting times", but this is ridiculous.

There is one possible scenario. Suppose the Russians pressure the Iranians to come to an "agreement" in some form and for just long enough to get Bush out of office?

Might be a good time to buy yourself a 500 gallon gasoline tank and have it installed in the back yard, among other preparations.