[The_Baron]

I don't think the generals should make all the decisions by any means. But I do think the SecDef should be a strictly advisory position to the President, not a command position. We've got a constitutional structure that forces the President to be Commander in Chief regardless of abilities to command. To install an additional command layer wherein the individual has absolutely no requirement to be capable to perform that command is just a path to situations like we're seeing now.
The forces will win. That's a given. Had Rumsfeld shut his ignorant mouth and given a tiny bit of thought to the possibility that people who'd spent, in some cases, upwards of 40 years commanding military forces, developing combat doctrine and establishing strategic and tactical parameters for various types of warfar, he might have had the sense to let the generals plan the war.
I don't believe the generals are infallible. Not by any stretch. I do believe that the critical function of the Commander in Chief is to act as the check and balance against failings on the part of his generals. We're stuck with having the President with that authority. Having a nitwit who's military experience seems to be mainly limited to watching reruns of Combat and having seen the theater poster for Platoon is counterproductive.
If you want your car fixed, you have a mechanic do the work, not the business manager for Texaco. Let's let the mechanics work on the war.