Because President Bush gave the rats the sacrifice that they wanted.
Even though I voted for him twice, I'm no Bush fan. However, I find it a lot easier to defend the president on Iraq than Rumsfeld. The SECDEF was charged with the responsibilities of ensuring our armed forces had the means and leadership to snuff out ALL resistance in OIF. Rumsfeld resisted the any idea of allowing Iraqi soldiers (those Republican Guard and IA professionals not loyal to Saddam) to remain after swearing allegiance to their country and he steadfastly resisted any notion of the "surge" now working--thanks to Gen. Petraus. Though successful in restoring the military handed to him by the Clintons, Rumsfeld, IMO, was a complete and utter failure in every other regard. A Ford adminstration had been, he was arrogant and oblivious to those such as Gen. Shenseki who had led Central Command and knew what he was talking about. He, McNamara and Harold Brown go down in my book as the worst SECDEFS since the post (Forrestal) was established in 1948 and he might be the worst since Simon Cameron (Lincoln's War Secretary) depending on the outcome of Iraq.