My larger point here is that the article is nothing more than a slightly more urbane and even-toned attempt to deflect the discussion away from the merits of the Rumsfled 'should he stay or should he go' debate, and instead focus on the real, but tangential, issue of the critics rather than the criticism.
RIA asks what it would accomplish, while Djerejian reminds us that the failings are not just of policy but of execution as well. I think he should have been gone after Abu Ghraib, and not much since then has changed my mind, but I'm willing to have the discussion, and so should those who disagree - I think we can agree that at the least, the case for a new SecDef is colorable. (see here for more.)
[Update, 4/20/06: RIA would like it clear that though she thinks Rumsfeld should have resigned long ago, his departure should not be seen as a panacea - he is an instrument of policy rather than the crafter of said policy. A fair point, well made, read the whole thing. My thought is that there were failures of both policy and execution, and while the former likely won't change until 2009 at the earliest, a new figure could improve the latter.]
And this is not to say that the propriety of the General's actions should not be scrutinized. Kevin Drum makes good points here and here. I think in this day, we can engage in both discussions simultaneously and independantly.
Update: And a point I failed to mention is, that given the WaPo's point-counterpoint style, answering Holbrooke's call for resignation with the non-rebuttal rebuttal discussed below is telling to a degree. If your best defense of Rumsfeld is that the critics are meanies, you really don't have much of a defense.