An editorial in the next issue of the Army Times will call for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's resignation:

"Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt," the editorial says, according to an advance copy released Friday. "The time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth: Donald Rumsfeld must go."

The editorial will run in the 250,000 copies of Army Times, Navy Times, Marine Corps Times and Air Force Times. The newspapers are published under the umbrella Military Times Media Group by Gannett Co. Inc., not by the U.S. military, and have been popular among American forces since World War II.

Senior Managing Editor Robert Hodierne, who also criticized the SecDef in print during the Abu Ghraib scandal, said the editorial was sparked by President Bush's recent comment that Rumsfeld is doing a "fantastic job."

So just how much influence will this editorial have? There seems to be some disagreement:

Tim Goodrich, executive director of the anti-war political action committee Iraq Veterans for Progress, who served in the Air Force in Iraq, cheered the newspapers' stance.

"This is tremendous. The Army Times is the voice of the military ... it's read by virtually everybody in the military. This is not something to be taken lightly," he said. "This is something that a majority of people in the military have wanted for a long time."

Stan Coerr, a lieutenant colonel in the Marine Reserve and veteran of the 2003 invasion of Iraq who spoke at the California Republican convention in 2004, agreed that the newspaper is widely read but disagreed sharply with its stance.

"The Pentagon does not like Rumsfeld because he will not be bullied, lied to or ignored," he said.

"Secretary Rumsfeld is juggling forces on the ground, pressure from the White House, relentless media scrutiny and an angry public. Very few men could handle such a situation, and fewer still could do it without the backing of their boss," Coerr said. "He should remain. And he should continue close counsel with those on the ground to see them through the demanding times ahead."

Coerr questioned the degree of influence the Military Times papers wield, saying most troops are less concerned about political squabbles in Washington than about what's happening in front of them on the battlefield.

If there are any active duty or retired military out there who want to chime in, I'm interested to hear how much you think this editorial from the Army Times matters. Email me here.