Alex Brandon / AP Photo Leslie H. Gelb's call for White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to be reassigned spurred a circle-the-wagons reaction from pro- (or perhaps even anti-) Rahm forces. Gelb sifts the fallout for clues.

When you write that the president of the United States should replace his chief of staff, someone will fire back. So it was that Rahm Emanuel apparently struck back at my piece last week on The Daily Beast through a column in Sunday’s Washington Post. Only this time, the return fire had a rare twist, one that could produce Washington convulsions. It was seemingly aimed at me (and others who published suggestions of Emanuel’s limitations as chief). But whether it was intentional or not, the volley actually struck the president himself.

Here is the story, a very Washington tale of stretching permissible criticism of power holders, of pungent media leaks, of labyrinthine speculation as to who is doing what to whom.

Maybe the leaker thought the way to get rid of Rahm completely was to brand him as a “traitor” to the boss.

With a headline “Replace Rahm,” I wrote last Tuesday that Emanuel lacked the managerial skills, discipline, and strategic ability to get things done as chief of staff. I argued he should be moved over to a political adviser slot, where his considerable, can-do talents would better serve his boss. I targeted others as well, mostly in Mr. Obama’s Chicago crowd. Several writers also blasted this crowd, mostly with unsigned bullets, but never crossed the red line calling for their removal. I wrote the piece because it essentially reflected the waves of anti-White House staff critiques breaking over Washington, but rarely heard outside its drawing rooms. I did it because I believed the president was running out of chances to succeed and needed better and tougher staffers. I did it because if he failed, the nation failed.

Then came the inevitable blast back, a devastating leak, in a piece by Dana Milbank, a respected Washington journalist. Interesting that the leaker selected Milbank. He’s sort of a half-reporter, half-columnist who roams the entire capital city, not just the White House. The leaker must have felt safe because Milbank has so many sources all over town, making the leakers harder to trace.

The Milbank headline read: “Why Obama needs Rahm at the top.” It began: “Let us now praise Rahm Emanuel. No, seriously.” Then, he lists me and a few others who also criticized Rahm. “But,” he continued, “sacking Emanuel is the last thing the president should do.”

Then, Milbank (and presumably the leaker) delivered the surprise and wounding blow—to the president himself. “Obama's first year fell apart in large part because he didn't follow his chief of staff's advice on crucial matters. Arguably, Emanuel is the only person keeping Obama from becoming Jimmy Carter.”

Then, Milbank (and the leaker) took his first shot, not at me, but at congressional liberals and everyone in the Chicago crowd except Rahm. “Obama's problem,” Milbank continued, “is that his other confidants—particularly Valerie Jarrett and Robert Gibbs, and, to a lesser extent, David Axelrod—are part of the Cult of Obama. In love with the president, they believe he is a transformational figure who needn’t dirty his hands in politics.”

So, it was “their” fault—until you see the real blow landed beyond them and on the president himself. “The president would have been better off heeding Emanuel’s counsel,” but instead “overruled” him on several key Rahm recommendations: not rushing to close Guantanamo and bringing terrorists to U.S. prisons, not trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York, and going for a smaller health-care bill focused on popular items with Republican support. “The result was,” Milbank wrote, “as the world now knows, disastrous.” In other words, Mr. Obama could have thrived and saved himself on key issues had he only listened to Rahm.