Adm. William Fallon- Quits

[topless_mike]

story (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/03/11/fallon.resigns/index.html)

i wonder what kind of shit is going to come out.
people dont just "resign" with cause.

[mendyweiss]

GOt nervous for a second. Who was going to help me with my xbox360 issues ?

[topless_mike]

i know
i was going to go for the "fallon- quits" misleading thread title, but i didnt want to start a riot here.

[Furtherman]

How anyone can work with the current administration is mind-boggling.

[topless_mike]

i wonder if this has anything to do with it...



WASHINGTON — A forthcoming Pentagon study has found no operational link between Saddam Hussein and Usama bin Laden's Al Qaeda terrorist network.

McClatchy Newspapers reports that the study, expected to be released later this week, is based on an extensive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were seized after the U.S.-led war in Iraq in 2003


article (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336730,00.html)

[Freitag]

How anyone can work with the current administration is mind-boggling.

If he wasn't being Lenten, this is where Gvac would say that this is another abuse of Mikeyboy's power.

[EliSnow]

i wonder if this has anything to do with it...






article (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336730,00.html)

Hasn't that been known for years? I mean the 9/11 Commission found the same thing?

Or am I missing something?

[Dude!]

McClatchy Newspapers

not exactly the most respected name in journalism
im surprised it is even a name in journalism at all

i guess anybody can say anything in print or on tv and be considered an expert

[ralphbxny]

Client 5?

[badmonkey]

In a written statement, he said the article's "disrespect for the president" and "resulting embarrassment" have become a distraction.

"Although I don't believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command area of responsibility, the simple perception that there is makes it difficult for me to effectively serve America's interests there," Fallon said.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Fallon's resignation showed that independent views "are not welcomed in this administration."

Why don't those two statements seem to match up? Oh right, cuz Harry Reid has a reality filter.

[Zorro]

How anyone can work with the current administration is mind-boggling.

People worked for Carter, Nixon and even Rutherford B Hayes...

[keithy_19]

i wonder if this has anything to do with it...






article (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336730,00.html)

It's true that Hussein had not dealing with Usama Bin Laden, but he did have dealings with Osama Bin Laden.


































Right?
















:dry:

[ToddEVF]

How anyone can work with the current administration is mind-boggling.

Especially with that M. . .
BANNED!!!!!

but seriously, with that major clusterfucked administration we have, in the US, its surprising anything is accomplished

[HBox]

Why don't those two statements seem to match up? Oh right, cuz Harry Reid has a reality filter.

Reading those quotes in a light most generous to the Bush administration, he quit because it was a problem that people just thought that Fallon had a different opinion on Iran than Bush. And apparently having people even suspect your are thinking different than Bush means you have to resign.

[badmonkey]

Reading those quotes in a light most generous to the Bush administration, he quit because it was a problem that people just thought that Fallon had a different opinion on Iran than Bush. And apparently having people even suspect your are thinking different than Bush means you have to resign.


I see what you're saying. I just read him as saying basically "there's no difference in opinion here. stop saying there is because it just doesn't exist." and then Reid saying "look how they made him resign because of the difference in opinions!" Maybe I just don't like Reid cuz he can get hookers in his state and we can't kick him outta office for it. :)

[Doomstone]

not exactly the most respected name in journalism
im surprised it is even a name in journalism at all

i guess anybody can say anything in print or on tv and be considered an expert

NEW YORK Journalists for McClatchy Co. have won three National Journalism Awards from the Scripps Howard Foundation. They were honored for Washington reporting, commentary, and human interest reporting. (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003722892)

[scottinnj]

NEW YORK Journalists for McClatchy Co. have won three National Journalism Awards from the Scripps Howard Foundation. They were honored for Washington reporting, commentary, and human interest reporting. (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003722892)

And Arrafat won a Nobel Peace Prize. Go figure.

[Yerdaddy]

1) What does McClatchy actually have to do with Fallon's resignation?

3) What did McClatchy do to earn the scorn here?

Sizzlean) Given that the author of the Esquire piece has a PhD from Harvard, was a professor at the Navy War College for six years and is anything but an anti-Bush pacifist (http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2006/03/contrary_to_current_convention.html), did anyone consider reading the piece before they jumped on the "ayyits the librul mayeedia" bandwagon and accepted the idea that a false story in Esquire Magazine somehow brought down a chief of Central Command because Bush can't have the general public, who's opinion he's always cared so much about, mistakenly believing that his generals don't support his war ideas?

[A.J.]

Someone who had the balls to say the right things has to step down. This sucks.

[Zorro]

Reading those quotes in a light most generous to the Bush administration, he quit because it was a problem that people just thought that Fallon had a different opinion on Iran than Bush. And apparently having people even suspect your are thinking different than Bush means you have to resign.

There was no "suspecting" Fallon's disagreement with the administration. The esquire article was just the latest in a series of public comments. His criticisms are probably right, but part of being an Admiral is you don't get to have a public opinion.

[Yerdaddy]

OK, I read the Esquire piece (http://www.esquire.com/print-this/features/fox-fallon)last night and it's an excellent read by a guy who's obviously had access to the general, toured the Middle East with him for the article and understands the culture of top military brass and the tasks they face. What the article is is a profile of the man and his job as Centcom chief bookended with predictions that he will be removed from the job simply for being good at it. His prediction proved right.

But then the prediction wasn't that shocking in the first place - they're entirely consistent with the behavior of this administration over the last seven years. They value loyalty and obedience above all else, and deplore independent thought no matter how wrong and destructive their own ideas have proved. I expect Fallon will leave some kind of record of his experience with the administration for the historical record. I only hope it's soon and it's public.

The idea that he was fired because of the article is absurd. The idea that he was fired for the reasons the article predicted he would be fired are entirely plausible. The only caveat I would add is that instead of - or as well as - the general's moderate statements on Iran, (he's not a dove on Iran except in comparison to this administration's remaining war-mongers), he was also fired for his desire to have a quick draw-down of forces in Iraq in order to deal with the many other issues in the region which get ignored by the headline-driven political machinations in Washington. Another factor was probably that he wasn't subserviet to the pet projects of Congress and the Pentagon cliques who serve their own interests by stoking fears of war in order to ensure politically and financially lucrative weapons contracts - and weren't afraid to let the general know he was stepping on powerful toes. The article demonstrates this with Fallon's opinion that China will be America's most important relationship in the 21st century and because of this he decided to build a grown-up relationship now in order to make a better world for all. In return, he was told on his next visit to Capital Hill that he wasn't doing himself any favors.

In the end the story is one we've heard hundreds of time over the last seven years: a brilliant, devoted and pragmatic public servant has been pushed from the service of America for the sake of the ideological cabal running the executive branch. And it's one more piece of evidence in my world-view: that ideology is the worst thing on earth, and that America willingly drinks this poison at its own - and the world's - peril. It is entirely likely that the main reason Fallon was let go was that the administration is determined to keep open the possibility of an October surprise of an attack on Iran - a Hail Mary for these nut-jobs to salvage their legacy as macho men. The scary part is the American public still refuses to engage in any kind of public debate about whether we want them to attack Iran or not. It's our apathy that's leaving open for these dickheads to actually do something even more monumentally stupid than invading Iraq. Again - OUR FAULT.

Read the damn article as it's the reason freedom of speech is so important for the survival of democracy. Here are some valuable excerpts:

It's late November in smoggy, car-infested Cairo, and I'm standing in the front lobby of a rather ornate "infantry officers club" on the outskirts of the old town center. Central Command's just finished its large, biannual regional exercise called Bright Star, and today Egypt's army is hosting a "senior leadership seminar" for all the attending generals. It's the barroom scene from Star Wars, with more national uniforms than I can count.

Judging by Fallon's grimace as his official party passes, I can tell that the cover story in this morning's Egyptian Gazette landed hard on somebody's desk at the White House. U.S. RULES OUT STRIKE AGAINST IRAN, read the banner headline, and the accompanying photo showed Fallon in deep consultation with Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak.

Fallon sidles up to me during a morning coffee break. "I'm in hot water again," he says.
"The White House?"

The admiral slowly nods his head.

"They say, 'Why are you even meeting with Mubarak?' " This seems to utterly mystify Fallon.

"Why?" he says, shrugging with palms extending outward. "Because it's my job to deal with this region, and it's all anyone wants to talk about right now. People here hear what I'm saying and understand. I don't want to get them too spun up. Washington interprets this as all aimed at them. Instead, it's aimed at governments and media in this region. I'm not talking about the White House." He points to the ground, getting exercised. "This is my center of gravity. This is my job."

Fallon was quietly opposed to a long-term surge in Iraq, because more of our military assets tied down in Iraq makes it harder to come up with a comprehensive strategy for the Middle East, and he knew how that looked to higher-ups. He also knows that sometimes his statements on Iran strike the same people as running "counter to stated policy." "But look," he says, "yesterday I'm speaking in front of 250 Egyptian businessmen over lunch here in Cairo, and these guys keep holding up newspapers and asking, 'Is this true and can you explain, please?' I need to present the threats and capabilities in the appropriate language. That's one of my duties."

Fallon explains his approach to Iran the same way he explains why he doesn't make Al Qaeda the focus of his regional strategy as Centcom's commander: "What's the best and most effective way to combat Al Qaeda? We tend to make too much or too little a deal about it. I want a more even keel. I come from the school of 'walk softly and carry a big stick.' "

When the Admiral took charge of Pacific Command in 2005, he immediately set about a military-to-military outreach to the Chinese armed forces, something that had plenty of people freaking out at the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill. The Chinese, after all, were scheduled to be our next war. What the hell was Fallon doing?

Contrary to some reports, though, Fallon says he initially had no trouble with then-secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld on the subject. "Early on, I talked to him. I said, Here's what I think. And I talked to the president, too."

It was only after the Pentagon and Congress started realizing that their favorite "programs of record" (i.e., weapons systems and major vehicle platforms) were threatened by such talks that the shit hit the fan. "I blew my stack," Fallon says. "I told Rumsfeld, Just look at this shit. I go up to the Hill and I get three or four guys grabbing me and jerking me out of the aisle, all because somebody came up and told them that the sky was going to cave in." [So the problem was that the threat of war is good for business in Congress (jobs) and the Pentagon (lucrative contracts) so the threat of peace gets them actively discouraging it. Super.]

But Fallon stood down the China hawks, because as much as military leaders have to plan for war, Fallon seems to understand better than most the role they also have to play in everything else beyond war. And like a good cop, Fallon doesn't want to fire his gun unless he absolutely has to. "I wouldn't have done what I did if I didn't think it was the right thing to do, which I still do. China is our most important relationship for the future, given the realities of people, economics, and location. We've got to work hard and make sure we do our best to get it right."

For Fallon, that meant an emphasis on opening new lines of communication and reducing the capacity for misunderstanding during times of crisis. But beyond that, it meant telling the Chinese, "If you want to be treated as a big boy and a major player, you've got to act like it."

If anything has been sorely missing to date in America's choices in the Middle East and Central Asia, it has been a strategic mind-set that consistently keeps its eyes on the real prize: connecting these isolated regions in a far more broadband fashion to the global economy. Instead of effectively countering the efforts of others (e.g., the radical Salafis, Saudi Arabia's Wahhabists, Russia's security services, China's energy sector) who would fashion such connectivity to their selfish ends, Washington has wasted precious time focusing excessively on transforming the political systems of Iraq and Afghanistan, as though governments somehow birth functioning societies and economies instead of the other way around.

Waiting on perfect security or perfect politics to forge economic relationships is a fool's errand. By the time those fantastic conditions are met in this dangerous, unstable part of the world, somebody less idealistic will be running the place--the Russians, Chinese, Pakistanis, Indians, Turks, Iranians, Saudis. That's why Fallon has been aggressively hawking his southern strategy of encouraging a north-south "energy corridor" between the Central Asian republics and the energy-starved-but-booming Asian subcontinent (read: Islamabad down through Bangalore and then east to Kolkata), with both Afghanistan and Pakistan as crucial conduits.

"What I learned in the Pacific is that after a while the tableau of failed, failing, or dysfunctional states becomes a real burden on the functional countries and a problem for their neighborhood, because they breed unrest and insecurities and attract troublemakers very well. They're like sewers, and they begin to fester. It's bad for business. And when it's bad for business, people tend to start restricting their investments, and they restrict their thinking, and it allows more barriers, so we're back to building walls again instead of breaking them down. If you have to build walls, it means you're moving backward."

Fallon has no illusion about solving the Middle East or Central Asia during his tenure, but he's also acutely conscious that with globalization's rapid advance into these regions he may well be the last Centcom commander of his kind. Already Fallon sees the inevitability and utility of having a Chinese military partnership at Centcom, and he'd like to manage that inevitably from the start rather than have to repair damage down the line.

"I'd like to continue to do things that will be useful to the world and its inhabitants," he says. "I've seen a lot of good things, and I've seen a lot of stupid things."

And then there is Iran. No sooner had the supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei signaled a willingness to deal with any American but George W. Bush, and no sooner had Fallon signaled America's willingness to refrain from bombing Tehran, than a little international incident occurred.

Just the kind of incident that doughy neocons dream sweetly about. Right after the new year, three American ships were passing through the Strait of Hormuz, exchanging normal greetings with Gulf State navies, checking them out as they passed. The same with the Iranian navy. And then, suddenly, small Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps boats started speeding toward the American ships, showing, the admiral says, "very stupid behavior, showboating, and provocative taunts. Given that it was a small boat that did in the USS Cole, this was very dangerous behavior."

The Iranians dropped boxes in the water, simulating mines.

"Remember," he says, "my first day on this job, I was greeted by the IRGC snatching the British sailors, and so it was a sense of here we go again. You wonder, Are they really acting on their own, because the pattern seems clear."

Fallon's eyes narrow and his voice becomes that whisper: "This is not how a country that wants to be a big boy in the neighborhood behaves. How are we supposed to take these guys seriously as players in the region? You'd like to deal with them as big-league players, but when they do this, it's very tough."

As before, there is the text and the subtext. Admiral William Fallon shakes his head slowly, and his eyes say, These guys have no idea how much worse it could get for them. I am the reasonable one.

And time will tell whether being reasonable will cost Admiral William Fallon his command.

[Zorro]

OK, I read the Esquire piece (http://www.esquire.com/print-this/features/fox-fallon)last night and it's an excellent read by a guy who's obviously had access to the general, toured the Middle East with him for the article and understands the culture of top military brass and the tasks they face. What the article is is a profile of the man and his job as Centcom chief bookended with predictions that he will be removed from the job simply for being good at it. His prediction proved right.

But then the prediction wasn't that shocking in the first place - they're entirely consistent with the behavior of this administration over the last seven years. They value loyalty and obedience above all else, and deplore independent thought no matter how wrong and destructive their own ideas have proved. I expect Fallon will leave some kind of record of his experience with the administration for the historical record. I only hope it's soon and it's public.

The idea that he was fired because of the article is absurd. The idea that he was fired for the reasons the article predicted he would be fired are entirely plausible. The only caveat I would add is that instead of - or as well as - the general's moderate statements on Iran, (he's not a dove on Iran except in comparison to this administration's remaining war-mongers), he was also fired for his desire to have a quick draw-down of forces in Iraq in order to deal with the many other issues in the region which get ignored by the headline-driven political machinations in Washington. Another factor was probably that he wasn't subserviet to the pet projects of Congress and the Pentagon cliques who serve their own interests by stoking fears of war in order to ensure politically and financially lucrative weapons contracts - and weren't afraid to let the general know he was stepping on powerful toes. The article demonstrates this with Fallon's opinion that China will be America's most important relationship in the 21st century and because of this he decided to build a grown-up relationship now in order to make a better world for all. In return, he was told on his next visit to Capital Hill that he wasn't doing himself any favors.

In the end the story is one we've heard hundreds of time over the last seven years: a brilliant, devoted and pragmatic public servant has been pushed from the service of America for the sake of the ideological cabal running the executive branch. And it's one more piece of evidence in my world-view: that ideology is the worst thing on earth, and that America willingly drinks this poison at its own - and the world's - peril. It is entirely likely that the main reason Fallon was let go was that the administration is determined to keep open the possibility of an October surprise of an attack on Iran - a Hail Mary for these nut-jobs to salvage their legacy as macho men. The scary part is the American public still refuses to engage in any kind of public debate about whether we want them to attack Iran or not. It's our apathy that's leaving open for these dickheads to actually do something even more monumentally stupid than invading Iraq. Again - OUR FAULT.

Read the damn article as it's the reason freedom of speech is so important for the survival of democracy. Here are some valuable excerpts:

Being a General/Admiral means you don't get free speech. you carry the water of the civilian administration or you resign. Then you can say or do whatever you want. Whether you're McCarthur or Fallon you either do what you're told or you get out.

[A.J.]

Being a General/Admiral means you don't get free speech. you carry the water of the civilian administration or you resign. Then you can say or do whatever you want. Whether you're McCarthur or Fallon you either do what you're told or you get out.

At the same time, you're also required to give honest assessments and opinions based on experience and familiarity with the theater of ops.

[Zorro]

At the same time, you're also required to give honest assessments and opinions based on experience and familiarity with the theater of ops.

Agreed...you just don't get to do it in public.

[Yerdaddy]

Being a General/Admiral means you don't get free speech. you carry the water of the civilian administration or you resign. Then you can say or do whatever you want. Whether you're McCarthur or Fallon you either do what you're told or you get out.

The part you highlighted was not referring to the general's free speech. I live in countries without it and I get a little bent when Americans form strong opinions on subjects without bothering to read their free press.

That aside, the principle of military officers not being able to speak their opinions has its limits - like most democratic principles. The US military has lost a great deal of the public's trust by having these generals retiring and then expressing their opinions which, had the public known before the war we might have demanded a different strategy from the White House. And a loss of public trust in itsmilitary makes for a weaker nation.

I don't disagree with you, but you keep repeating this principle like it's absolute - when the case of General Fallon demonstrates that it sure as shit shouldn't be, and it can be a very bad thing.

[A.J.]

I don't disagree with you, but you keep repeating this principle like it's absolute - when the case of General Fallon demonstrates that it sure as shit shouldn't be, and it can be a very bad thing.

ADMIRAL Fallon.

Sorry -- I have to support my shipmates.

[HBox]

ADMIRAL Fallon.

Sorry -- I have to support my shipmates.


http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/3205/st2khanpx3.gif

AHDMEERAL? AHDMEERAL?!

[A.J.]

AHDMEERAL? AHDMEERAL?!

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[high fly]

ADMIRAL Fallon.

Sorry -- I have to support my shipmates.


He's a brigadier admiral, isn't he?

[Crispy123]

Being a General/Admiral means you don't get free speech. you carry the water of the civilian administration or you resign. Then you can say or do whatever you want. Whether you're McCarthur or Fallon you either do what you're told or you get out.

Like the SS officers??? You need to tow the line no matter what? Tell that to the judges at Nuremberg.

[Zorro]

Like the SS officers??? You need to tow the line no matter what? Tell that to the judges at Nuremberg.

Wow...talk about missing the point. Fallon disagreed on policy. As a General Officer you express your disagreements in private or you get fired. i.e. Douglas MacArthur. It's a really important part of civilian control of the military.

[Crispy123]

Wow...talk about missing the point. Fallon disagreed on policy. As a General Officer you express your disagreements in private or you get fired. i.e. Douglas MacArthur. It's a really important part of civilian control of the military.

Wow.... living in Bush land huh?

This administration has conducted itself outside of the constitution of the united states and international law. I would think that a military officer would have the duty to speak about reasonable policy to anybody who would listen.

If your talking about contracts going to Airbus vs Boeing, or who is nominated to be the SecDef, then you have a point. But the direction of the United States military involvement in the Middle East is something Officers have a duty to speak out on because the civilian leadership has totally fucked the pooch in every sense of the word.

And please dont lecture me on how the military operates. Yes Congress approves promotions and General Officer appointments and have the power to remove officers, that doesnt let the uniformed members of the military off the hook for the oath they took to defend the constitution and the USA from all enemies foreign and domestic.

[A.J.]

He's a brigadier admiral, isn't he?

Or Major Admiral or Lieutenant Admiral -- I forget.

Certainly beats being a REAR Admiral!

http://www.otherlandtoys.co.uk/images/horn800.jpg

[Zorro]

Wow.... living in Bush land huh?

This administration has conducted itself outside of the constitution of the united states and international law. I would think that a military officer would have the duty to speak about reasonable policy to anybody who would listen.

If your talking about contracts going to Airbus vs Boeing, or who is nominated to be the SecDef, then you have a point. But the direction of the United States military involvement in the Middle East is something Officers have a duty to speak out on because the civilian leadership has totally fucked the pooch in every sense of the word.

And please dont lecture me on how the military operates. Yes Congress approves promotions and General Officer appointments and have the power to remove officers, that doesnt let the uniformed members of the military off the hook for the oath they took to defend the constitution and the USA from all enemies foreign and domestic.


So I guess what your saying is that since our elected leaders have abdicated their responsibility the military should step in and determine our policy...hell why not just let them run the country all together... Fallon could be our very own Musharraf.

[Crispy123]

So I guess what your saying is that since our elected leaders have abdicated their responsibility the military should step in and determine our policy...hell why not just let them run the country all together... Fallon could be our very own Musharraf.

Your guess and your arguments are poor.

I said experienced and effective military leaders should speak their opinion and uphold American ideals and not worry about getting a paycheck. That is what this admiral did and I respect him. I only wish there were more general officers like him.

[scottinnj]

If your talking about contracts going to Airbus vs Boeing, or who is nominated to be the SecDef, then you have a point. But the direction of the United States military involvement in the Middle East is something Officers have a duty to speak out on because the civilian leadership has totally fucked the pooch in every sense of the word.




I respect your position on this, but you're wrong.

Officers have two choices:

1) Obey

2) Resign

That's it. Now if they resign they can speak out against civilian policy, i.e. General Clark.

But military cohesiveness depends on the civilian authority being obeyed without question or complaint. To interfere with that puts the military on a path where a coup could be attempted.
It is the duty of the CONGRESS to reign in and question the authority of the commander-in-chief if he is outside the law. Not the military.


Having said that, again I respect your position, not all of it I agree with, but I definitely respect you.

[Zorro]

Your guess and your arguments are poor.

I said experienced and effective military leaders should speak their opinion and uphold American ideals and not worry about getting a paycheck. That is what this admiral did and I respect him. I only wish there were more general officers like him.

Aside from the fact that I find your use of really big font annoying... I think you're being dishonest. You think he's great because you agree with him. If this guy were so wonderful he would have quit and then spoken out against the war. Instead he kept his cushy gig in Tampa and continued to send young men and women to their deaths for something you admit he didn't believe in. Not much of a hero in my book.

[Yerdaddy]

I respect your position on this, but you're wrong.

Officers have two choices:

1) Obey

2) Resign

That's it. Now if they resign they can speak out against civilian policy, i.e. General Clark.

But military cohesiveness depends on the civilian authority being obeyed without question or complaint. To interfere with that puts the military on a path where a coup could be attempted.It is the duty of the CONGRESS to reign in and question the authority of the commander-in-chief if he is outside the law. Not the military.


Having said that, again I respect your position, not all of it I agree with, but I definitely respect you.

There are different kinds of coups. By the same token demanding unquestioned subservience to the civilians by military leadership could lead to a President or civilian SecDef who odering the military to enforce his own coup - say, if he loses a re-election bid or decides to appoint himself El-Presidente-for-life. Both Clemenceau and Ripper were half right; war is too important to be left only to either generals OR politicians. That absolute loyalty being demanded of military officers is the way dictatorships operate - not democracies. Not even ours. I forget which founding fathers spoke of this, but civilian control of the military is critical for democracy, but not absolute. The knowledge and encouragement of the principle that military officers should both cultivate independent understanding of war and politics so that they would be ready to refuse an executive coup or gross usurpation of the Constitution has been a part of American military culture since Washington. The fact is that generals do have some leeway - and in some cases an obligation - to challenge orders and civilian policy. Sometime last week the Washington Post quoted excerpts of the Army War College's take on rights and responsibilities of commanders speaking out. I don't have time to dig it up.

Nevertheless, if you read the article, you'll see Admiral Fallon's reasons for making statements somewhat contrary to the Bush administration - mainly, to counter the effect of Bush's aggressive talk about Iran on other of our allies in the region who are freaked out by it. He hasn't been making these comments because he's opposed to Bush's policies, but to moderate their effects on those they aren't intended to scare. I think the problem - and one reason Barnett predicted he'd be ousted - is that the Bush administration doesn't respect subtlety or recognition of complexity, (like that there are more than two countries on the earth at any given time), and they take any diversion from the talking-points as evidence of disloyalty and an internal threat. The other reason the administration may had for firing Fallon is that, if they do intend to attack Iran, and the admiral isn't 100% on-board then he could gum up the works - and that can't happen.

And that's the importance of this story: what the admiral is saying and why (and what it means that the administration has fired him for saying it) - not whether or not he should be allowed to say it.


Aside from the fact that I find your use of really big font annoying... I think you're being dishonest. You think he's great because you agree with him. If this guy were so wonderful he would have quit and then spoken out against the war. Instead he kept his cushy gig in Tampa and continued to send young men and women to their deaths for something you admit he didn't believe in. Not much of a hero in my book.

Jesus. You didn't even bother to read the article. You don't even take the subject seriously enough to do that much.

[Yerdaddy]

From the aforementioned WP piece:

When is it legitimate for a general, whether retired or on active duty, to criticize a war? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030703050_pf.html)

Here, in an essay released recently by the Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute, retired Army Col. Don M. Snider tries to formulate some rules of the road for such dissents -- an especially interesting effort because it has now become routine for presidential candidates to compete for the endorsements of retired generals.

* * *

(a) Gravity of the Issue: . . . Logically, the higher the stakes, the greater the temptation and justification will be for dissenters to speak out. . . .

(b) Relevance of professional knowledge and expertise to the issue in question. . . . In other words, why should the dissenter be listened to? . . .

(c) Sacrifice incurred by the individual for taking the action. . . . For a true professional, a right understanding of one's loyalties always places loyalty to self dead last. Thus, absent personal sacrifice, such dissent quickly leads to suspicion and the search for ulterior motives . . . .

(d) Timing of the Act of Dissent. . . . If something is worthy of an act of dissent, then it is worthy. Thus, as soon as that is discerned and decided by the strategic leader, the act should follow immediately. Any separation of months or years between the cause and the act is grounds, again, for suspicion of lack of moral agency and for a search for ulterior motives. . . .

(e) Authenticity as a leader. . . . Disillusionment occurs in junior officers and noncommissioned officers when they discover that strategic leaders who have exhorted them on in combat turn out to have been opposed to the war for some time, or when they learn that they have risked their lives and those of their subordinates for a cause in which their leaders did not believe, even as they led. . . . Thus, the possibility of fomenting cynicism and the consequent exodus of younger professionals should always figure quite prominently in the calculation of those contemplating dissent.

* * *

[Tenbatsuzen]

Can we use a real-world allegory here?

If I was a marketing VP for Microsoft, and had several press conferences where I said Vista sucked, you could be damn sure that Gates would be calling for my firing/resignation.

So it's not just a military thing, it's the way things work.

[Yerdaddy]

Can we use a real-world allegory here?

If I was a marketing VP for Microsoft, and had several press conferences where I said Vista sucked, you could be damn sure that Gates would be calling for my firing/resignation.

So it's not just a military thing, it's the way things work.

Microsoft isn't a democracy. Vista isn't war.

[Zorro]

There are different kinds of coups. By the same token demanding unquestioned subservience to the civilians by military leadership could lead to a President or civilian SecDef who odering the military to enforce his own coup - say, if he loses a re-election bid or decides to appoint himself El-Presidente-for-life. Both Clemenceau and Ripper were half right; war is too important to be left only to either generals OR politicians. That absolute loyalty being demanded of military officers is the way dictatorships operate - not democracies. Not even ours. I forget which founding fathers spoke of this, but civilian control of the military is critical for democracy, but not absolute. The knowledge and encouragement of the principle that military officers should both cultivate independent understanding of war and politics so that they would be ready to refuse an executive coup or gross usurpation of the Constitution has been a part of American military culture since Washington. The fact is that generals do have some leeway - and in some cases an obligation - to challenge orders and civilian policy. Sometime last week the Washington Post quoted excerpts of the Army War College's take on rights and responsibilities of commanders speaking out. I don't have time to dig it up.

Nevertheless, if you read the article, you'll see Admiral Fallon's reasons for making statements somewhat contrary to the Bush administration - mainly, to counter the effect of Bush's aggressive talk about Iran on other of our allies in the region who are freaked out by it. He hasn't been making these comments because he's opposed to Bush's policies, but to moderate their effects on those they aren't intended to scare. I think the problem - and one reason Barnett predicted he'd be ousted - is that the Bush administration doesn't respect subtlety or recognition of complexity, (like that there are more than two countries on the earth at any given time), and they take any diversion from the talking-points as evidence of disloyalty and an internal threat. The other reason the administration may had for firing Fallon is that, if they do intend to attack Iran, and the admiral isn't 100% on-board then he could gum up the works - and that can't happen.

And that's the importance of this story: what the admiral is saying and why (and what it means that the administration has fired him for saying it) - not whether or not he should be allowed to say it.




Jesus. You didn't even bother to read the article. You don't even take the subject seriously enough to do that much.

What should really scare you is they let me vote.

[Tenbatsuzen]

Microsoft isn't a democracy. Vista isn't war.

He is an employee of the US Government. He is actively criticizing in public the people that pays his salary. It's the same concept.

[badmonkey]

He is an employee of the US Government. He is actively criticizing in public the people that pays his salary. It's the same concept.

http://www.smellingthecoffee.com/pics/darth-vader-dog-costume.jpg
He is part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor. Take him away!

[Tenbatsuzen]

http://www.smellingthecoffee.com/pics/darth-vader-dog-costume.jpg
He is part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor. Take him away!

I always wondered what happened to the retirement and pension plans of the Empire's workers. Is it the same as the Enron deal? Or did the New Republic absorb those assets into a new plan on Coruscant?

[badmonkey]

I always wondered what happened to the retirement and pension plans of the Empire's workers. Is it the same as the Enron deal? Or did the New Republic absorb those assets into a new plan on Coruscant?

http://www.mediamec.ca/blog/uploaded_images/StormTrooper_-769002.jpg
http://mike.files.wordpress.com/2006/01/epst_1.jpg

Had to look for a new job.
http://www.actionfigurecustoms.com/blogs/uploaded_images/StormtrooperArmor2-784742.jpg
... new job doing just about anything...

http://webzoom.freewebs.com/basementnightclub/Stormtrooper%20Bride.jpg
... ANYTHING...

http://fitsnews.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/stormtrooper-arrested.jpg
Gettin hassled by the man.

http://frostfirezoom.com/files/u1/stormtroopery.jpg
Finally some got jobs at NASCAR

Yeah... that looks about right.

[Tenbatsuzen]

I see your troopers, and I raise.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bygdRMCwC6s&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bygdRMCwC6s&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[Crispy123]

Having said that, again I respect your position, not all of it I agree with, but I definitely respect you.

I respect you to sir but we'll have to agree to disagree.

Aside from the fact that I find your use of really big font annoying... I think you're being dishonest. You think he's great because you agree with him. If this guy were so wonderful he would have quit and then spoken out against the war. Instead he kept his cushy gig in Tampa and continued to send young men and women to their deaths for something you admit he didn't believe in. Not much of a hero in my book.

I am happy that my font annoys you. Be like all the other sheep and use the font that Mikeyboy wants you to use.

And that's the importance of this story: what the admiral is saying and why (and what it means that the administration has fired him for saying it) - not whether or not he should be allowed to say it.

Eloquently put, and I totally agree. Im not saying Officers or anyone in the military should run out to the local paper and give their opinion on anything they want. This administration is doing everything under the sun to destroy the America set up by our founding fathers (and they have given more comfort and aid to Bin Laden than Saddam or Al Qaida in Iraq ever could). This man is trying to do more than just fight a war he is trying to promote stability in the region, save Americas face and defend our honor. You couldn't ask for anything more from the guy. He should be promoted not be resigning.

[scottinnj]

And that's the importance of this story: what the admiral is saying and why (and what it means that the administration has fired him for saying it) - not whether or not he should be allowed to say it.


You are right about that. We should be paying attention to what the man is saying about this. My only point was that public dissention by officers is a destabilizing force in the military, and he was right to resign. In fact, he did the honorable thing for his country to resign.

Now let's get this lazy, do-nothing Congress to hear what he said. It seems they ain't listening to anybody. Their constituency, these officers, or anyone. I just don't get it.

[scottinnj]

Vista isn't war.

I beg to differ. It's a battle everytime my father fires up his Dell. The carnage, Intel chips laid to waste, battling RAMS dropping like flies.

War is ugly, and Vista is hideous.

[Yerdaddy]

He is an employee of the US Government. He is actively criticizing in public the people that pays his salary. It's the same concept.

Unbelievable.

My roommate said something to me that's shaken me to the core. He said:

"I don't go in for internet debates. 'Honey, come to bed!' 'I can't!' 'Why not?' 'Because someone's wrong on the internet!'"

So rather than try to teach History 4-C to Mr. Tenbatspicoli, I'm going to spend my morning reevaluating my life and doing burpees.

[Zorro]

Nevertheless, if you read the article, you'll see Admiral Fallon's reasons for making statements somewhat contrary to the Bush administration - mainly, to counter the effect of Bush's aggressive talk about Iran on other of our allies in the region who are freaked out by it. He hasn't been making these comments because he's opposed to Bush's policies, but to moderate their effects on those they aren't intended to scare. I think the problem - and one reason Barnett predicted he'd be ousted - is that the Bush administration doesn't respect subtlety or recognition of complexity, (like that there are more than two countries on the earth at any given time), and they take any diversion from the talking-points as evidence of disloyalty and an internal threat. The other reason the administration may had for firing Fallon is that, if they do intend to attack Iran, and the admiral isn't 100% on-board then he could gum up the works - and that can't happen.

And that's the importance of this story: what the admiral is saying and why (and what it means that the administration has fired him for saying it) - not whether or not he should be allowed to say it.


You made my point for me. Fallon was acting as if he were his own little state department undermining the position of his bosses.

[Yerdaddy]

You made my point for me. Fallon was acting as if he were his own little state department undermining the position of his bosses.

The US military is its own de facto State Department in that it is the primary channel of diplomacy in many, if not most countries in the world. It's been that way for a long time. Conducting diplomacy is one of the primary jobs of CENTOM. And reassuring some allies that we're not as crazy as the White House makes it sounds like we are is NOT undermining the White House position - it IS diplomacy.

Don't be a fucking simpleton. If you eventually read the article and didn't see the value of Fallon's statements to our allies which were then reported in the press as contrary to the White House's statements then I don't think you're mature enough to even be having this conversation.

For fuck's sake. For you broken records, (and point-missers): If absolute obedience by generals is required for the preservation of democracy, as you are making it out to be, then why the fuck is the Army War College discussing the conditions and responsibilities under which generals, both active and retired, can publically contradict the president?

Answer that question or stop wasting my time.

[A.J.]

The US military is its own de facto State Department in that it is the primary channel of diplomacy in many, if not most countries in the world. It's been that way for a long time.

Especially when you consider that the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy has had more juice than the Secretary of State for nearly 40 years.

Now go back to sleep Sweetie and don't worry about the internet being broken!