It's always amusing to get a bunch of liberals and assorted lefties together to whine about their lack of power and influence and proclaim that the sky is falling. Don"t you ever wonder why you seem to be in an echo chamber? Most people who face, accept, and deal with reality every day don't have the time to follow your example and write narcissistic e-mails announcing their ponderous self-importance to others of similar lunacy. So please don't fool yourself that you silly windbags represent any kind of majority. And if you had any honesty or decency, you wouldn't insult President Bush's intelligence or motives when all you really mean is that you disagree with his policies. But your intellectual dishonesty is just too strong (and too obvious) to admit any kind of simple disagreement, isn't it?. I admire President Bush for a lot of reasons, but mainly because as one writer said (early in the Bush administration) he gives some indication every day that he doesn't give a damn what people like you think about anything, and I love it. That's really why you hate him and his administration so much--it offends your bloated conceit. Any person of common sense knows that if Iran continues on its present course, it must be dealt with--with military force, if necessary. As for Adm. Fallon, you seem to forget his actual words: "When the time comes, you crush them." But you wimps shouldn't worry about it--when the threat reaches critical mass, the Israelis will do it for us. I guarantee you that they won't be deterred by your whining if they feel their survival is at stake. All we need to do is supply them with weapons, intelligence, and aerial escort and re-fueling. And we will--and here's the bone that will stick in your craw: We'll do it regardless of who is President. Campaign rhetoric to placate you terminally naive is one thing; nuclear reality is another. Deal with it.
Admiral Fallon: A Resignation in Protest
Let's call a spade a spade here. Admiral Fallon has not so quietly had severe disagreements with the White House on our Iraq policy, how it impacts the region and global war on terror, for which he is largely responsible, and warning against war with Iran.
Just one year into his tenure as CENTCOM commander, Fallon resigned today, and you can read into it nothing more than a resignation in protest.
Sure, he'll try to put a good face on it, as a loyal Admiral, and the Pentagon will insist that he was stepping aside to help the team. But that's not the case. The fact of the matter is that the war in Iraq has taken precedence over the war on terror, and the administration has put General Petraeus out there to make the case for our military policy, not his boss, Admiral Fallon.
Who can forget the video of Petraeus saying he didn't know if the war in Iraq made America more or less safe? It was the one moment that crystallized the fact that Petraeus' responsibility began and ended at Iraq's borders. Yet, he was put out there as the face of our military policy -- a job which should have been Fallon's.
The only reason -- ONLY reason -- that Fallon wasn't put out there was because he didn't believe Iraq was making America safer, and knew that Iraq was a drain on the war in Afghanistan. He wasn't going to put his neck out there and repeatedly shill for the administration. At the same time, like many brass, he was going to give his best shot, behind the scenes, to change the policy.
Now, it's become clear that the policy won't change. So, today, Admiral Fallon essentially said, "Forget this. I'm out of here."
Another voice of reason bites the dust.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The right wing zionists and US oil companies will continue pressing the war policy until there is no US army or mercenary force left to fight the war for them - if and when that happens - don't hold your breath waiting for folks like William Kristol and Rex Tillerson to pick up an M16 and head for Bagdhad........
It's always amusing to get a bunch of liberals and assorted lefties together to whine about their lack of power and influence and proclaim that the sky is falling. Don"t you ever wonder why you seem to be in an echo chamber? Most people who face, accept, and deal with reality every day don't have the time to follow your example and write narcissistic e-mails announcing their ponderous self-importance to others of similar lunacy. So please don't fool yourself that you silly windbags represent any kind of majority. And if you had any honesty or decency, you wouldn't insult President Bush's intelligence or motives when all you really mean is that you disagree with his policies. But your intellectual dishonesty is just too strong (and too obvious) to admit any kind of simple disagreement, isn't it?. I admire President Bush for a lot of reasons, but mainly because as one writer said (early in the Bush administration) he gives some indication every day that he doesn't give a damn what people like you think about anything, and I love it. That's really why you hate him and his administration so much--it offends your bloated conceit. Any person of common sense knows that if Iran continues on its present course, it must be dealt with--with military force, if necessary. As for Adm. Fallon, you seem to forget his actual words: "When the time comes, you crush them." But you wimps shouldn't worry about it--when the threat reaches critical mass, the Israelis will do it for us. I guarantee you that they won't be deterred by your whining if they feel their survival is at stake. All we need to do is supply them with weapons, intelligence, and aerial escort and re-fueling. And we will--and here's the bone that will stick in your craw: We'll do it regardless of who is President. Campaign rhetoric to placate you terminally naive is one thing; reality is another. Deal with it.
There seems to be more than a few people, Jon, waiting for the other 'Iran shoe' to drop on THIS story, ...and hoping it NEVER does.
The TRUTH about the Gulf of Tonkin set no one 'free', ...of their fears the cowboys will again stray from the ranch, at least.
Thanks, Jon, lets ALSO hope November brings overwhelming votes for someone the actually cares what happens to OUR troops.
Another voice of reason gets silenced.
Yes, you are the last one left so keep talking.
Here is a link to the Esquire article;
The Man Between War and Peace
By Thomas P.M. Barnett
and interview with Admiral William "Fox" Fallon. It's a great read.
http://www.esquire.com/features/fox-fallon
Isn't it the responsibility of the military to serve the President? I could have sworn that's what the Constitiution says! So, what is the big deal? They disagreed, he quit, end of story. You liberals once again, making a mountain out of a mole hill. But, all day long we will hear from you and the MSM how horrible this is and how Bush is so stubborn and how we are on the brink of war now with Iran.
Boring and tiresome...
Wison, is it the responsibility of the President to engage
in an occupation of a country, where valuable lives and equipment
are lost, for the sole reason of protection of American companies?
And is it right for a President to now be on the course of
action against Iran and Syria, that will initiate the reality
of WW III that he so flipantly described?
Admiral Fallon was the voice of caution, he had the years
of military experience that had taught him war can and
should be avoided and used only as a last resort.
I hope Admiral Fallon comes out and publically states
his opposition to what is likely to happen. If not, our country
will cease to exist as a free nation.
No it's not the military's job to serve the president.
Their oath is - and I quote - to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all threats both foreign and domestic". They serve and protect the Country - the Constitution - not any president.
While I'm at it - the president is NOT the Commander-In-Chief of the USA; but is of the military services. The reason for that is ONLY to protect the country against a military takeover of the country.
Being Commander-In-Chief of the military does NOT mean he can use them any way he pleases. That privilege is for Kings, and we rejected them in 1776 - in case you forgot.
Yes, well said! To think otherwise would be to make the military the private army of the president. The Congress has the power to cut off the funding of any military adventure and is supposed to be the body that declares war, although that power has been ceeded to the executive branch through the use of police actions somewhere along the line. It is time to reclaim it!
Isn't it the responsibility of the President to leave playing soldier to REAL ones?
Bush likes to play dress-up.
Drink some more cool-aid.
Or maybe Wilson33 should get his head out of his you know what so he can breathe some fresh air.
What Kool Aid am I drinking? That's how it goes. Generals serve the president. If they don't agree with the mission, then they quit, its that simple. The President makes the calls, the generals make the calls happen. It makes no difference whether it was in decent or not. He either quits like he did, or he gets fired by the president. What's the difference?
Please enlighten me with your wisdom as to how you think it went down.
Fallon timed this all very carefully including the Esquire article. He is sending a message to us loud and clear... We've lost everything and we are going to war with Iran and I doubt very seriously we will even have an election.
God help us all.
the same thing occurred to me . . . cheney in the Middle East on peace talks . . yeah right . . . he and the israelis are up to no good . . . just like he travelled the world before Iraq promising a cut of the Iraqi oil for military support . . .we know this from the Australians . . . and I wouldn't be surprised that they will start a war and suspend the elections .. . just to stay in power .. .this is why they have to be impeached . . .and it isn't for lack of evidence that impeachment is on hold ... it is from lack of courage .. . and a disregard of the Constitution by our fine members of Congress . ..
6 Signs of Possible War with Iran
1. Fallon's resignation
2. Chaney's trip to Middle East (Sunday 3/16)
3. Israeli airstrike on Syria
4. 3 US warships off Lebanon
5. Comments from Israel
6. Israels war with Hezbollah
This is what some journalists have put together.
If you don't agree with the policy resign. The military is just as complicit in this illegal war as the politicians. Remember all the Nazi and Japanese generals that were convicted of war crimes. The military has failed our people and needs to held to account. My respect is for those officers who did resign and came out against this immoral war of choice. As to the others, they are accountable, and in my mind, gulity of war crimes as the politicians.
Great, so glad you support your troops tough guy.
Well, in some cases the upper level of military brass should resign to speak of an unjust policy.
Good of YOU to support ALL troops -- regardless of their politics -- or the number of times they've been recalled under "stop-loss."
Fercrissakes.
So much for letting the Generals on the ground call the shots.
Bush will let the Generals call the shots, as long as they agree with him and do what he says. The Military is also very convenient, because when criticized about Iraq, Bush always says that "I'm not going to tell General Petraus what to do." Military leaders often clash with their Civilian commanders and they are relieved of command or resign. The important thing is that it sends a very powerful message that we should all pay attention to. Bush has destroyed the readiness of the Military on a misguided-useless adventure, and I think that many in the Military are none to happy with it. You have already seen the intelligence agencies in this country send a strong message about the fact that Iran isn't as far along with a nuclear weapons program that Bush had been ranting about. What did he say? "I disagree with them." Gives you confidence doesn't it? "Don't bother me with the facts, just tell me stuff that agrees with my current perceptions and conclusions."
Why would Fallon not tell what is really on his mind? This sort of "old boy" league in which one puts "a good face on" the actual truth of the matter is just what is wrong with our Military leaders -- not much guts under the chest full of medals. I presume Bush/Cheney will see to it that Fallon will get another big gold medal for "Not Being Critical of the Chief" ....
The fact that Officers in uniform do not rebel against their chain of command is precisely why our military is strong and why we've never had a military coup in this country. I would be very worried if a General or Admiral made public statements in defiance of policy, no matter how bad it was. As long as you are in uniform, you salute and say yes sir. If you don't like it, resign or retire, then say your piece.
We are lucky to have a military with the kind of discipline and integrity ours has and I will always give the military the benefit of the doubt, even in the face of the stupidity of the civilian leadership.
I hope we see Fallon come out later with some comments but if he chooses not to, he has made a statement nonetheless.
RickO,
Very well said. I agree with you entirely. Thank God our traditions are very strong on this point for the good of the country. When you are in the military at the highest level you salute and say "Yes Sir" and carry out your orders or you resign and leave and speak from your retirement. Admiral Fallon has timed this move very skillfully. We also have a long and noble history of this kind of voice in the affairs of our nation. Amazingly, especially in the Marine Corps most of all it appears Perhaps because they understand the true face of war of small arms up close warfare on the ground of all the services. Major General Smedley Butler and General David Shoup come readily to mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_M._Shoup
There are some very honorable and very impressive men in the U.S. military. I have spoken with Admiral Stansfield Turner on several occasions in recent years. A very enjoyable man. In my own military service of long ago I was a mere lowly 1st Lieutenant but he and I could communicate just fine on the military issues being discussed on the occasion.
Again, thank you for your fine post.
In private he should air his views. Our top military personnel are not puppets or trained seals. Even if he disagrees he can still carry out policy. If he disagrees that strenuously, he should resign and air his grievances. What kind of military do we have when all who express their professional opinions as to the number of troops needed to invade, etc., are summariy dismissed from duty? We end up up with a military consisting of stooges.
Sorry but I disagree. The nature of a military command system is you can't have people publicly second guessing their superiors. That's why Truman was right in firing General Mcaurther in the 50's. Its why many generals did not publicly question Clinton's policies even though they thought he should have been more aggressive. Unfortunately, that's one of the things you have to accept when you choose a military career. Their only choice is to resign their commission and then they can feel free to say whatever they want just like any citizen. I wish more of them had the integrity to do that but I can understand how difficult it is for them.
Yes, but they should give their honest appraisel when asked, otherwise what good is their experience. If administration policy strays too far from their views, and they can not act within their own moral boundaries and good sense, they are left to retire. Then, hopefully, they have an obligation to speak publicly. Hopefully, Admiral Fallon will make his private views public.
Admiral Fallon is yet another honorable career officer who spoke the truth to the Bush/Neocon regime of treasonous madmen and gets "early retirement" or forced resignation for his service. Bush says he will let the military say what is best, but if they disagree with the premeditated Neocon "wars without end", they are sacked. That list includes General John Abizaid, General Eric Shinseki, Major General Antonio Taguba and now Admiral William Fallon......see a pattern here?
http://www.amconmag.com/3_1_04/cover.html
http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html
The Great Hypocrite in the White house who NEVER served and the other chickenhawks in and around this treasonous regime send others off to war but do NOT serve or fight themselves. http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html
Admiral Fallon is an honorable officer who served our nation with distinction until he told the truth to the Bush war criminals who want even more war and death in the ME and war with Iran, and was forced out. http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/15/1212/
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070122/klare
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/06/25/070625fa_fact_hersh
So who are the obsequious yesmen we are left with? General Petraeus? Admiral Fallon famously said of Petraeus "I hate people like that" he is "an asskissing little chickenshit"! So Bush&Co rely on the sycophant Petraeus who says what the administration wants, but fire an honorable officer who speaks his mind. The truth always been an enemy of this Bush/Neocon regime. By his actions, the American military Bush has in mind for our nation is filled with "asskissers", mandatory loyal "christian" soldiers who will follow any order without thought, or Blackwater style "private" mercenaries or other "outsourced" mercs who kill or torture for America with no oversight or control. Perfect for even mo
Posted March 11, 2008 | 04:16 PM (EST)