Where's Admiral Fallon?

Here's something Americans looking to end the Iraq war could learn from military strategists: You can lose a battle before it starts, when you decide where and how to engage. Take yesterday's testimony from Gen. Petraeus. Congressional leaders looking for a way out of the quagmire stumbled before they even began. They haven't asked one simple question:

Where is Gen. Petraeus' boss?

Admiral William J. Fallon is the head of CENTCOM, responsible not only for Iraq but for all our current and potential military activity in the region. It's well known in Washington circles that Admiral Fallon has a far more realistic view of the war, considers the "Surge" a failure (as do most security experts), and wants to substantially draw down our troop presence in Iraq.

The administration knows that the press and public want to put a "face" to every effort, however. They knew that media coverage and political attention would become fixed on Gen. Petraeus, whose views on the war are similar to their own. Democratic war opponents haplessly played along, investing Gen. Petraeus with a stature and authority that neither history nor rank suggests he should hold.

As for Gen. Petraeus himself, Paul Rieckhoff is right: Personal attacks by MoveOn.org and others are out of line. What's more, they're tactically foolish. However negative, these attacks play into the administration's strategy of personalizing the war around the identity of Petraeus himself.

While we all agree that "war is too important to be left to the generals," in this case it should be left to the military community itself to render judgment on Gen. Petraeus. (Even MoveOn's "Gen. Betray Us" sobriquet was first used by a retired general - but this kind of name-calling should be beneath an organized group of war critics.)

Col. Jeffrey McMaster wrote a Ph.D. thesis called "Dereliction of Duty" about the unwillingness of military leaders to tell truth to power during the Vietnam War, and how military disaster resulted from the actions of overly ambitious officers. Before it was released in book form it was xeroxed and passed from hand to hand among young officers, in a kind of military samizdat. Once it was published, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Hugh Shelton distributed it to his senior officers and brought McMaster in to address them.

One of the strangest developments to come out of the occupation of Iraq is the alliance between retired generals and liberal opponents of the war. Both want to see an end to our presence there. Both groups know our mission there is ill-defined and futile. Both groups know the ongoing occupation is damaging our military.

And both groups support the troops.

War opponents in and out of Congress shouldn't focus any more attention on Gen. Petraeus. Going forward, they should insist that committee chairs in the House and Senate solicit testimony from experienced officers - leaders who lack political ambition, and who possess the experience and wisdom to offer good advice to Congress and the public.

They should start by calling on Admiral Fallon.

A Night Light
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog
Future-While-U-Wait
RJ Eskow at the Huffington Post

Comments

[frank67]

Crocker & Petraeus. Sounds like a food chain. But I'd never buy whatever it is they're seeling!

[strangelet]

Excellent article. The Dems in Congress made a big mistake back in January by agreeing with the notion that Petraeus would be the "evaluator" of the surge. You cannot expect a truly unbiased evaluation of any project from the person whose main job is to lead the project.

Some are now trying to advance the point that there are other, less favorable, evaluations that should get atttention, but this is suffering from the months of build up to the "Petraeus Report". I agree that asking Adm Fallon to testify would help -- even if only by making clear that there are higher-ranking officers than Petraeus.

As for the MoveOn ad, amid all the comments pro and con "Betray Us", I think folks are missing Mr. Eskow's most important point -- that the very existence of the ad helps to reinforce Petraeus as the "face" of Iraq policy, and hence implicity beefs up his credibility as "evaluator". Of course, the purpose of the explicit content of the ad was to REDUCE his credibility (among "undecideds", not those commenting on this thread). Whether the explicit reduction or implicit enhancement will prevail remains to be seen.

[SouthpawSass]

Wow, I had no idea about Fallon. Didn't even consider Petraeus as not the head man...

Thank you for this article RJ and Huffington. Again, I've learned something.

[JulieSA]

Thanks, RJ for your criticism of the Moveon ad. This is very serious business. If you can't make your argument without resorting to childish name-calling, you do not deserve a seat at the grownup's table. And yes, that applies to Republicans, too.

Petraeus is recommending an immediate drawdown of several thousand troops. Fallon wants 75% of the troops out of Iraq by 2010. Even Sen. Obama, who wants the troops out now, states that it will take at least a year to get them out safely. IOW, everyone wants most of our guys out of there--the main disagreement is on how fast to do this and how many troops to leave to keep an eye on things.

I have a relative who has known Adm Fallon for decades and has served with him. My relative thinks the world of him as a person. He says the Admiral is an outstanding human being. Someday, he may find himself in Moveon's sights. I assume the children who run Moveon are already preparing some silly name for him, like Faggon, or Admiral Doodyhead.

[ajax2]

Bush does not listen to commanders in the field when they disagree with him. He fires them. That's why most everyone knew Petraeus would repeat the WH/AEI propaganda line before Congress.

[Purple Girl]

He's stuck in the safes in DICK'S office, The new Iron Maiden. How many does he have now??

[1will]

Success in Iraq would be bad for the Democratic Party. How many really believe these politicians care more about our country and our troops then they do their own careers?

[realpolitic]

Admiral Fallon would make for riveting and soberingly realistic testimony. General Petraeus basically asked for another six months before changes in the policy are made. What would he ask for then besides another? Surely, he will not say the policy has failed. Also, he used different data then other bodies recently reporting on the war, such as the GAO. As a General, is he entitled to his own, unsourced data?

[Dap]

Dear Brother RJ,

While I understand your point and I knew what you meant before you clarified it futher.

I strongly disagree, the "Betray-us" was a quip, nothing more and I thought it to be fitting, especially under the circumstances.

You my learened friend, bought into the Repug framing, which I believe to-be what the problem is to begin with, it was just a witty quip on the General's name.

Fact is the good General has betrayed (us), that percentage of the U.S. population that expected a more honest assesment from the General. Is is a betral of our Republic? *No* he's being what good soldiers are duty bound, come hell or high water, he has a mission, an impossible mission, yet he soldiers on.

So I enjoyed the witty quip for what it was; *Not* for what the Repugs tell me it is.

That's my take on it, it's sound. Agape.

[drkazmd65]

As I believe it was best put by Sun Tzu:

The principle of simplicity

Now the general who wins a battle makes many calculations in his temple ere the battle is fought. The general who loses a battle makes but few calculations beforehand. Thus do many calculations lead to victory, and few calculations to defeat, how much more no calculation at all!

Problem is,... our Generals, or at least our political leaders, made very few calcualtions.

No big surprize though. They were near-sigted true believers.

[Irons]

This is a very good column!

[MrJoyboy]

Isn't he back on Saturday Night Live?

[eeodonn]

John Warner had to ask him twice if our presence in Iraq was making us safer. He doesn't know; he's defined his mission so narrowly that he can't honestly answer the question, at least publicly. We need to hear from a broader spectrum of people who can. The General will succeed in his mission in Iraq until it can be milked for another six months to a year then we'll change his mission, just as we keep changing the rationale for being there in the first place. Everyone, including the media and Congress, knows were he not willing to call a modest decrease in violence after an escalation "progress", he would be gone. What happened to the General's mission to train the Iraqi army so that they could stand up and we could stand down, what happened to the arms he supplied to them? There may be narrow gains in security in Baghdad because of his efforts or because of mere attrition, but our military casualities and Iraqi civilian casualities are higher each succeeding year we're there and we're in serious danger of the war spreading as it did in Southeast Asia. How does this move the ball forward and how can the media and Congress not call the President on it? It's clear that Petraeus meant it when he said we would be in Iraq another decade. Between this and the chaos we're causing in Africa, blowback is going to be hell. Yes, let's hear from Admiral Fallon and the Joint Chiefs of staff, maybe they have an opinion on whether our stated objectives in Iraq are being met or not.

[sohardtosee]

I think everyone opposed to this war should make a serious pledge to stop criticizing the efforts of others in opposition to the war. In my opinion, MoveOn wasn't overly "personal" and didn't cross a line, but even if it did, so what? Let us please focus on what is important. Otherwise, the war will never be brought to an end.

I don't put much hope in an alliance of retired generals and liberals as a basis for an anti-war movement. Does anyone really?

If the war is to be ended, the people of the United States will have to demand it. Not ask, not negotiate for, not discuss, but demand. That may be a long shot, but in my opinion it's the only shot. I think RJ Eskow is sharp, and I generally like his blog, but those who truly want to help bring the war to an end should put aside their savvy political thinking and let their words and deeds be guided by a more intemperate sense of urgency.

[LilyMaskew]

I wholeheartedly agree; we have to demand an end to this war. Dems tend to be too nice. We are dealing with a killing war. Frig that! Hit them with both barrels (metaphorically speaking. Right on, Move On!

[twork]

It's almost as frustrating to see those I agree with stooping to clumsy and puerile tactics as it is to see the Right succeed with them. Who's not long since sick of hearing words like "feminazi" or sobriquets like "AlGore"? "General Betray Us" isn't any funnier than those old chestnuts, nor does it lend any more clarity to the debate. Worse, is there anything more insulting to a career officer than an accusation of disloyalty? You'd better be damn sure it's true.

Whether or not Gen. Patraeus' motives are pure (my ESP is on the blink this week), MoveOn made a grand blunder with their headline, handing Republicans in Congress a cudgel to use on the "Radical Left" as they eagerly leapt to the defense of a respected military official. If we want to win debates in the public square, as opposed to the union hall and the university cocktail reception, we have to do a better job than this at framing our views. My complaint to MoveOn is in their inbox, for whatever that's worth.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Dems continue to bring knives to gunfights.

Right on, Move On!

[freedomis]

twork,if you are talking about loyalty or disloyalty I have to say that he was loyal to the C of C but disloyal to the Constitution which he has sworn to uphold and as for the ad there are more than 2 million members in MoveOn and they got to read the ad before donating their money for said ad.He lied and he deserves no break and if the people dont throw rocks once in a while who do you think is going to pay attention to us? Tony