The Folly Of Fallon
Why do we care that he's leaving CentCom again?
By haystack Posted in Anti-War Admirals | Democrats | Failing means winning | Iraq | Neocons | Politics as usual | War — Comments (9) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
This article in Esquire magazine is apparently a big deal for our anti-war ("I love losing") crowd. In it we find a "Thomas Barnett" who fancies himself a stick buddy of Admiral Fallon (the soon to be no longer Commander of Central Command). Barnett also allows his piece to imply that it was Fallon who has been serving all this time as Secretary of State instead of Condoleeza Rice...and he shows us once again how really cool you can be if you throw around a few F-bombs and drop the "neocon" slam here and there, interspersed between lots of nuance and innuendo that furthers a preconceived political agenda.
What outstanding reporting we are graced with once again by one who continues searching for new and ever-more creative ways to convince us we must stop fighting enemies who would see us and our allies dead; give them what they want and they'll go away...or somesuch nonsense. These people need to stop working so hard...they might pop a blood vessel if they don't calm down.
I really can't exert the required energy to review Barnett's piece here (an op-ed in the form of a "news and biographical" article); there's just no point in trying to argue with folks willing to align themselves with underlings by propping them up into a "thing" they are not - Fallon was an Admiral, Bush is still Commander in Chief, and Gates is still (well, "was") Fallon's direct boss. Whooptydoo...
I'm more interested in what's NOT being said during all this hub bub about a military guy that did a job, for 12 months, and is now being rotated out. I thought we were SUPPOSED to be doing rotations to keep "our guys" fresh. Please, war-haters, put your memory caps on and recall the hype about a Navy guy taking over CentCom...how it was to be a new beginning...a change in how Bush was to manage the war (and prepare for the peace) and that maybe...JUST maybe, Fallon actually FAILED at one or more of his assigned objectives. Heck-Petraeus has done far better with his assignment than Fallon...just because the Admiral thinks war with Iran might be ill-advised, do we really have to make this retirement business into something that it's not?
More below the fold...
Let us recall one Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who was hailed by the NoWarLibs™ as a hero for speaking truth to power. Let us also recall Batiste's almost-immediate engagement with that anti-war Veterans group, VoteVets [link intentionally not provided], and his year-long anti-Bush and anti-Rumsfeld tirade...before coming to his senses and changing teams and switching sides to join up with Vets For Freedom [link again not provided...to be fair (not that I really need to be fair given how the opposition likes to play)].
Can we agree that Fallon just might be seeing his glory days behind him now, and looking for a new gig? Rattling a few of his OWN "Bush sucks" sabers and looking to secure a book deal perhaps? A position in the pacifist regime of an Obama Presidency? Just maybe? Who knows...maybe the Admiral will be the next SecDef...unless he wants State (given his failures to secure political success in Baghdad). After all, everybody LOVES a Democrat that fails at everything...so long as they make the compelling argument that they tried - only to have been beaten back by eeeeevil Republicans.
If you swallow every morsel Barnett throws in this piece, then surely you can accept that Fallon was responsible for making nice with the Chinese. His double secret probation role of SecState MUST be the cause of our bonny new group hug with our Communist friends. And, assuming this is Fallon's Diplomacy legacy, and rememberinig how much the Democrats like to revel in Iraq's ongoing failures "Politically", then can we assume that Fallon is actually being booted because he FAILED the US, Diplomatically, in Iraq?
Why, even the Democrats have been forced to reluctantly admit that the surge is working on the security front. THAT, my friends, is SURELY the fault of Petraeus...is it not?
Don't bother yourselves with trying to square all this logic in your minds. It matters not at all that Fallon was Petraeus' boss, and that Fallon oversaw the military successes via the surge. All that matters is continuing to push the meme of Bush being a war monger, and any of us who believe Iran is a threat and should be routinely and repeatedly reminded that we have no qualms about taking them out if they appear ready to raise a mushroom cloud over Jerusalem are just knuckle-dragging neocons and chickenhawks.
The Folly Of Fallon 9 Comments (0 topical, 9 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Fallon burned his bridges. Hope he does not become a tool of the left, who will be trotted out everytime they disagree with a military officer. Guess he will be sought as a military "specialist" for MSNBC/CBS.
"It takes two people to lie Marge"
"One person to lie and one person to listen...."
That after all this, Fallon has proven to be the "failure".It seems Patraeus has did exactly what he set out to do. Those fools over at Thinkprogress should revisit there Moveon.org approved babbling in that thread from September and realize what has happened. Just because you spout off about what you WANT to happen, doesn't mean that it is happening or will happen.
I respect Barnnett, he is a smart man, experienced and has a pretty exciting long-term view. But he also as an ego and is letting his party affiliations sep through his words.
that he isn't the first 4-star to be canned for forgetting to shut his yap. I give you former Air Force Chief of Staff Michael Dugan.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
From day one of Fallon's appointment I was filled with dread about his policy positions. He sounded like a lib defeatist in every interview he gave. Thank goodness he is gone before more damage could be done. Maybe General Petraeus should be promoted now to command CentCom..
Obama is Jimmy Carter- only without the sweater.
I can assure you of that.
When a general officer publicly contradicts the President's policy, that is a grave threat to our nation. Such actions undermine the bedrock principle of civilian control of the military, and cannot be tolerated. Any military professional knows this. And consider this: if he has been publicly undermining national policy, what do you think he has been doing privately?
I just hope Fallon does not try to pull a Wes Clark. If I see him on stage with Obama or Clinton this fall campaigning against the warmonger McCain, I'm going to vomit.
I gotta say, Gates has some chops though, eh?
"If all men were just, there would be no need of valor."
- Agesilaus
An event like this must be interpreted in a non-partisan manner. The determining principle must be civilian control of the military, regardless of which side of the issue you agree with. No doubt the Kos crowd will be hailing Fallon as the latest courageous peacemaker standing up to the NeoCons. When they do, ask them this: would it be any different if President Obama were trying to pursue diplomatic rapprocement with Iran and General Starznbarz was giving interviews where he advocated immediate bombing? No, of course not. It's the same thing. Generals who forget the constitution cannot be tolerated.
"If all men were just, there would be no need of valor."
- Agesilaus
Let's not forget that Fallon may well have been Gates pick for CENTCOM. Gates is, after all, a Baker/Hamilton man.
First, I'd like to note that Fallon has not denied the quotes in Tom Barnett's article. He's hedged about the context of the quotes but what we have right now is a non-denial.
The reason that Fallon would make these statements to Barnett is very simple on a couple of levels. Barnett is a long time Navy academic progressing from the Center for Naval Warfare Studies to the faculty of the Naval War College. It is pretty safe to say that Fallon granted the interview and the level of access because 1) he knew Barnett and his work and 2) was favorably disposed towards both.
Barnett was a big fan of Fallon's rapprochement with the ChiComs when he succeeded to command of PACOM. Barnett has long held and wrote about Iran in the same terms as he attributed to Fallon.
Fallon burned bridges with me some time ago when he did the non-denial thing in regards to some comments he was supposed to have directed at Dave Petraeus.
Now the left can and will make of this what they will but the basic question here is really no different, if a lot less in-your-face, that Truman and MacArthur and Carter and Singlaub.
Military officers do not set national policy. They carry out national policy and they do so, as our oath of office says, "without reservation or purpose of evasion." He would have every right to counsel against a military strike against Iran if that was proposed. He doesn't have the right to shoot his mouth off to the effect that he'd resign before ordering such a strike.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling