Another Lifetime Military Career Trashed

I'm not certain I've ever seen an administration so toxic to so many upper level military careers.

Furthermore, I'm not certain that there ever has been an administration that has politicized the military so much.

 

Officers in the military serve at the pleasure of the Chief Executive. That said, the White House had heavy praise for the Admiral: "In a statement issued by the White House, Bush said Fallon 'has served his country with honor, determination and commitment.'" Actually the White House went further, "During his tenure at Centcom, Admiral Fallon's job has been to help ensure that America's military forces are ready to meet the threats of an often troubled region of the world, and he deserves considerable credit for progress that has been made there, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan," Bush said. Since we do not know the exact circumstances behind Navy Adm. William Fallon's resignation beyond what the press is speculating, the reasons may not be as you suspect. The media have played up differences between Adm. Fallon and General David Petraeus,. The Admiral has 42 years of service; an honorable record. DoD Sec Robert Gates also heavily praised Admiral Fallon.

 

Fallon seemed to be a man who would speak his mind. Shame to see him go when we need him most.

 

Since we have seen clearly exactly how Democrats and Liberals treat our military leadership in Iraq, I am suspect of any concern Democrats and Liberals now express toward Admiral Fallon. To make this point crystal clear, on September 10, 2007, General David Petraeus, USA, the Commanding General of the Multi-National Force - Iraq was smeared and criticized by Soros-backed MoveOn and The New York Times and few Democrats stood in his defense. Therefore I suspect your interest, as well as other Democrats, here with Fallon is only whether the Admiral disagreed with the current Iraq policy, as opposed to our success in Iraq, that is improving greatly under General Petraeus and President George Bush.

 

Here's the article in Esquire that got Fallon canned.

http://www.esquire.com/features/fox-fallon?click=pp

 

Great article. Seems to have been an exceptional commander doing what the American people expect of him.

How many times were Manstein and Guderian dismissed by another dilettante in military affairs? History teaches us that you dismiss your best commanders at your own peril.

 

An "armchair admiral's" take, and one I realize to be very knowledgeable on the workings of the Navy after previously reading him amongst others. http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2008/03/think-long-and-hard-as-you-contemplate.html

Think Long and Hard as You Contemplate What This Means

Four star flag officers, particularly Joint Combatant Commanders, do not resign in the middle of war because of a media report ( http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8VBE6E00&show_article=1 ). I read the Esquire article from front to back 5 times, I cannot find a single negative quote from Adm. Fallon about President Bush. I see plenty of criticism from Barnett. The implication is Bush can't read, which is bullshit, or Fallon is being pushed out, which sounds more believable.

I might be mistaken, but I believe we are witness to Bush fire his first General/Admiral of the war. Think long and hard as you contemplate what that means.

There has been a political split in the Pentagon since 2005 ( http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2008/03/observing-dr-barnetts-profile-of.html ), when those who wanted to move forward under the cooperative model as opposed to the unilateral model for military action were able to shift the Pentagon position through the release of official strategic papers. Under Gates, the Pentagon has tried to shift to a cooperative phase from what has been a unilateral phase of military action. The cooperative approach is championed by Rice, Gates, and people like Adm. Fallon. Many neo-conservatives, which unfortunately includes a bunch of big blue Navy folks I won't name specifically, form up the unilateral military action side.

Dr. Barnett got the political context of his article all wrong ( http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2008/03/observing-dr-barnetts-profile-of.html ), and by doing so Dr. Barnett opened himself up to be the political scapegoat for the administration. He should have seen this coming. Dr. Barnett needs an adviser ( http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/ ), because he is a producer of the strategic vision that many young officers are building upon, we see it in Armed Forces Journal ( http://www.afji.com/ ) , Proceedings ( http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/archive/index.asp ) , and any number of professional papers that reflect "The Brief" ( http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/media/thebrief.htm ). However, by becoming the champion for what amounts to a shift to cooperative strategy, Dr. Barnett has made himself a target of the unilateral folks. I find it ironic that lack of partisanship is Dr. Barnett’s weakness. Because he isn’t partisan, he isn’t politically savvy enough to see this type of political blindside coming.

When you look at the state of our nation, sometimes I wonder if the enemy has us exactly where they want us. The right is having an uncivil political war between moderates and conservatives, throwing their own under a bus. The left is divided due to identity politics, and they are busy throwing their own under a bus, under all media spotlight no less. Meanwhile the Pentagon is divided on how to move forward in a war where they have poor intelligence, weak diplomacy, and limited leadership.

If you didn't read the Esquire piece ( http://www.esquire.com/features/fox-fallon ) , or didn't read my earlier response ( http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2008/03/observing-dr-barnetts-profile-of.html ), you may of just missed what could in fact be a signal of war to Iran. I know one thing, if I was Iran, that is the only way to read this. There was a message for Iran in the Barnett article:

Are we assuming the Bush administration can't read, Barnett is saying that, Barnett makes all the cuts at the Bush administration in the article, not Fallon. Barnett appears to have been dead right though. Reasonable people who do nothing wrong don't quit because a reporter writes an article bad about a politician, but unreasonable people can make that person quit. I really am stunned, I have never really believed the US was going to strike Iran until today.




...that was the end of the article. I also fully recommend his take on the Barnett article, which he wrote this past Sunday on March 9th. It mainly talks about the need for Fallon's position due to how much a failure the State Department has been since the fall of the Soviet Union, creating the need for "military diplomats". He also criticizes Barnett for not understanding the political consequences of his article and giving partisans the opportunity to manipulate it for their own ends. It's definitely worth the read, and is illuminating in context considering the author did not realize Fallon was close to resigning. http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2008/03/observing-dr-barnetts-profile-of.html

 

I am as stunned as you are! It appears that the assets needed are on the way/ have been moved into place. Israel looks set to renew operations in S. Lebanon. This might get really messy.

 

(that was the end of the writer's blog, not my personal take on the situation)

Nonetheless, if it does come to that, que sera sera.

 

Right sorry. I hope it doesn't come to that.

 

Quite a list there.

 

If my earlier comments were off target in your case my apologies; I meant them for Democrats at large whose only interest herein, in regard to military, is whether they criticize our Commander in Chief. They couldn't care less otherwise.

Other "military leaders" have quit or resigned during this war. Fallon has 42 years of service; perhaps he was tired.

What are your criteria you're judging him against? The primary reason for this War on Terror (initial mandate) is to prevent further terrorist attacks against this nation; Bush has fulfilled that mandate. I give him an (A) for that. For the duration (number of years of war) casualties have been surprisingly light (as compared to other modern wars and duration/casualties), so I give the President and the Armed Forces credit for directly attacking enemy while keeping casualties low on a two-theater war; and executing surge strategy that has been a complete success thus far (B+). Further, numerous goals have been achieved in war, to include the take-dwon of numerous AL Qaeda and Taliban terrorists, on two-theater war, all the while attempting to improve both nations (Afghanistan and Iraq) and prevent terrorism in home nation (United States) (A). Lastly, credit is due to Commander in Chief and military to keep up recruitment while skillfully managing multiple tours for active-duty personnel (very difficult in long-duration war. (A). You see, without criteria, your "Failure" assessment is meaningless; once you add criteria to this war, President Bush and Military yield excellent grades for the war thus far, and for securing the defense of this nation.

George W. Bush is fighting a new type of war and successfully defending the nation. He is doing so amid a hostile Democrat reception at home, made up largely of opposition party members who wish to surrender our investment in homeland defense and give away the gains paid so dearly by our brave Armed Forces. Since Bush's record so far on this war is superior, in terms of defense of this nation, if he chooses to politicize the military that is his option; I give him kudos for his management and his success thus far. History will show his presidency one of successful defense of this nation.

 

ITN makes me giggle.

 

Oh, yeah, oh, yeah!

 

It would help if you would contribute to a thread beyond confirming my low expectations; if I make you giggle or if I make you gag has little to do with the topic at hand. Post something on topic; support of or defense of Admiral Fallon... Roel, Flyin Ryan, Revolt, and even luciusmagister have substantially contributed to thread; yet you seem to derail it and make it an attack on me. Why? You do this all the time? You have an opinion on Adm. Fallon's resignation? Let's hear it...

 

I've been hearing for months that Fallon was being marginalized for political reasons. The loss of his service makes me worry even more deeply for our deployed men and women.

 

My opinion on this has already been expressed by others here; namely, that Fallon is being pushed out because he's questioned Bush's sanity in pushing for a showdown with Iran.

Your juvenile pronouncements on how the military works and how maybe Fallon just needs a vacation are just laughable. My contribution to any thread you've hijacked is proportional to the sheer idiocy you spew; a snarky response is all you rate.

 

Really? I love the pseudo high road you take after posting more of your poorly thought out cut and paste jobs...

charlatan..

 

How many careers does this make? I mean, Bush is ruining more careers than a Texas whorehouse.

 

No, as much as you wish it was true it is not.

They serve the PEOPLE of the USA, and swear allegiance to the CONSTITUTION.
NOT the CinC.

If they did "serve at the pleasure" of the CinC then this would be a monarchy.