The more significant resignation of the week was that of Admiral Fallon. His star began to wane in White House circles as soon as he began to add a little realism to the middle east mix and therefore came into direct conflict with the pie in the sky usually consumed in our corridors of ineptitude.
Just another unpatriotic, unAmerican, hate America first military leader to have his ass canned by those brave fighting men ensconced at 16oo Pennsylvania Avenue.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(134)
-
▼
March
(33)
- Fabulous F***ing Hippy Friday
- Baggage...
- It's The Stupid... Stupid II
- It's Been A Long Time...
- McDrain
- It's The Stupid... Stupid
- Fabulous Freudian Friday
- It's Called Backbone...
- Dead Enders
- Trust Us...
- Trouble In Surge Land
- Our Robust Economy
- Red Admiral
- FISA Fight Back
- Outstanding Issues
- Taking It A Little Too Hard
- Bernanke Goes Long
- Natch...
- The Gov. Is Dead, Long Live The Gov.
- Just Wow...!
- Obama - Rezko
- That Surge Thang
- Illinois - 14
- Senator Hothead
- Fabulous Foolish Friday
- The Underpinnings...
- Tragically Hip
- Vive Le Surge
- Speaking Of Pragmatism
- Dumb & Dumber
- Good Riddance
- Stating The Obvious
- Hey... Condi's Back In Town
-
▼
March
(33)
Links
About Me
- righterscramp
- In my mid forties, two kids, nuff said.
4 comments:
I find it to be significant as well. I thought Tom Barnett's book "The Pentagon's New Map" was fascinating, and I think he is truly a brilliant thinker. So the fact that he's such a Fallon booster is of interest to me. Ultimately, Barnett's Esquire piece on Fallon may have been his undoing. In the convoluted world of military politics that may have been Barnett's intent.
At any rate, you can't go on the record on Al Jazeera in direct opposition to the Commander-in-chief. We still have civilian control of the military in this country.
If anything, Bush has been too tolerant by half of this kind of insubordination. A retired Foreign Service worker I know tells me that the State Department, the CIA and a great deal of Pentagon brass have been actively undermining the administration almost from the start.
Ultimately, policy needs to be set by elected officials, not career functionaries. If, like Fallon, one finds himself irreconcilably at odds with civilian leadership, one should do the honorable thing and resign, as Fallon did.
I think that both men are right. Fallon's (and Barnett's)approach of addressing economic needs, and advancing economic integration is ultimately the way to go. Unfortunately, With regimes like Saddam, or the mullahs in Iran in place, I don't think that's possible. And without a plausible threat of force, I don't believe negotiations with Iran will go anywhere
Bush has shown absolutely no tolerance, he has fired or forced into early retirement every general that has disagreed with him.
State, CIA and the Pentagon are supposed to provide countering opinions on official policy, that is their function, to frame that as being undermining shows a complete lack of understanding of how our government works. If someone or some office is in disagreement or can disprove a current positions efficacy or that it's original premise was flawed then it has an obligation, even a duty to present that information to its superiors.
If a general or admiral believes that a committed position will cause harm either to this country or the men under his command likewise, he has a duty to say so, he may chose his forum for discussing such a little more judiciously but, let's face it this administration is not too hot on allowing dissension to become public. Perhaps Fallon had already made his case and saw it being ignored by a president who is famous for saying that he listens to his generals and then firing them and decided that his views must be made public in order to remove himself from the next clusterfuck thought up in the Oval Office.
Nobody is arguing that these people or departments should be the ones making policy, but to reimagine them as humble servants whose soul purpose is to provide counsel based only on what their superiors want to hear is the first step to a dictatorship.
I have no problem with vigorous dissent and debate while policy is being formulated. By any reasonable account, there's been plenty of that in this administration.
Once the policy is set, however, the State department, the generals, the CIA all need to fall in line. If your principles prohibit it, resign and write a best-selling Bush-bashing book. Too often in this administration (Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson), the inmates have been allowed to run the asylum.
Joe Wilson was sent to Niger at the behest of Dick Cheney, he wasn't freelancing, he was an official administration representative. That his findings did not concur with what this administration wanted to hear and that he then heard the same patently false claim made in the State Of The Union address was too much for a loyal, patriotic government servant to bear, he went public and this administration went all punitive on his ass.
As for this statement:
"I have no problem with vigorous dissent and debate while policy is being formulated. By any reasonable account, there's been plenty of that in this administration."
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, sorry! Ha ha ha ha ha ha, phew!
That was a doozy!
I can see how that vigorous debate went.
Bush: I want a war!
Assembled: So do we... USA USA!
Post a Comment