I hope this doesn't sneak under the radar. Admiral Fallon, the commander of Central Command (CENTCOM), was just retired prematurely after running CENTCOM for about a year.
As head of CENTCOM, ADM Fallon was the head American military figure in the Mideast and had two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) in his charge. The New York Times writes:
Although known for being tough on his subordinates, he also developed a reputation for nuanced diplomatic negotiations with friendly nations, and with some with whom the United States has more prickly ties.It seems that our ADM Fallon actually believed in things and wasn't a "political" admiral -- that is, he didn't make his career by telling our civilian authority what they wanted to hear.
How serious was he about this? During his first meeting with General Petraeus, ADM Fallon reportedly called Petraeus (his subordinate) "an ass-kissing little chickens**t" and added, "I hate people like that."
I liked ADM Fallon and I'm glad they retired him early. Why am I glad? I love the idea of powerful people who stick to their guns -- even if it means ultimately giving up that power. It's an example we could use more of.
The New York Times article is a good introduction to this breaking story, but I'd urge anyone interested in how we're conducting of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to read it and then head over to the Danger Room, a national security blog I read every day.
Danger Room's coverage of Fallon's retirement
4 comments:
I don't know much about Fallon, but I do understand it is very difficult to go up the ranks in the military without becoming more and more political and less and less able to speak your real mind.
I give him credit, as you do, if he was able to walk the "straight and narrow".
We need more people that can tell it like it is vs what they think or know others want to hear because it it being politically or career motivated.
I have not yet read the NYT article but I do know that anyone who opposes the military status quo (read:"insanity") is going to be marginalized one way or another.
If Obama gets in, he'll have a very tough time with this. I still think JFK was killed because he bucked the military and their advocate LBJ. I think that an Obama would easily be targeted if he tried to reduce military eminence. What we have now in America is the modern form of Fascism---CorporateMilitaryGovernment alliance, operating quasi-independently from traditional governmental controls.
Hillary is more pro-military, less of a threat to the prevailing order if what she has said and done is an indication of things to come from her.
I hope Fallon, like Wesley Clark, continues to speak out for what he perceives to a proper course of action.
I may disagree with military interventions as a general rule but I recognise that until we have some order in some parts of the world, such as Darfur, we need protection for the preyed-on innocent.
We need common sense defense.
If I'm not mistaken, Admiral Fallon was not board with the administration's approach to Iran that he felt was leading to a possible invasion. I think he advocated a diplomatic approach.
It does seem, however, that there has been alot of 'musical chairs' being played with commanders and generals since the Iraq invasion. At least General Petraeus appears to be the guy they want in Iraq, and I guess we'll find out about who's going to be the next CentCom guy.
I remember there was alot of speculation when Fallon was chosen because he's a navy man and a navy would be instrumental in an Iranian invasion. I guess we'll see if the Admiral talks publicly about his decision.
Bush Inc continuously juggles the chairs of the military general staff until:
1/ they find a lackey "yes man" who will shutup and tolerate the incompetance and micro-management by the administration for a while.
2/ they sufficiently wear down, intimidate and beleaguer the entire general staff so that their independent thought process is broken.
Post a Comment