Adm William Fallon -- the next Gen Eric Shinseki?

[nerdgirl 0]

Well, it looks like I was wrong back in November.

In accepting Adm William "Fox" Fallon’s resignation, SecDef Gates cited “what the admiral called ‘the current embarrassing situation of public perception of differences between my views and administration policy and the distraction this causes from the mission.’

”Recent press reports suggesting a disconnect between my views and the president's policy objectives have become a distraction at a critical time and hamper efforts in the CENTCOM region,’ Fallon said in a statement released by CENTCOM. ‘And although I don't believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command area of responsibility, the simple perception that there is makes it difficult for me to effectively serve America's interests there.’

”Fallon said this disconnect led him to conclude “that it would be best to step aside and allow the secretary and our military leaders to move beyond this distraction ... and focus on the achievement of our strategic objectives in the region.’”

Thomas Barnett's March 2008 Esquire story: “The Man Between War and Peace.” Far from Barnett's -- who *was* part of SecDef Rumsfeld's office -- best work, im-ever-ho.

"If, in the dying light of the Bush administration, we go to war with Iran, it'll all come down to one man. If we do not go to war with Iran, it'll come down to the same man. He is that rarest of creatures in the Bush universe: the good cop on Iran, and a man of strategic brilliance."

Back in November 2007, Adm Fallon did an interview w/UK’s Financial Times in which he criticized the rhetoric of those advocating for military action and asserted that diplomacy has a central role in American foreign and national security policy. The latter has been a repeated theme championed by Adm Fallon.

What changed between then & now? ...

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Para_Frog 1]

Nothing changed, which, it appears, is the issue. Someone in the administration, probably Gates, convinced POTUS that Fox Fallon would play ball.

He stuck to his...

Wait, did you say you were wrong? WTF?

Anyway...

A good Flag/General officer doesn't publicly cross the grain (as you well know), so he'll retire instead. THAT has come across in the press as a huge slap in the face to the administration. Fox exits smelling like roses.

There is a high likelihood that we will go into Iran. Especially since the DNC is self-destructing before our eyes and the public will end up electing the lesser of three evils.

AIPAC is old school...as is McCain. Status Quo Ante.

- Harvey, BASE 1232
TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA

BLiNC Magazine Team Member

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Wait, did you say you were wrong? WTF?

Yep … it does happen.

If I were a politician, I would say something like “I optimistically overestimated the degree of change that the new Secretary would exert within the administration.” But I’m not.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Zenister 0]

Quote

A good Flag/General officer doesn't publicly cross the grain (as you well know), so he'll retire instead.

We need more military leaders who WILL 'cross the grain'. More military leaders need to recognize they have an equal responsibility to not throw away the lives and efforts of the subordinates in an attempt to appease their political masters, that the oath they swore places the Constitution over and above that of the CINC and that is where their priorities should lie as well.

Time has only proven the fact that "Eric was Right"

amazing how [not to substitute] 'the opinions of politicians for the judgments of our military commanders' is the phrase of the day when the expert opinion agree (search around/fire enough experts till one will agree) with the politicians desires and yet "far off the mark" is the phrase used when the experts opinion disputes/discredits the predefined political goals and assumptions.

if anyone ever wonders why many of the 'best and brightest' decline to join or to remain in military service, there is no farther to look than the little real respect they get from those who's preconceived agendas they are called on to defend and die for...

It is sad that the military culture has long had a practice of 'leave quietly'. More and more of late that line does seem to be breaking line (at least with those who have the luxury of being retired.

Quote

"They only need the military advice when it satisfies their agenda..-Retired Major Gen. John Riggs

unfortunately it is too little, too late to do much to stem the tide of soldier's blood and tax payer money being wasted in Iraq. We need more people willing to 'speak truth to power' vs the 'shut up and color' attitude that prevails.

The military should have complete authority in how to fight wars and leave the civilians to the decision of when and if to fight them. If/when the 'cost' politically, economically and militarily is to high, then the honorable path is to defer to the Military, or not give them the mission anyway and ask them to 'Do more with Less' as is always the case.

This illustrates how little honor our current administration (and pretty much all politicians) actually have. Respect must go both ways or it means nothing at all.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[lawrocket 3]

hell, yes, we do need better officers - shit flows downhill, not up. It's one of the reasons why I ceased with the Army and focused soley on civilian career. Too many battalion REMFs just wanting to look good.

I didnt' agree with everything Shinseki did. But history is showing him as correct when it mattered most.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[nerdgirl 0]

For those who don’t follow US defense/foreign policy, the “why” does this matter (aka, the answer to the “So What? Who Cares?”-test) extends beyond the additional issues identified by [Para Frog], [Zenister] & [lawrocket]. Adm Fallon is correct that the USG (Executive & Congress, and the western world) does not appear to have a Grand Strategy for defeating extremist Islam nor for dealing with overall destabilizing conflict in the Middle East. [I’m looking forward for former Under Secretary for Defense for Policy (USD Policy), Doug Feith’s forthcoming memoir, which is already being described as “Why Iraq was Everyone’s Fault But Mine.”] Adm Fallon is also correct that our “saber-rattling” is not helpful when our saber is otherwise occupied (to put it diplomatically), and while the USG is not pursuing active diplomacy. At the same time, it’s unwarranted to place too much blame on the diplomatic corps (in this instance), if they are not permitted to do what they are supposed to/trained to. Former SecDef Rumsfeld is correct in his assertion of the need for functional strategic communications and the SSTR issue remains.

Today’s Wall Street Journal has a staff editorial “The Pentagon vs. Petraeus” that focuses on the tension between GEN Petraeus’ counterinsurgency efforts in Iraq and broader defense needs – the two may not be severable. I find it a curious (telling?) omission that the WSJ piece did not mention Afghanistan.

Excerpts below.

VR/Marg

---- --- ----

“Yesterday's resignation of Admiral William Fallon as Centcom Commander is being portrayed as a dispute over Iran. Our own sense is that the admiral has made more than enough dissenting statements about Iraq, Iran and other things to warrant his dismissal as much as early retirement. But his departure will be especially good news if it means that President Bush is beginning to pay attention to the internal Pentagon dispute over Iraq.

“A fateful debate is now taking place at the Pentagon that will determine the pace of U.S. military withdrawals for what remains of President Bush's term. Senior Pentagon officials have been urging deeper troop cuts in Iraq beyond the five "surge" combat brigades already scheduled for redeployment this summer.

“Last month Mr. Gates agreed to a pause in these withdrawals, so that General David Petraeus could assess whether the impressive security gains achieved by the surge can be maintained with fewer troops. But now the Pentagon seems to be pushing for a pause of no more than four to six weeks before the drawdowns resume.

“Then again, a spate of recent attacks -- including a suicide bombing Monday that left five GIs dead in Baghdad and a roadside bombing yesterday that killed 16 Iraqis -- is a reminder that the insurgency remains capable of doing great damage. An overly hasty withdrawal of U.S. forces would give it more opportunities to do so. It could also demoralize Iraq forces just when they are gaining confidence and need our help to "hold" the areas gained by the "clear, hold and build" strategy of the surge.

“This ought to be apparent to Pentagon generals. Yet their rationale for troop withdrawals seems to have less to do with conditions in Iraq and more with fear that the war is putting a strain on the military as an institution. These are valid concerns. Lengthy and repeated combat deployments have imposed extraordinary burdens on service members and their families. The war in Iraq has also diverted scarce funds to combat operations rather than investment -- much of it long overdue -- in military modernization.

“This Pentagon pressure also does little to help General Petraeus. The general is supposed to be fighting a frontal war against Islamist militants, not a rearguard action with Pentagon officials. We understand there is a chain of command in the military, and General Petraeus is precisely the kind of team player who would respect it.

“That's why as Commander in Chief, Mr. Bush has a particular obligation to engage in this Pentagon debate so that General Petraeus can make his troop recommendations based on the facts in Iraq, not on pressure from Washington. It was Mr. Bush's excessive deference to the Army's pecking order that put lackluster generals such as Ricardo Sanchez in charge when the insurgency was forming, and that prevented General Petraeus from assuming command in Iraq until it was nearly too late. Having successfully resisted pressure from Congressional Democrats for premature troop withdrawals, it would be strange indeed for Mr. Bush to cave in to identical pressure from his own bureaucracies.”

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[SpeedRacer 1]

Is this another case of someone being let go because they told the NeoCon administration something they didn't want to hear?

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

A good Flag/General officer doesn't publicly cross the grain (as you well know), so he'll retire instead.

We need more military leaders who WILL 'cross the grain'.

No, that would be bad for the military. Insubordination in the military is bad. Insubordination at the highest ranks is disasterous. We need commanding generals' chain of command to recognize the expertise of the generals to whom they gave command. That expertise does not change with the political winds.

If the Pentagon or the CINC disregards the counsel of their generals (and admirals), it had better come after much deliberation, and there had better be a damn good reason for it. If there is a discrepancy between the opinions of the generals and the opinions of their leaders, the generals have two responsible options. They can suck it up and drive on, following orders, or they can resign their command. Public disagreement is bad for everyone involved, especially the troops.

The military is not a democracy. If soldiers don't obey orders, the military breaks down and soldiers die unnecessarily.

Having said that, the people need to reign in politicians who think that wars can be run from Washington. They cannot. How many times must we learn the same lesson before we are able to commit it to our collective memory? Generals should be given missions, to be accomplished as they see fit, within the guidelines of international law. Generals, and not politicians, are the experts of war. Generals should be trusted most in time of war. If the situation does not warrant that trust, then most likely, the situation does not warrant war.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Is this another case of someone being let go because they told the NeoCon administration something they didn't want to hear?

Although I would not phrase it that way (most of the hardcore true neo-cons are gone), at its most distilled: Yes.

Within the Executive Branch, one serves at the pleasure of the Executive; that's the President's or the Secretary's perogative.
Is it that simple w/r/t General Officers? No.
Occam's razor often fails in the real world.

Does that mean the policy decisions are necessarily wise? No, for reasons given above by other posters and me.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Amazon 7]

Quote

There is a high likelihood that we will go into Iran.

If we do I hope the hell someone drops the whole nest of fucking NEO-Cons in there first..

If the stupid asswholes want to rattle sabers.. let them strap on the sabres FIRST....they are too god dayum stupid to have learned from all the mistakes of the last 7 years.. and want to embroil us in further wars to further destabilize world oil market....they need to be in PRISON.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

The military is not a democracy. If soldiers don't obey orders, the military breaks down and soldiers die unnecessarily.

.

WWI and WWII both show that obeying stupid orders also leads to unnecessary deaths - lots of them.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The military is not a democracy. If soldiers don't obey orders, the military breaks down and soldiers die unnecessarily.

WWI and WWII both show that obeying stupid orders also leads to unnecessary deaths - lots of them.

I think I get to what you are referring, but would you clarify specifically? Thanks.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

• Quote

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The military is not a democracy. If soldiers don't obey orders, the military breaks down and soldiers die unnecessarily.

WWI and WWII both show that obeying stupid orders also leads to unnecessary deaths - lots of them.

I think I get to what you are referring, but would you clarify specifically? Thanks.

VR/Marg

Well, the battle of the Somme comes quickly to mind. And Passchendaele too. The expression of the era was "Lions led by donkeys".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

A good Flag/General officer doesn't publicly cross the grain (as you well know), so he'll retire instead.

We need more military leaders who WILL 'cross the grain'.

No, that would be bad for the military.

Bad for the military is using it in ways it has not trained for.
Bad for the military is dismissing the legitimate military concerns because they are political liabilities to reelection.

Bad for the military is not letting the professionals decide the means and resources needed to accomplish a proposed mission and instead imposing civilian preconceptions on military operations.

Bad for the military is more and more of those who would be career professionals leaving because they, their professional opinion and the needs of the force disregarded continually by the politicians who's asses are never being put on the line.

when those things occur it is BETTER for the military and for military leaders to express EXACTLY how they are being subverted for political ends. To many have forgotten their primary responsibility is ultimately to the public (through the structure of the government) the constitution and the soldiers who serve under them, and not to the man or any party's political ambitions.

Calling a 'spade a spade' especially when it causes a public uproar that may prevent the civilian administration from 'using a sword as a hammer' is an attribute greatly to be desired rather than resigning and allowing leaders with less competence (and more politically motivated) to accept a misguided mission with inadequate resources to succeed.

The millitary phrase that applies in such situations is 'being set up for failure' and has been happening far to often under this administration.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The military is not a democracy. If soldiers don't obey orders, the military breaks down and soldiers die unnecessarily.

WWI and WWII both show that obeying stupid orders also leads to unnecessary deaths - lots of them.

I think I get to what you are referring, but would you clarify specifically? Thanks.

VR/Marg

Well, the battle of the Somme comes quickly to mind. And Passchendaele too. The expression of the era was "Lions led by donkeys".

Sadly, I'm not as familiar with those battles as I should be.

A little bit of research on Somme revealed some major mistakes on the part of some of the British generals. Some of those mistakes were in fact political in nature. Some others were due to poorly thought out decisions.

It was for political reasons that a strategic retreat was not considered. A good general, like a good businessperson, knows that it is folly to chase sunk costs. One of the things that allowed the Germans to offer the resistance that they did was that they were able to strengthen their remaining defenses by retreating from territory that had become to costly to hold.

Another interesting bit that I read was that the British officers and the non-coms (and enlisted?) wore uniforms that were different enough from one another that the officers were easily distinguished from the enlisted men. I don't know who designed the uniforms, whether it was a politician of the day, or whether it was an oversight from the British's previous naval strength. Either way, it contributed to higher than necessary officer attrition, requiring the promotion of lesser qualified personnel.

I also found it interesting that the French, using superior tactics and strategy, fared much better against the Germans than the British troops did.

British General Rawlinson did not seem to have much faith in his troops. This is essentially the same mistake that civilian leaders make when they don't trust the judgement of their generals and second guess their recommendations. In a successful military unit, big or small, leadership has to have faith in the abilities of their subordinates. There's no place for micromanagement. How can troops be expected to trust their commanders if the commanders don't trust the troops to do their jobs?

Still, even when left to make their own decisions, when two (or more) opposing generals face off against one another, at least one of them has to lose. Not all generals are equal. War is hell, and troops die fighting them. Generally (pardon the pun), generals are better at minimizing those deaths and obtaining maximum benefit in exchange for the sacrifice.

Can you think of any examples in which politicians second-guessed multiple generals (that were in agreement with one another) and successfully snatched victory from the jaws of defeat?

Don't think for a second that I'm attempting to support the war in Iraq. I've been vocally against the invasion since the WH administration began its campaign attempting to convince citizens that Iraq was related to 9/11 and had links to al Quaeda. Our troops didn't belong there then, and they only belong there now to the extent that we broke it, so it is our responsibility to make amends. We let Bush into office; we own his mistakes. They are our mistakes. But undermining the military is not going to make those mistakes or our responsibility go away.

* * *
Excerpted from B.H. Liddell Hart's Forward of Samuel Griffith's translation of Sun Tsu's The Art Of War:

Sun Tzu's essays on `The Art of War' form the earliest of known treatises on the subject, but have never been surpassed in comprehensiveness and depth of understanding. They might well be termed the concentrated essence of wisdom on the conduct of war. Among all the military thinkers of the past, only Clausewitz is comparable, and even he is more `dated' than Sun Tzu, and in part antiquated, although he was writing more than two thousand years later. Sun Tzu has clearer vision, more profound insight, and eternal freshness.

Civilization might have been spared much of the damage suffered in the world wars of this century if the influence of Clausewitz's monumental tomes On War, which molded European military thought in the era preceding the First World War, had been blended with and balanced by a know- ledge of Sun Tzu's exposition on `The Art of War'. Sun Tzu's realism and moderation form a contrast to Clausewitz's tendency to emphasize the logical ideal and `the absolute' which his disciples caught on to in developing the theory and practice of `total war' beyond all bounds of sense. That fatal development was fostered by Clausewitz's dictum that: `To introduce into the philosophy of war a principle of moderation would be an absurdity - war is an act of violence pushed to its utmost bounds.' Yet subsequently he qualified this assertion by the admission that `the political object, as the original motive of the war, should be the standard for determining both the aim of the military force and also the amount of effort to be made'. Moreover, his eventual conclusion was that to pursue the logical extreme entailed that `the means would lose all relation to the end'.

The ill-effects of Clausewitz's teaching arose largely from his disciples' too shallow and too extreme interpretation of it overlooking his qualifying clauses, but he lent himself to such misinterpretation by expounding his theory in a way too abstract and involved for concrete minded soldiers to follow the course of his arguement, which often turned back from the direction which it seemed to be taking. Impressed but bemused, they clutched at his vivid leading phrases and missed the underlying trend of his thought - which did not differ so much from Sun tzu's conclusions as it appeared to do on the surface.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

• Quote

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Our troops didn't belong there then, and they only belong there now to the extent that we broke it, so it is our responsibility to make amends.

This...

There were far better means to deal with the 'Saddam problem' than outright invasion. Unfortunately there would be no 'glory' or 'war presidency' associated with using the 'right tool for the job'

Now? we have to do what we can to fix the mess we've made, and find a way to do so that doesn't cripple our economy, our military, or what little respect we have with the rest of the world's population.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

There were far better means to deal with the 'Saddam problem' than outright invasion.

I'm not convinced that there was (or was significant potential for) a "Saddam problem" during Bush2's tenure.

Aside from that, I pretty much agree with your post.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Para_Frog 1]

Before you get too far into the support of the General ranks, which is admirable, please take a moment to read this magnificent piece by the commander of my sister regiment.

A Failure in Generalship

The scum of political motivation permeates much more deeply than does supposed tactical proficiency. And that is shameful.

If Patton were alive today, he would be rounded up and shot for sedition...and he was quite simply the most brilliant warfighter in recorded history.

We are in peril. And the civilian leadership is only a symptom of much greater ills.

- Harvey, BASE 1232
TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA

BLiNC Magazine Team Member

[Zenister 0]

Oh I'm certainly not supporting General's as a whole as Ive met very few officers above O5 I have much respect for (and I deal with far more than I wish to on a regular basis. Supposition is frontal lobotomies performed at Command and Staff Colleges that only few manage to avoid receiving (the lobotomy)) and I'd say generally (pun intended) I agree. Few seem to have real concerns beyond the extent of the effect their decisions have on their career.

This is an effect of the 'zero defect' mentality that has been prevalent in the last few decades for military advancement. Basically any behavior that might leave a black mark on your record screws your career and the tendency towards documentation of every minor incident (vs dealin with it at the lowest level possible) means only the 'squeaky clean brown nosers' who played it safe their entire career make the highest ranks.

Unfortunately the same 'squeaky clean' applies to pretty much every public official as well, which doesn't leave much in the way of real leaders (those willing to take risks and make political 'suicide' decisions for the good of those they lead) at the upper echelons of either structure.

Edit:Good article, but nothing new unfortunately though itt does emphasis my original point in this thread. More Military leadership needs to be candid (publicly if necessary because their professional opinions are ignored out of political motivations) about the means and measures required to accomplish the missions proposed by the civilian leadership.

Quote

Privately, many senior general officers both active and retired expressed serious misgivings about the insufficiency of forces for Iraq. These leaders would later express their concerns in tell-all books such as “Fiasco” and “Cobra II.” However, when the U.S. went to war in Iraq with less than half the strength required to win, these leaders did not make their objections public

Quote

...As matters stand now, a private who loses a rifle suffers far greater consequences than a general who loses a war.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Before you get too far into the support of the General ranks, which is admirable, please take a moment to read this magnificent piece by the commander of my sister regiment.

I read LTC Yinglings article. IMO, he lacks understanding necessary to successfully lead an army into combat. Or, more likely, he's sucking up to the political powers that be, perhaps looking for a promotion.

Quote

Using operations in Bosnia and Kosovo as a model for predicting troop requirements, one Army study estimated a need for 470,000 troops. Alone among America’s generals, Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki publicly stated that “several hundred thousand soldiers” would be necessary to stabilize post-Saddam Iraq. Prior to the war, President Bush promised to give field commanders everything necessary for victory. Privately, many senior general officers both active and retired expressed serious misgivings about the insufficiency of forces for Iraq.

If the generals advised that many more troops were necessary, yet were still ordered to invade by those in their chain of command, that onus is on their chain of command (i.e. the President), not the generals, as LTC Yingling would have us believe.

Quote

However, when the U.S. went to war in Iraq with less than half the strength required to win, these leaders did not make their objections public.

In other words, they acted like responsible military leaders, following orders handed down from their chain of command without undermining the integrity of the command structure. True, the generals could have, and perhaps should have resigned their command prior to the invasion. I can't help but wonder how LTC Yingling would react to his majors, captains and lieutenants second-guessing his command decisions in front of the troops.

The generals should not be blamed for the poor choices made by the CINC.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

The millitary phrase that applies in such situations is 'being set up for failure' and has been happening far to often under this administration.

Not just under this administration, although it certainly gets a lot more 'air time' than prior administrations.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Our troops didn't belong there then, and they only belong there now to the extent that we broke it, so it is our responsibility to make amends.

This...

There were far better means to deal with the 'Saddam problem' than outright invasion. Unfortunately there would be no 'glory' or 'war presidency' associated with using the 'right tool for the job'

Now? we have to do what we can to fix the mess we've made, and find a way to do so that doesn't cripple our economy

A little bit too late for that

, our military,

according to what I hear from the generals and admirals, that is already under way too.


or what little respect we have with the rest of the world's population.

that too!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Para_Frog 1]

A very interesting take. Well done.

As for this:

Quote

...As matters stand now, a private who loses a rifle suffers far greater consequences than a general who loses a war.

I have it pinned up on my wall to remind me of what's broken....as it sums up why I took a commission after I was half way to retirement.

- Harvey, BASE 1232
TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA

BLiNC Magazine Team Member

• Quote

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

The millitary phrase that applies in such situations is 'being set up for failure' and has been happening far to often under this administration.

Not just under this administration, although it certainly gets a lot more 'air time' than prior administrations.

Not really, mike. The last time we had a situation like this was Vietnam - where the politicians ran the war. And we saw what happened there.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

A very interesting take. Well done.

As for this:

Quote

...As matters stand now, a private who loses a rifle suffers far greater consequences than a general who loses a war.

I have it pinned up on my wall to remind me of what's broken....as it sums up why I took a commission after I was half way to retirement.

You kept losing rifles as an enlisted man?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.