Admiral Fallon to Retire Early

[maineman]

http://www.esquire.com/features/fox-fallon

why read an article about the Esquire article when you can read the real deal?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

http://www.esquire.com/features/fox-fallon

why read an article about the Esquire article when you can read the real deal?

I read it. What is the big deal? Other then the guy proclaiming all the while Fallon will be fired and then trying to create just that by making claims that simply are not true?



Fallon had few differences with the Administration. And again, for the slow, why would Congress EVER agree to a war with Iran? One Admiral is not going to prevent a war. As was stated if Bush REALLY wants a war and is willing to IGNORE Congress to get it, some 4 star Admiral is no problem at ALL.

 

[maineman]

I read it. What is the big deal? Other then the guy proclaiming all the while Fallon will be fired and then trying to create just that by making claims that simply are not true?



Fallon had few differences with the Administration. And again, for the slow, why would Congress EVER agree to a war with Iran? One Admiral is not going to prevent a war. As was stated if Bush REALLY wants a war and is willing to IGNORE Congress to get it, some 4 star Admiral is no problem at ALL.

did you read all four pages? did you read the quotes from Fallon? Not ONE of those quotes is disputed. And MY point was never that Bush fired Fox Fallon in order to invade Iran. MY point was that he fired him because Team Bush does not want anyone but yes men.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

did you read all four pages? did you read the quotes from Fallon? Not ONE of those quotes is disputed. And MY point was never that Bush fired Fox Fallon in order to invade Iran. MY point was that he fired him because Team Bush does not want anyone but yes men.

Yes as a matter of fact if Fallon said all the things in that article to a reporter or anyone for that matter he was not showing very good perception as an Officer. Several of the quotes are nothing more than whining I find hard to believe a 4 star would resort to, at least to a reporter.

 

[maineman]

Yes as a matter of fact if Fallon said all the things in that article to a reporter or anyone for that matter he was not showing very good perception as an Officer. Several of the quotes are nothing more than whining I find hard to believe a 4 star would resort to, at least to a reporter.

I would suggest that his "perception" of the geopolitical realities in the middle east is excellent, and his departure from active service is a major loss to our nation.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I would suggest that his "perception" of the geopolitical realities in the middle east is excellent, and his departure from active service is a major loss to our nation.

I did not address that, I addressed the obvious lack of tact of some of the comments he supposedly said to that reporter. A young Lt might make those mistakes but I sure do not expect a grizzled 4 Star Admiral to.

Weren't you on about how you always toed the line of your Commander in public? Never groused about any problems to anyone lower than you? The Admiral, if he actually said those things in the article was openly complaining about how he was just misunderstood and how no one above him seemed to understand his job requirements. In other words WHINING.

Further if he resigned for any other reason then he PUBLICLY declared he is a liar. He specifically stated he had no problem with the Administration and its goals. That others ascribing that position to him had destroyed his ability to properly function.

I guess Integrity and Morales do not matter as much to you as you claim if your going to insist he was railroaded out.


Ohh and if you have never heard the term "light bird" I suspect your military experience was missing something.

 

[maineman]

I did not address that, I addressed the obvious lack of tact of some of the comments he supposedly said to that reporter. A young Lt might make those mistakes but I sure do not expect a grizzled 4 Star Admiral to.

Weren't you on about how you always toed the line of your Commander in public? Never groused about any problems to anyone lower than you? The Admiral, if he actually said those things in the article was openly complaining about how he was just misunderstood and how no one above him seemed to understand his job requirements. In other words WHINING.

Further if he resigned for any other reason then he PUBLICLY declared he is a liar. He specifically stated he had no problem with the Administration and its goals. That others ascribing that position to him had destroyed his ability to properly function.

I guess Integrity and Morales do not matter as much to you as you claim if your going to insist he was railroaded out.


Ohh and if you have never heard the term "light bird" I suspect your military experience was missing something.

I stated that I believe he was "asked" to resign. And he complied. Nothing he said contradicts that.

again..light bird is a non sequitor. light colonel is not. bird colonel is not...but maybe your marines were easily confused.

 

[BrianH]

Guys this is one of the most rediculous disucssions I've seen on these message boards. You are both accomplishing nothing. Both of you are military men, you're on the same side. Who cares if Fox Fallon did it as a protest? He's retiring, plain and simple. Find something more constructive to do with your time. Argue about something that matters.

 

[Alpha1]

I stated that I believe he was "asked" to resign. And he complied. Nothing he said contradicts that.

again..light bird is a non sequitor. light colonel is not. bird colonel is not...but maybe your marines were easily confused.

And of course, keeping well within character.....you will cherish and believe that rumor, without proof, as if it was muttered by Jesus Christ himself as the truth...
I'll believe it when the proof is presented....

Just as in 1951, when Harry Truman cut McArthur off at the knees, the lesson needs to be learned....Elected, civilian leaders are in charge and make policy (hundreds of them)....not the military, who is given their limited authority by those same elected, civilian officials.....

Ironic, that in '51, Joe McCarthy supported the General against the Democrats and Truman.......

Here, in '08, its Democrats that snidely support the Generals against the Republican President...

 

[maineman]

And of course, keeping well within character.....you will cherish and believe that rumor, without proof, as if it was muttered by Jesus Christ himself as the truth...
I'll believe it when the proof is presented....

Just as in 1951, when Harry Truman cut McArthur off at the knees, the lesson needs to be learned....Elected, civilian leaders are in charge and make policy (hundreds of them)....not the military, who is given their limited authority by those same elected, civilian officials.....

Ironic, that in '51, Joe McCarthy supported the General against the Democrats and Truman.......

Here, in '08, its Democrats that snidely support the Generals against the Republican President...

IMHO, Truman was worthy of support. Bush is not... and I would have the same disdain for his boneheaded foreign policy if he were a democrat... as a matter of fact, if Bush had been a democrat and had acted as carelessly and recklessly as he has acted, I would have argued strongly for a primary opponent in '04.

 

[Alpha1]

IMHO, Truman was worthy of support. Bush is not... and I would have the same disdain for his boneheaded foreign policy if he were a democrat... as a matter of fact, if Bush had been a democrat and had acted as carelessly and recklessly as he has acted, I would have argued strongly for a primary opponent in '04.

Sorry if I gave you the impression I was interested in your opinion....

The point is...as it was true in 1951 it is still true....when a military leader finds he or she cannot or will not support the policies of the elected civilian authority, its time for them to retire and pass on the military responsibilities they were entrusted with to those that will support the agreed upon policies their elected Government....

 

[maineman]

Sorry if I gave you the impression I was interested in your opinion....

The point is...as it was true in 1951 it is still true....when a military leader finds he or she cannot or will not support the policies of the elected civilian authority, its time for them to retire and pass on the military responsibilities they were entrusted with to those that will support the agreed upon policies their elected Government....

Fallon was effectively implementing the Bush foreign policy....

and trust me, I could give a flying fuck what you are "interested in". I fully intend to express my opinion here and if you really have no interest in reading what I write, please put me on ignore...but in any case, quit your obsessive whining.

 

[rayboyusmc]

neither of you made it pasted Light Bird status.

Everyone is blind but the Gunny. In the valley of the blind the one eyed many is Gunny R.

I didn't wait around for it, Gunny. And your remark is about as biased an useless as many of those you paste. Don't deal in facts, do the personal attack.

Forget the partisan hatred and just try to deal with a dialogue.

Bush has a history of having his senior military leaders depart early when they aren't on his band wagon.,

You remember General Shinseki, Chief of Staff of the ARmy, who was pushed aside for the rest of his tour because he dared to say we needed 300,000 or more troops to do the job right.

I guess you will still argue he was wrong? Please answer me on this one. Was Shinseki wrong or was Bush wrong on what it would take?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Everyone is blind but the Gunny. In the valley of the blind the one eyed many is Gunny R.

I didn't wait around for it, Gunny. And your remark is about as biased an useless as many of those you paste. Don't deal in facts, do the personal attack.

Forget the partisan hatred and just try to deal with a dialogue.

Bush has a history of having his senior military leaders depart early when they aren't on his band wagon.,

You remember General Shinseki, Chief of Staff of the ARmy, who was pushed aside for the rest of his tour because he dared to say we needed 300,000 or more troops to do the job right.

I guess you will still argue he was wrong? Please answer me on this one. Was Shinseki wrong or was Bush wrong on what it would take?

Your the king of unsubstantiated personal attacks and attacks on anyone not a Liberal Democrat.

As for troops and the Invasion, explain to us how another 200k troops would have been inserted INTO Iraq. Come on tell us where they would have staged and advanced from. And then explain how we would have maintained 300k troops in Iraq for 5 years?

You are a damned Joke, stick to helicopters, we may believe you on that stuff.

 

[maineman]

Your the king of unsubstantiated personal attacks and attacks on anyone not a Liberal Democrat.

As for troops and the Invasion, explain to us how another 200k troops would have been inserted INTO Iraq. Come on tell us where they would have staged and advanced from. And then explain how we would have maintained 300k troops in Iraq for 5 years?

You are a damned Joke, stick to helicopters, we may believe you on that stuff.

are you saying we were incapable of putting the number of troops Shineseki suggested into Iraq?

Why can't you EVER just answer a fucking question with an ANSWER instead of another fucking question?

 

[JimH52]

Come on! Take the rosey red glasses off. This is not the first time a military commander has disappeared, oddly enough because he didn't agree with bush. Of course we all know what a great military mind bush has. He started the THREE TRILLION DOLLAR WAR!

 

[rayboyusmc]

You are a damned Joke, stick to helicopters, we may believe you on that stuff.

Why are you such a damn nasty little name calling person, Gunny? You seem unable to dialogue with anyone who disagrees with you without calling names. Not the sign of the greatest intelligence.

I don't think that I have called you "retard" which seems to be your favorite argument.


I am a joke? Look in the mirror, Gunny. You might be suprised what you see. You really must have had a tough time with the officers you served with. Don't blame me, I doubt if I served with you. I think I would have remembered someone like you.

All the Gunny's that I served with or dealt with in either aviation or ground, I got along with, respected and listened to what they said. Hell, my Ops Gunny even got me into the Chief's mess on ship for lobster and steak. I always believed what they told me as a 2Lt. Take care of your troops and they will take care of the mission and you.

If you want to believe Bush is the best thing since sliced shit, fine. But don't think that you have a lock on the one truth and that others cant' criticize him. Shit, you piss on Clinton all the time, but I attack Bush (WHO IS THE CURRENT PERSON IN OFFICE, you think I am un-American.

No, I would have remembered a person like you.

 

[Gunny]

I'm not naming any names, so don't start with the defensive posts. Either the thread gets back on topic or it's going to the Flame Zone.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Okay. Fallon was forced out because he didn't buy the party line. It's been like that since the begining of this war. Say what you want, but Shinseki was talking about the occupation, not the invasion and he was right.

The only Senior Military opinions allowed are those that agree with Bush & Company.

That type of management is dangerous to say the least. If you only listen to those who agree with you, you get into a situation called groupthink.

Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. During groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking. A variety of motives for this may exist such as a desire to avoid being seen as foolish, or a desire to avoid embarrassing or angering other members of the group. Groupthink may cause groups to make hasty, irrational decisions, where individual doubts are set aside, for fear of upsetting the group’s balance. The term is frequently used pejoratively, with hindsight.

Wikipedia

When you limit the incoming data to only what you want, it is a sure way to ensure failure wether you are right or left. That's is how the whole Watergate episode came about.

That is also one of the reasons we have had such problems in coming up with a real strategy in Iraq. One that works. If you only try what you agree with and you ignore other Senior Miltary input, you are ensuring an unecessarily long and bloody war.

LtCol Evans Carlson debriefed every battle the Raiders did. He listened to all the troops who had input. I don't care if he was a socialist later in life, he had the best kill and lowest casualty ratio. That defines military success.

 

[trobinett]

rayboy posts:

LtCol Evans Carlson debriefed every battle the Raiders did. He listened to all the troops who had input. I don't care if he was a socialist later in life, he had the best kill and lowest casualty ratio. That defines military success.

Just so I'm not being mislead, heaven forbid, could you point out where the "best kill, and lowest casualty ratio" defines military success.

Any link would do........