The recent retirement of Admiral William J. Fallon, (shown here) the first US Admiral to assume the position of the commander of all American forces in the Middle East was just another example of the current administration's "we know better" mentality. Once again, the President has chosen to ignore the advice and recommendations of one the best and brightest in the US military. The four-star Admiral Fallon was even recently described by the current Secretary of Defense, Robert M. Gates as "Having one of the most brilliant strategic minds in the US military." So goes the loss of another excellent military expert that did not agree with our "all hat / no cattle" President.
Unfortunately, Admiral Fallon is just the latest US Military commander to join the likes of Maj. General John Batiste, Maj. General Paul Eaton, Maj. General Charles Stannick, Lieut. General Gregory Newbold, General Wesley Clark, General John Shalikashvili, Lieut. General William Odom and 40 other "retired" Admirals and Generals that disagree with the President's military decision making. Economist Richard Holbrooke has even stated that, "President Bush and previous Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, created the most serious confrontation between the US military and a US administration since President Harry Truman fired General Douglas MacArthur in 1951."
However, in that epic drama, Truman was unquestionably correct. MacArthur had publicly challenged Truman's authority as his civilian boss and subsequently had to be dismissed. In the current situation, these retired commanders, including Admiral Fallon, are speaking out, not only for themselves but also for their former officers still in uniform that know full well what's going on but are not in a position to voice their disagreement.
Now one might ask, "Are these Generals all against the military action in the Middle East?" or "Are they all just Democrat Doves?" Hardly. These are career military men with over 30 years of military service. And based on a Military Times publication poll of the upper ranks of the military before the 2004 election, the US military brass was shown as 73% Republican, 18% Democrat and 9% undecided. These retired "conservative" commanders have made it clear that this President is not doing what he says he is doing when he says he "Listens to and considers his military leader's opinions before he makes his decisions."
Before the invasion of Iraq, President Bush disagreed with his generals on the size of military force needed to successfully invade Iraq. He also has not listened on to how to handle the current occupation of Iraq. The President has only "listened" to those whose strategy agrees with his and Dick Cheney's, which continues to be "stay the course" no matter what. Those commanders that do not agree with the President are then forced to either retire or to just keep their mouths shut and follow orders.
If this situation was just for minor differences of opinion, that would be a different situation. But these admirals and generals were seeing continued major military blunders that went against their many years of military training while also observing hundreds of unnecessary losses of American troops. And all they could do was stand and watch. Many of them have finally decided it is time to retire and speak out.
Here is some background for the current attitude of today's retired and active-duty military personnel, both the officers and the rank and file:
>>Admiral William J. Fallon: In a recent published interview, Admiral Fallon had said that: "The constant drumbeat of conflict that was directed at Iran was not helpful and not useful. I expect that there will be no war, and that is what we should be working for. We ought to try to do our utmost to create different conditions." This is totally the opposite attitude when compared to the constant Iran war-mongering talk coming from the Bush-Cheney White House.
>>In 2006, five former Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US Military joined 48 other retired US military leaders in signing a letter telling the Bush Administration that, "Not preserving the directives for no torturing of military prisoners or detainees as stated in the Geneva Convention would be harmful to US Soldiers and Sailors." This letter has so far been ignored by the President.
>>Recently, a very exasperated active-duty senior military commander (who served in Iraq) said that among a surprising number of his otherwise "very conservative" colleges, there is hope that the Democrats will gain control of Congress. "I will tell you, in the circles I talk to, the only way to enable or exact change in the military is to change the current civilian leadership ASAP."
>>The Bush Administration's poor handling of of the War in Iraq & Afghanistan has come under extraordinary fire within the military. More than 100 military service commanders, most of them on active duty or in the Reserves, have now sent "appeals for redress" to the members of Congress asking for the "prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases in Iraq." These "appeals" are a way of airing their complaints without running afoul of official regulations restricting what members of the military can say.
>>Major antiwar groups within the military have been formed or have continued to grow including: Iraq Veterans Against the War, Military Families Speak Out, Veterans for Peace, Vote Vets. These are the first examples of organized efforts by active-duty and reservist military members. It also shows the level of desperation and exasperation that is going on within the military.
>>Maj. General John Batiste had previously said: "I am tormented by reading daily casualty reports and knowing that the deaths are, in part, the result of a bungled, backward strategy that focuses on lofty but unattainable goals. Iraq will never be a democracy. Democracy simply runs counter to the powerful tribal and religious fault-lines of Iraqi society. Partitioning of the Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis might work, but not democracy as we know it."
>>Richard Whalen of The Nation magazine recently wrote the following: "I speak regularly to retired generals, former intelligence officer and former Pentagon officials and their aides. They all remain close to their active-duty friends and protégés. These well-informed seniors tell me that whatever the original US objective was in Iraq, our flawed strategy has failed, and we cannot repair this failure by remaining there indefinitely. Fundamental changes are needed, and senior officers are prepared to make them. According to my sources, some active-duty officers are working hard behind the scenes to end the war and are preparing for the inevitable US withdrawal."
>>"The only question is whether a war serves the national interest," declared a retired three-star general. "Iraq does not."
>>Per General Wesley Clark: "All of the dissenting retired generals are bent on making Iraq America's last strategically failed-war. That being, a war waged by a civilian administration, largely to avoid personal accountability for their bad decisions. A failed war causes mounting human costs and massive losses of the peoples taxes. This disregard of their duty as the civilian leadership and their disregard for the US Constitution have destroyed the national interest they were supposed to serve and protect."
>>Retired Lieut. General William Odom, now a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute stated: "The Iraq War is the worst strategic mistake in the history of the United States and draws a parallel to the Vietnam War. The US strategy in Iraq, as in Vietnam, has served almost exclusively in the interests of our enemies."
Author's comment: "Nuff said......"
Unfortunately, Admiral Fallon is just the latest US Military commander to join the likes of Maj. General John Batiste, Maj. General Paul Eaton, Maj. General Charles Stannick, Lieut. General Gregory Newbold, General Wesley Clark, General John Shalikashvili, Lieut. General William Odom and 40 other "retired" Admirals and Generals that disagree with the President's military decision making. Economist Richard Holbrooke has even stated that, "President Bush and previous Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, created the most serious confrontation between the US military and a US administration since President Harry Truman fired General Douglas MacArthur in 1951."
However, in that epic drama, Truman was unquestionably correct. MacArthur had publicly challenged Truman's authority as his civilian boss and subsequently had to be dismissed. In the current situation, these retired commanders, including Admiral Fallon, are speaking out, not only for themselves but also for their former officers still in uniform that know full well what's going on but are not in a position to voice their disagreement.
Now one might ask, "Are these Generals all against the military action in the Middle East?" or "Are they all just Democrat Doves?" Hardly. These are career military men with over 30 years of military service. And based on a Military Times publication poll of the upper ranks of the military before the 2004 election, the US military brass was shown as 73% Republican, 18% Democrat and 9% undecided. These retired "conservative" commanders have made it clear that this President is not doing what he says he is doing when he says he "Listens to and considers his military leader's opinions before he makes his decisions."
Before the invasion of Iraq, President Bush disagreed with his generals on the size of military force needed to successfully invade Iraq. He also has not listened on to how to handle the current occupation of Iraq. The President has only "listened" to those whose strategy agrees with his and Dick Cheney's, which continues to be "stay the course" no matter what. Those commanders that do not agree with the President are then forced to either retire or to just keep their mouths shut and follow orders.
If this situation was just for minor differences of opinion, that would be a different situation. But these admirals and generals were seeing continued major military blunders that went against their many years of military training while also observing hundreds of unnecessary losses of American troops. And all they could do was stand and watch. Many of them have finally decided it is time to retire and speak out.
Here is some background for the current attitude of today's retired and active-duty military personnel, both the officers and the rank and file:
>>Admiral William J. Fallon: In a recent published interview, Admiral Fallon had said that: "The constant drumbeat of conflict that was directed at Iran was not helpful and not useful. I expect that there will be no war, and that is what we should be working for. We ought to try to do our utmost to create different conditions." This is totally the opposite attitude when compared to the constant Iran war-mongering talk coming from the Bush-Cheney White House.
>>In 2006, five former Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US Military joined 48 other retired US military leaders in signing a letter telling the Bush Administration that, "Not preserving the directives for no torturing of military prisoners or detainees as stated in the Geneva Convention would be harmful to US Soldiers and Sailors." This letter has so far been ignored by the President.
>>Recently, a very exasperated active-duty senior military commander (who served in Iraq) said that among a surprising number of his otherwise "very conservative" colleges, there is hope that the Democrats will gain control of Congress. "I will tell you, in the circles I talk to, the only way to enable or exact change in the military is to change the current civilian leadership ASAP."
>>The Bush Administration's poor handling of of the War in Iraq & Afghanistan has come under extraordinary fire within the military. More than 100 military service commanders, most of them on active duty or in the Reserves, have now sent "appeals for redress" to the members of Congress asking for the "prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases in Iraq." These "appeals" are a way of airing their complaints without running afoul of official regulations restricting what members of the military can say.
>>Major antiwar groups within the military have been formed or have continued to grow including: Iraq Veterans Against the War, Military Families Speak Out, Veterans for Peace, Vote Vets. These are the first examples of organized efforts by active-duty and reservist military members. It also shows the level of desperation and exasperation that is going on within the military.
>>Maj. General John Batiste had previously said: "I am tormented by reading daily casualty reports and knowing that the deaths are, in part, the result of a bungled, backward strategy that focuses on lofty but unattainable goals. Iraq will never be a democracy. Democracy simply runs counter to the powerful tribal and religious fault-lines of Iraqi society. Partitioning of the Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis might work, but not democracy as we know it."
>>Richard Whalen of The Nation magazine recently wrote the following: "I speak regularly to retired generals, former intelligence officer and former Pentagon officials and their aides. They all remain close to their active-duty friends and protégés. These well-informed seniors tell me that whatever the original US objective was in Iraq, our flawed strategy has failed, and we cannot repair this failure by remaining there indefinitely. Fundamental changes are needed, and senior officers are prepared to make them. According to my sources, some active-duty officers are working hard behind the scenes to end the war and are preparing for the inevitable US withdrawal."
>>"The only question is whether a war serves the national interest," declared a retired three-star general. "Iraq does not."
>>Per General Wesley Clark: "All of the dissenting retired generals are bent on making Iraq America's last strategically failed-war. That being, a war waged by a civilian administration, largely to avoid personal accountability for their bad decisions. A failed war causes mounting human costs and massive losses of the peoples taxes. This disregard of their duty as the civilian leadership and their disregard for the US Constitution have destroyed the national interest they were supposed to serve and protect."
>>Retired Lieut. General William Odom, now a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute stated: "The Iraq War is the worst strategic mistake in the history of the United States and draws a parallel to the Vietnam War. The US strategy in Iraq, as in Vietnam, has served almost exclusively in the interests of our enemies."
Author's comment: "Nuff said......"
