 |
|
Add to My Group
|
March 23, 2008 at 19:09:54
by Daniel Smith Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
|
Once again sensationalized domestic news has shielded the Bush administration from embarrassing questions and congressional probes about a singular event affecting foreign policy: the unexpected resignation of U.S Central Command Commander Admiral William “Fox” Fallon. That, of course, has not stopped the columnists and the opinion molders from weighing in either supporting or attacking the Admiral and, in the process, missing the fundamental principles involved. Admiral Fallon, at least according to those who know and work with him, is by temperament quite able to defend himself against all criticism. Equally, I suspect he is quite capable of exuding the polished demeanor one would expect from an experienced diplomat, given his years as Commander Pacific Command and Commander Central Command. I never met or worked for Admiral Fallon, so I leave to those who do know him to address how he integrated these facets with the rest of his personality. More important are the constitutional and other principles and military traditions that came into play over the past weeks leading to Fallon’s request for early retirement. A good starting point for unraveling the knot that ties all the strands together is the second hour of Tom Ashbrook’s “On Point” for March 13th, “The Admiral, The White House, and the Pentagon.” It can be accessed on National Public Radio’s web site at http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2008/03/20080313_a_main.asp Ashbrook assembled five guests – a journalist, a former National Security Advisor, a retired ambassador, and two retired generals, Volney Warner, who commanded Readiness Command, the forerunner of today’s Central Command, and William Nash, who led the first U.S. division into Bosnia-Herzegovina under the UN mandate to quell the violence and chaos that had engulfed the country from the day it declared itself independent from the disintegrating Yugoslav Republic. 
Let me be candid about my own position. I remain quite suspicious that Admiral Fallon was “encouraged” by someone quite senior in the administration (perhaps in the Vice-President’s office?) – and perhaps “warned” by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (also an admiral) or others on the Joint Staff that the President was displeased by some of his statements – to step down. I seem to recall that when Fallon was selected as Commander Pacific Command there was grumbling among the anti-Beijing crowd in Washington that he would on a day-to-day basis press diplomacy and cooperative endeavors with the Chinese much further than his predecessor, Admiral Timothy Fargo.
One point that I found most interesting as the two generals and Ashbrook discussed what had happened was the different “strategic horizons” of Naval and Army officers. This put me in mind immediately of the distinction in Article I of the Constitution which assigns to Congress the power and the duty to “raise an army and to maintain a navy.”
Growing up I can remember still that teachers, commentators, and even historians attributed the distinction in the “action” by Congress to the experience of the colonists when the British determined to station a “standing army” in the more “rebellious” communities in New England and New York and quarter the troops in the civilian communities.
While this did happen, it struck me that this was an example of the type of “lowered” horizon that Army officers and civilians who do not travel widely would more likely have than a naval officer. The alternative or complimentary explanation for the War of Rebellion focuses on the fact that a number of the prominent supporters of the War were either merchants or ship owners whose economic fortunes depended on their ability to trade with the rest of the world – a “right” that they alleged that Parliament and the king were circumscribing. So having removed these impediments by government, they were interested in having the new federal government aid their economic endeavors by requiring a “standing Navy” (augmented by privateers with letters of marquis) to counter pirates and maintain access to sea lanes.
This focus on economics is also a “limited horizon,” but less so than the first. And that brings me to the point. While it is too much to assert that the Framers were engaging in “Grand Strategy” when they directed that Congress maintain a navy, the fact that Europe lay only 3,000 miles and not 8,000 miles from the Atlantic coastline permitted the Framers to envision the benefits beyond those arising from simple trade that would accrue if American diplomats could call upon U.S. warships as symbols of the presence of a new nation on the world scene as well as for patrolling the high seas.
Was this, in fact, the model for the diplomat-warrior (originally, the only military presence in U.S. embassies were naval attaches) which, sometime after WWII, became inverted to the warrior-diplomat, the “pro-consul”? Fallon, despite his uniform, in practical terms was modeling the diplomat-warrior, which I suspect rankled other senior officers and administration civilians. Add to that the fact that Congress has abdicated its position as a co-equal branch of government, and someone like Fallon is left with two options should he disagree with policy: work to change the orders he receives or go public and resign/retire.
In our presidential system, once elected, the president remains commander-in-chief with his appointees in control of the military until the next general election. The only recourse available to stop a president running amok before the next ballot is impeachment. But a Congress that has abdicated its responsibilities will not impeach – leaving the ordinary citizen to suffer as many as 48 months through the folly that we call war.
Colonel Daniel M. Smith graduated from the United States Military Academy at West Point in 1966. His initial assignment was with the 3rd Armor Division in (more...)
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 7 comments |
|
This is all good information, BUT
I must say, I remain confused as to the exact point being made. Are We to feel more or LESS safe with Fallon gone? Does the STRATEGIC position change as a result, particularly as regards some old Fallon projects that are likely to be headliners, such as the Taiwan "question" that many are anticipating to arise shortly. They guy stood guard over many, many nuclear installations and his name has been linked to the B52 incident leak . so what are WE to infer? It's very hard to discuss major players at the top, as we simply are not there and cannot guess what is in ANYONE'S mind. I am certain Fallon had MUCH on his mind and still has. by ladybroadoak (39 articles, 20 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 394 comments) on Sunday, Mar 23, 2008 at 8:15:21 PM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: Admiral Fallon's Departure
The intent of the piece was to fill in some of the background, as I perceive it, to a rarely used option by a senior commander whose statements on the course of an ongoing waf (and the possibility of a new one) acted as a brake on the White House. It was also my intention to draw the public's attention back to the critical need to be informed about policy positions espoused by those who would be president -- what as president they would do to broaden and deepen world peace and economic opportunity. The U.S. and the world cannot afford another eight years such as the most recent eight by Daniel Smith (13 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Monday, Mar 24, 2008 at 7:36:42 AM (0+)
|
|
Pentagon Block of Fallon Testimony
The members of Congress need to know what the good admiral thinks. So... when the Pentagon decides that Admiral Fallon will not testify in April while continuing to delay his retirement for a couple more months so that he cannot testify as a civilian, this exascerbates the situation. Congress needs to subpeona Fallon. But what can he say if he is not yet officially retired? I believe we need to be quite worried about Fallon's retirement time frame. It looks to me like the Bush administration is planning a delaying tactic just long enough to make up an excuse to begin bombing Iran. With Fallon around, they might even figure out how to get nuclear bunker busters over there. There are at least a half a dozen "impediments" out of the way, accidents and sucides of personnel from the air bases that moved those nukes. Also, over 40 other personnel were sent packing. That may have been for the best. Or it may have been for the worst. Who knows? by Pat Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 84 comments) on Monday, Mar 24, 2008 at 11:07:06 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: On a global threat and the best approach to it
Mr. Williams, this is fanciful speculation on your part (and others) that links several disparate events into one - the flight of unarmed nukes over CONUS, the deaths of several people with direct/indirect associations with nukes, and an uncovered conspiracy to transfer nukes (on... the... said flight?) from CONUS to the Middle East - ostensibly for a planned attack upon Iran. OR an alternative theory has a lost nuke from said flight being used in an unmanifested yet "Peal Harbor-esque" event (PNAC is back) that mandates the imposition of martial law, suspension of mational elections, and retention of the current Administration - http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/3410 . Of course, all of this is done to further impose fascism on the unsuspecting America. Take your pick with either theory because both are speculation that, if accepted, only adds confusion to the issue of Admiral Fallon's early retirement. I found COL Smith's article enlightening. A valid question, though, would ask, "Which is a more valid role with the apparent global threat of terrorism - the diplomat-warrior or warrior-diplomat?" No doubt, arguments could be forwarded to support either roles and perhaps its a mix of both roles, but which would lead to greater stability AND security firstly for the U.S. and secondly the world? We can certainly emphasize a diplomatic "dance" to this threat. The problem with this emphasis, though, is that the when asked, the terrorist elements insist that their dance card is full. Therefore, they cannot (or perhaps "will not" is better) dance. In the absence of such availability yet with an undiminished yearning to dance, the suitor is forced to alter his approach (e.g., become the warrior-diplomat), consult a friend of the desired, or abandon the effort. The suitor knows that abandonment is an untenble arrangement for it does not address the necessity of engaing via the dance. And consulting a friend to discuss the issue with the desired has no definitive chance of success associated with it based upon perceptions alone. Therefore, the suitor has developed, over time, the adoption of a more agressive means of requesting to dance. While I readily agree that we cannot afford another eight years like those recently, the most suitable candidate will need to be able to balance concurrently stability and security. Americans may not like and perhaps even disapprove of the on-going wars in the Middle East, but would such positions continue if the security of the U.S. was once again compromised along the scale of 9/11? I'm uncertain as to the answer here, but the adage of "better safe than sorry" comes to mind. by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 24, 2008 at 12:04:01 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: GLOBAL THREAT?
I assume you refer to Iran in your comment title where you mention "global threat" since you refer later to the "ongoing wars in the middle east." How exactly does Iran pose a global threat to anyone? Our own intelligence estimates indicate they do not possess nuclear weapons nor the missiles to deliver nuclear warheads much farther than Israel, maybe France. But France is an important trading ally, so they need not worry. Admittedly, this situation could and may change, but Iran's use of a nuclear weapon upon Israel or the United States or any member of NATO would result in Iran's complete and utter destruction. Iran is not likely to give a nuclear device to Al Qaeda, or any other Sunni terrorist organization, considering the centuries old blood feud between the Sunnis and the Shias. At worst, Iran would pass a warhead on to Hezbollah or Hamas, either of which would use it on Israel, and its source would be readily known. Again, this would result in Iran's total destruction. In any event, if we were really in a "war against terrorism" we would have long ago hardened our ports and borders against any possibility of a nuclear device entering this country. Rather than attacking Iran, let us take this more simple step now and avoid the cost in lives and dollars a new unnecessary war will involve. You say, "better safe than sorry." I agree. Let us act like we are in a real war and harden our defenses. There is no good reason we do not already have a civil air patrol, civilian beach watchers, and all of the duties the WWII generation shared in protecting the homeland. Unless, of course, there really isn't a war on terror, and its all about oil and armaments manufacturing. by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 24, 2008 at 7:05:35 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Yes - global threat
The global threat is militant Islam - the stateless entity that has struck globally. This entity is dangerous - period. To call it fascist Islam or otehrwise is immaterial because the use of violence is what distinguishes this group of people. Iran has a vested interest in pushing the envelope only so much for they have much to loose and little to gain. Provided they push it just enough, Iranians will be viewed as "leaders" of a sort in the Shia Middle East. If they push it too much, then they'll have the U.N. (more harsh sanctions) and the U.S. (neighboring military presence) to deal with directly. But militant Islam, they have no such concerns nor even much to loose - aside from their lives as martyrs for the faith. And given its global presence - Indonesia, southeast Asia, southwest Asia, Africa, communities in Europe and the Americas - they have the ability to strike essentially anywhere (and have demonstrated great resolve to do so over the past several decades). So, yes - the global threat is accurate. by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 24, 2008 at 7:45:43 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: BUT?
I tend to agree then. I might even go futher as a student of history and theology and suggest that a clash of civilizations is at hand. But nothing this administration has done makes any sense within this context. First, Saudi Arabia is the country financing the madrassas all over the world that teach the radical brand of Islam which produces young soldiers for the jihad movement. Second, the vast majority of the alleged 911 attackers were Saudis: so many in fact that we could have claimed to have been attacked by Saudi Arabia. Additionally, the leader of Al Qaeda is the son of the wealthiest non-royal in Saudi Arabia, and contrary to propaganda does keep in regular contact with his family. Third, we intentionally let Bin Laden escape Tora Bora when we had soldiers at hand pleading to cut off the pass into Pakistan, but left it to the Pakistani secret police to cut off that direction knowing they were sympathetic to his cause. Forth, we then invaded a secular country with which we should have allied, and turned it into a bubbling cauldron of religious furor. Bin Laden had aimed to try and do the same in the future. An alliance would have saved 4,000 American lives, one million Iraqi lives, and our national fortune. It also would have given us an island of stability in the region from which to seek out Al Qaeda and its camps. Meanwhile, we should have immediately hardened our borders and ports, and initiated those programs used in WWII to involve the general public in an all out vigil for illegal entry into the country. If these events had happened, I could believe that there is a real war on terror. I agree with you that there is a global threat, but we are not fighting it. We are merely waiting for the next attack. If it were twenty years ago, and I told you that a former president, CIA head, and probable billionaire would in the future have substantial funds in an investment group with a billionaire construction magnate of Saudi Arabia, and that this investment group, called the Carlyle Group, would be heavily invested in the defense industry, and that the construction magnate's son would start a war with the United States while the former president's son was then president, such that the two sons went to war while the two fathers profited, you would tell me what a great novel it would be. But you would also think that it could never happen. But it did. Those are facts. No conspriracy theory needed. If you want a real surprise, google the Carlyle Group and see who else had investments with the Bushes and the Bin Ladens. by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 24, 2008 at 8:46:57 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
