Pentagon Rules Out Including Fallon In Iraq Hearing
The Pentagon on Friday ruled out including Adm. William Fallon as a witness before Congress when the top U.S. military and diplomatic officials in Baghdad testify next month on the way ahead in Iraq.
Fallon’s abrupt announcement March 11 that he was resigning, effective March 31, as chief of U.S. Central Command overseeing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan triggered accusations by Democrats in Congress that he was being forced out for publicly opposing launching a war against Iran.
If the subject is Iraq – and only Iraq – this makes good sense, even if it does poke a stick in the congressional majority’s eye. Crocker and Petraeus are on point for our Mesopotamian adventure. But if the subject is wider regional policy, Fallon would be a good guy to listen to.
My suspicion is that we’ll be hearing plenty from him once he retires
See no problem with that decision, I mean after all, what can the man add. We know he lost his marbles, the man got fired!!! The very nerve of Congress wishing to have testimony from a military Commander that was fired. Never, ever happened before.
You are absolutely right Lex, no doubt about it: If the subject is Iraq – and only Iraq – this makes good sense, even if it does poke a stick in the congressional majority’s eye. Yup, we will show Congress, yellow bellied curs that they are. Who does Congress think they are? Nasty, rapacious, un- patriotic louts. Patriots, grab your muskets, sharpen your sticks. We must defend our land. The supremacy of the Pentagon in our daily affairs is being challenged…
Woops, that third brain cell just clicked in – my heartfelt apologies, happened once before, what the hell was that guys name, something to do with “Old soldiers never die” – come on guys help me out, it was back in the days when we had a real democracy, yes, it was General MacCarther, fired by Truman, Korean war, that was it… Sorry about that, it did happen before.
Really Lex, give us a break. The “Pentagon” decides who testifies at a Congressional hearing? We both know this is coming directly from the White House, and under no circumstance will the roll of the dice be questioned. But then, sadly its not the first time…
Ah yes, must be National Security, or something like that. The elections maybe?
OP,
Nice try, but as Lex pointed out, if Petraeus and Crocker are on point in Iraq why should Fallon be there? Fallon likely isn’t as up to date on the situation in Iraq as Petraeus and Crocker are.
Jim C
Lex, isn’t it interesting when people think they have the “final” say. There is this one “Old Gal”, keeping a close eye on this situation. She ripens with age. As amatter of fact, she can be really rank with age. She has plenty of “rank, time and grade.” There is a special place for the Politicians who had an intentional policy to ignore her. What is that saying? “Paybacks are a real …..” But, it will will only become evedent of the importance of this time and these questions, because of the good work of this “old gal.” By the way, her name is “”History.”
Respectfully,
Grumpy
Jim C
Admiral Fallon, 4 stars, is the immediate superior officer to General Petraeus, 2 stars. He was the ranking Commander of the all American Forces in the Middle East, including those in Iraq. To imply that he has nothing to say, is silly.
He abruptly resigned on March 11th, by telephone, ostensibly because of a news/interview article that appeared in Esquire Magazine. There is little doubt, given the known sequence of events that he was forced out, probably directly from the White House.
I do believe Lex had a couple of threads on Admiral Fallon’s resignation. I did not go into it then. I am into it now into it now, because Admiral Fallon is being muzzled.
Now then, just between you and me, Lex, and the world… If Fallon had remained as Commander of the American Forces in the Middle East, there is now way President Bush could have muzzled him. Now, they can say he ain’t the regions boss man, say screw you Congress, and whisper sour grapes, and what ever else enters into their strange and malignant minds.
Slice it, dice it, chop it, spin it… There are only two things that Admiral Fallon could have said that would merit muzzling of a four star Admiral:
(1) Things are not going as well, as my subordinate, General Patraeus is telling you folks.
(2) Any attack, by Israel or the US, on Iran is stupid.
The above two points are well known, and accepted by a fair number of people. There is no reason to muzzle Admiral Fallon. Strange must be something else going on…
OP,
I catagorically reject the notion that things aren’t going as well as Petraeus is saying. You just called the man a liar, but have supplyed no evidence to back up your claims. Furthermore, I never said Fallon didn’t have anything to say. I said that Petraeus and Crocker were better informed, and better prepared to testify on the situation over there. As to the rest of your conspiracy theory… I don’t know what to say.
Jim C
OP- Are you bucking for Bagdad Bob’s old job?
OP,
By the way, General Petraeus is a four star general…same rank as Admiral Fallon. He was a two star when he was Commanding General of the 101st. He pinned on his 4th star in January of 2007.
OP
ADM Fallon became a liability when the Esquire article appeared. In hard ball negotiations where the stick and carrot is operative, the Iranians need to believe that the stick would be used. When Fallon indicated in the interview some wishy washiness about using the stick, his usefulness ended immediately.
Jim C
Two separate issues, one simple, yet far reaching, the other complex, yet of immediate import… But first H/T to Prowler Skippy for pointing out that the man has 4 stars.
The simplest first:
Lex original post reported that that Admiral Fallon was being prevented from testifying to Congress on his views on the Iraq conflict and the Middle East. Lex implied that this was acceptable, and desirable, if Fallon was going to testify on the Iraq situation. He modified this sentiment by stating: “But if the subject is wider regional policy, Fallon would be a good guy to listen to”…
Ever ready to pounce when a bit of incongruity is presented, and of course to display a bit of my highly regarded sarcastic wit, I questioned the premise that the “Pentagon” could limit who could testify to Congress at a time of war…
And thus that question is still on the table: In a time of war, can the Pentagon (or the President) limit who will testify to Congress? (Psssst: Congress represent the people, you know the old saw, government by the people and for the people).
The second issue is complex, and deals with Iraq:
If we remember that the surge’s primary goal was to give the Iraqi government enough time to get their act together. We know from General Petraeus that until now that has failed. This has been addressed in a variety of places, but I chose this one a lengthy, but penetrating analysis. You will note this post(go up, out of the comment section) quietly praises Petreaus.
Then there is this kind of stuff . It goes into a bit more detail on what is happening on the ground. Of course, there is always the reporter on the ground. This time I will pick Patrick Cockburn, of the London Independent. He has been reporting from the Middle East for quite some time, and you can chose from his work at your leisure.
Time to wrap it up. If you are correct in your belief that “I catagorically reject the notion that things aren’t going as well as Petraeus is saying.” Then there is no reason to exclude his immediate superior Commander (Admiral Fallon), if Congress requests such testimony…
I do not mind being called a liar, but I take umbrage at the implication that I am unable to support my claims. Please feel free to come back if you wish more information, or care to dispute the quoted articles.
Conspiracy?… Bah, humbug!!!
OP, you will in time learn – or not – that self-regard does not, in and of itself, amount to “highly regarded sarcastic wit.” You may also, through your extensive travels throughout the blogosphere, come to the conclusion that calling Juan Cole’s insights “penetrating” reveals more about your desire to buttress an argument than inform one.
Ultimately – and here I am stretching credulity – you may discover that people who disagree with your world view may have an equal appreciation of the facts of a situation and yet draw differing conclusions from it. Citing any number of people who also agree with you will not substantially improve your position more than trying to argue it yourself.
Ultimately, there are three co-equal branches of government. Co-equal. All of the bureaucracy and all of the military work for the president, a man who is himself elected by “the people.” Congress can invite one of his executives to speak at a hearing, but the executive retains the privilege of declining the invite.
Put plainly, if Congress would prefer to make a political theater in an election year, it’s understandable why the administration would decline to participate.
Of course – and this was the point of the post – once Admiral Fallon retires this spring, he’ll be absolutely free to speak to whomever he would care to in his capacity as a private citizen.
Cheer up – it’s not so very far away.
Ouch.
Heh. Sometimes when I am tempted to engage OP in a point of disagreement, I manage to refrain by reminding myself that I need merely sit back and wait…
Sure enough, Lex and crew do just fine without any interference from me.
Lex:
Approaching 2:00AM in Rochester, the old brain is not going to be able to handle it. But:
Jim C asked me to present evidence as to my thinking, which I did. You may not agree with the folks I quoted, I have no problem with that… Iraq is an evolving situation. Your position has been stated before, and can be summed up as “Failure is not an option”… But if that is the case, tell the American Public we have to pay for it now, and not shove it off into the future… And please be honest, we are talking about a minimum of 100 billion a year, 5 to 10 years…
I have a bit of difficulty understanding exactly how one engages in a conversation/argument under Lex’s rules. If one quote’s data, from reputable sources, this can be disregarded as being partisan? If one raises a simple question, such as why is Admiral Fallon being muzzled, it can be ignored? If one presents a contrary view, it has no merit? Can be dismissed as not being informative?
You got to love it: “Put plainly, if Congress would prefer to make a political theater in an election year, it’s understandable why the administration would decline to participate.” Congress request Admiral Fallon to present his views to the American people, and this is theater?
Lex, its your old “burr under the saddle” here, surely you must understand that there ain’t a single soul on your blog that highly regards my sarcastic wit… As a fan of Albert Camus, it is absurdity that nourishes the soul. Sisyphus would love Iraq, he could spend an eternity rolling that stone up a mountain…
Good news, Tuesday I leave for NYC, time to visit with #1 and #2 sons, and grand kids. My silence should not be construed that I have lost my wit…
The Force be with you…
Congress can subpoena Fallon-and I hope they do. It is clear that it will not happen during the Beatification of Petreaus unless they force the issue-but there is plenty of time to bring this up in time for the general election.
Re: Juan Cole-he is one of the few bloggers on the Middle East who at least quotes sources in Arabic and furthermore just about all his references are documented-whether one agrees with his opinion or not. Personally I think Cole does a good job of peeling back the onion on the details of many of the adminstration claims. Because when you dig a little bit-the news is never as clear cut as the adminstration wants you to believe.
I still think all of this talk does Fallon a huge disservice-since much of what he is accused of he has never said directly, and I challenge folks to find where he himself directly said what he is accused of. If the administration had been smart they would have kept him on and used a variety of means to coerce the Iranians-Akmewhatshisname is not as secure in his position as many make him out to be you know.
Plus Fallon is an old school professional-the kind the services are losing every year. He will probably remain silent for a while but when he does lash out, the administration is going to really regret it.
As if I will cry any tears over that.
I was wondering when Lex would jump in, I guess the Juan Cole reference was too much to handle.
As for using the language of the sourcing as a reliability test, my mother was born in Ireland and actually speaks the old language and I can give you a long list of such speakers that will tell you that the IRA was a social organization that peacefully campaigned for Unity while talking over their pints of Guinness.
As I mentioned in last communication, the old rum sodden brain is not at its best at 2:00 AM. And thus, I missed the crux of Lex’s argument: “… to the conclusion that calling Juan Cole’s insights “penetrating” reveals more about your desire to buttress an argument than inform one.”
Strange, must have been something I ate. In a discourse, if there is disagreement on a topic, one buttresses their view by presenting arguments that others have advanced. Preferably, one picks statured individuals, who can present long standing credentials in the area under discussion…
Juan Cole has spent a life time studying the political and religious forces that batter the middle East. His Curriculum Vitae can be found here… Lex may consider his writings as just a pile of piffle, but saying so does not make it so…
And thus, to Skippy-San – you have an unreasonable amount of courage to jump into this mess. To Padraig – would you be kind enough to post your mother’s C.V., arguments about the British occupation of Ireland go back quite a while…
And thus, the question remains: If Congress is a co-equal branch to the Executive, and as an instrument of the people is seeking information from a Military Commander in time of War, can the Executive muzzle such a Commander…
As my pappy once said: An informed public is the fuel that lights a democracy…
re: “the question remains: If Congress is a co-equal branch to the Executive, and as an instrument of the people is seeking information from a Military Commander in time of War, can the Executive muzzle such a Commander…”
Asked and answered, OP: Yes. Yes they can. And Congress can subpoena the admiral, and the Pentagon or White House can order him not to answer the subpeona. And you’re right back where you started, having succeeded only in straining the constitutional bonds of government for political effect.
Since you’re fond of links, follow the ones in the Simon link at #10 above, and you’ll glimmer why not everyone is such a fan of Professor Cole’s brand of “analysis.”
OP,
I must admit that until recently I hadn’t really followed Juan Cole’s pronouncements. It is interesting that you would list someone who believes that ITM is an astroturfing site as proof that things aren’t going as well in Iraq as Petraeus says they are. That says a lot…
Jim C