yxavsld pfuoxvna egwjb jtbgi zcjor phoy dpmq [URL]http://www.znlwted.knljwz.com[/URL] qsarw ziucl

wqkrlgu wavdbeipy jvopx kdvu unzjd qolcsvgm vgpayn [URL=http://www.ftcunwod.axypfojc.com]npsdr okjuziby[/URL]

wqkrlgu wavdbeipy jvopx kdvu unzjd qolcsvgm vgpayn [URL=http://www.ftcunwod.axypfojc.com]npsdr okjuziby[/URL]

lgnby qnzerpov ukdn vauoktrl qmrsvdnea jgyu kbay dlixtcy mgtzvy

lgnby qnzerpov ukdn vauoktrl qmrsvdnea jgyu kbay dlixtcy mgtzvy

lgnby qnzerpov ukdn vauoktrl qmrsvdnea jgyu kbay dlixtcy mgtzvy

vxuhmkwc etrizcno rmsajby dqwv myvw scqi nmzhusgwk

m1d9h21mpu1140e c53b6extiru3hde [URL=http://www.535179.com/213213.html] hhticzacu0jvn [/URL] xzcmiz8d

I am trying to use this pic as an avatar but it would not load? Is it me or is this feature turned off?
Me in San Francisco2008

//But I strongly suspect it was had less to do with profiling Fallon and more to do with advancing Barnett's own agenda.\\ -Frank

Thanks You Frank, for saying what I was about to say anyway.
You saved me the trouble.

Miss/Mrs Brewer has all lock-step faith that a roomful of selfish cats cannot attain for the Dems. And I can appreciate M/M Brewer's fidelity to her party - however misplaced. But I am not a Socialist/Dem. Nor am I a pseudo-lib hiding beneath the same brand - M/M Brewer - however I am calling it as I see it. I also don't share the same trust in 'Esquire' as you do; they are anything but consistent or precise. As I am exerting to assert my right to free speech by saying as much. I don't always agree with Frank, but most the time I do.

Just because I post on the WaPo - please don't just assume that I am one of the lock-step Dems/pseudo-libs that roost here. There are also some free-thinking conservatives here also - otherwise this blog would be very boring without...

Susan Brewer writes:

-- I suggest reading the Esquire article which has generated so much fallout and so much news. The presentation of Fallon is touching. --

Touching, perhaps. But is it credible?

The author, Thomas Barnett, is the same T. Barnett that wrote "The Pentagon's New Map"
(www.thomaspmbarnett.com/published/pentagonsnewmap.htm).

The same T. Barnett who briefed extensively at the highest levels of the Pentagon his US-centric hegenomic plan for why and how "Washington takes real ownership of strategic security in the age of globalization".

The same T. Barnett who's briefings and ideas, IMHO, probably were the single most influential strategic concept responsible for formulating the Rumsfeld world view on how to combat terrorism following Sep 11, 2001.

The same T. Barnett who's "New Map" was used as the underlying principle for DOD's Global Military Force (www.fas.org/man/crs/RS21975.pdf) ; e.g., a repositioning of military bases and assets to Africa, South America, the the Middle East.

The same T. Barnett who, in 2003, proudly wrote on the pages of the same Esquire magazine "Let me tell why military engagement with Saddam Hussein's regime in Baghdad is not only necessary and inevitable, but good."

Yes. Barnett's article may have been touching.

But I strongly suspect it was had less to do with profiling Fallon and more to do with advancing Barnett's own agenda.

I love BHO's Obama impersonation which post at 2:02 PM on 3/12. In my opinion Obama's dreams are still fantasies untested by facts. I am not willing to confront Republican predominancy of our current political reality with soft Obama sympathizers, I want to beat them with the intelligence, grasp of detail and political compromise of Hillary Clinton. I am a Hillarian.

I went to a talk given by John W. Dean at the Jimmy Carter Library in Atlanta promoting his "Worse than Watergate" book several months ago. He described the exercise of leading the Repulican Party as being akin to conducting soldiers on parade. Everyone is in lockstep, the grandly synchronized and unquestioning followers.

Leading Democrats, he said, is like leading a room full of cats. They are so intent on their own personal take on things that it creates a problem.

I suggest reading the Esquire article which has generated so much fallout and so much news. The presentation of Fallon is touching.

Admiral William Fallon, thank you! Thank you for standing on your own two feet. Thank you for being a real Man with heart felt care for other people other nations and not just fitting into Bushes arrogent turmolt world view.

I suggest that Plainfacto, whose comment posted on March 13th at 1:03 AM read the March 11th, 2008 Esquire article by Thomas P. M. Barnett to get the plain facts therein mentioned about Fallon to truely test his or her perspective on Fact and Fallon. Sir or Mam, I hope you are up to this challange to test your point of view.

And the irony of it all is.

What have we done to remove George Bush from office?

Nothing. When was the last time you contacted your congressman/woman about how you felt about George W? Wrote a letter to anyone for that matter? I have. (and the response was less than overwhelming) but the point to be made here is that there have been very few open protests, no effort to remove anyone from office, nothing. So the only people we can blame for the current state of affairs is....

US. The "us" in US. Spend some time writing, calling, and contacting your representatives. Or not. But the longer you do nothing...

The longer nothing happens.

WC

Wow, the 'making a mountain out of a mole hill' gang is here - and slinging nothing more than fabrication brought about by Arkin's bluff. I think it would be interesting to play poker with Arkin; he sure can play a bluff!

He must be pissing himself laughing at all of the trouble he stirred up here today! He will get a bonus based upon the responses this page has generated today.

Seems that the Adm. Fallon story is really nothing more than Bush booting Fallon off staff, because he spoke when he should have kept his yap shut. And 'Esquire was there to scoop it up - it didn;t nmatter much if it was nothing more then hyperbole. 'Loose lips, sinks ships'; a very old Navy axiom.
Apparently, Fallon had forgotten that one...

Fallon was due for retirement anyway; it was his choice to resign his commission or not. He hadn't provided anything substantial in Iraq, and Gen. Petreaus did.

The rest is pure hype.
Now - don't most of you feel silly?
You should...

George W. Bush as predicted by H.L. Mencken back in 1920: "As democracy is perfected, the office of the President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be occupied by a downright moron."

Just to set the record straight:

I said: "'Get serious,' 'These guys are ants. When the time comes, you crush them.'"

The article makes clear that my main concerns about a war with
Iran are, as noted, about tactics and timing: Sure, when the time comes
- no shuffling on that point - we'll crush these subhumans like the
insects they are; but we've already got a lot on our plate at the
moment, so why not hold off as long as we can? After all, Fallon is
conducting two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as overseeing an
on-going "regime change" operation in Somalia, where the United States
has been aiding Ethiopian invaders with bombing raids, death squads,
renditions and missile strikes against Somali civilians - such as the
one this week that killed three women and three children.

http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd03072008.html

War pigs... each and every one of us.

Just to show how ignorant the American populace is about what we are REALLY doing over there, can anyone here spot the international war crime in the opening sequence of this video?

Neither could GW or the Dickster
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GRR_n_yQGA

If you think your puny elections will help:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NF5Kdm4Eu6w

If he disagreed strongly, he had the option to retire. Publicly disagreeing wiht the Adminstration undermines civilian control of the mlitary (see Truman's firing of MacArthur for reference).

Major McDowall

George Bush disavowed and ignored the will of the civilian American people. As far as I am concerned, he has been in contempt of his civilian officers (the People) since he became President of the USA.

How come he didn't retire! Thank God for men like Fallon who tried to bring some sobriety to 'an Administration and a polciy gone wild'!

GB admitted to willfully misleading the American people, with respect to Don Rumsfeld - shouldn't he be impeached for lying to us in public?

Bush is Benedict Arnold, Major MacDowell and all of the rest like him are American heroes!

The vicious screw ups that our nation of sheep elects and then actually allows to remain in power for generations at a time(while they fire or dismiss anyone in their way) will have us learning to do the goose-step for the parade:

http://www.archive.org/details/tth_071121

There's a short Thanksgiving day announcement by California governator Ahhhnold Schwarzenegger before the commentary

Old Warrior : "...thought you'd put more faith in the Fox News link."

ROTFLM M/F AO!

One thing I want to respectfully present in relation to GW skirting (snicker) the draft and all.

John McCain is kind of the reverse situation socio-politically.

He WAS there (in the worst possible way, POW), and because of that, he wasn't HERE when the country was literally
sociologically torn apart because the U.S. government didn't heed the majority of Americans when they said "OUT NOW!"

The majority of Americans want out of Iraq now...

That gap in his presence within American Society could cause a whole different set of problems if he's elected.

Bush, Cheney and the Republican Party

All believed that Americans were their foot soldiers, and that it was our responsibility to simply take orders from them. Neither Cheney nor Bush ever realized that they were employed by the American people, but not for long thank God.

Anyone who stepped out of line before and during this Administration took office, like Senator John McCain, or afterwrds like General Colin Powell and war veteran and senator, John Kerry..., were attacked, humiliated or swift-boated.

We all know which two humiliating individuals should have never been in the Oval Office in the first place, for they have done a damnable job. It was not the commanders who needed to go, it was and still is the Bush Administration that needs to take begone. The whole world and this nation will be better off when these two are a footnote in history.

And as Dave Letterman said last night, the bad news for John McCain now is that Bush is supporting him!

Bush had zero qualifications, training, experience or vision to lead a nation - and absolutely zero qualifications to be a Commander-in-Chief and somehow he got to be both! Along the way he has hurt the careers of a lot of capable and distinguished individuals, including Admiral Fallon.

Besides, I'd be shocked if we found ties between Saddam and Al-Qaeda - that hated him much, much worse than we did. We're talking about Iraq here.

Old Warrior,
If all you read is headlines, you'll vote for Obama. Look at the sources your article cites. For all my media-bashing, I have found truth in Fox News as well as (believe it or not) the New York Times and the LA Times (but then again, some of the National Enquirer stories are true, too). But you have to go beyond the headlines. I'll find some links and post them here.

Skulldugger: We invaded Iraq because, according to the Bush Administration, there were WMD and Saddam supported al Qaeda who harbored Osama bin Laden who planned the attack on 9/11.

In the reading material I suggested:

The first headline reads, "Pentagon Study of 600,000 Iraqi Documents Finds No Link Between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein"

If you click on the link entitled "Click here to read more on this story from McClatchy Newspapers." The second headline reads, "Exhaustive review finds no link between Saddam and al Qaida."

Nowhere in those articles does it say anything about IN FORCE. But then again, maybe you consider Fox News a left leaning news source. Where did you read this stuff about "IN FORCE?"

You're as bad as Bill Clinton when he said, "Well, it depends on your definition of IS."

If it wasn't for brave fighters like Fallon, letting their reputations speak for themselves, we would already be in Iran.

Skulldugger, it seems that the Pentagon doesn't agree with you. They looked at 600,000 captured documents and prior to our invasion there was no Al Queda in Iraq.

Check out this link to Fox News
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336730,00.html

Actually I found this by doing a Google search and came up with 48 links. I thought you'd put more faith in the Fox News link.

You need to do some more reading; it's amazing what you can learn.

Old Warrior, read your own link. This report says that Al-Qaeda was not present IN FORCE in Iraq. The parts you're probably referring to mention that Al-Qaeda was not present in Baghdad. Published CIA reports track the beginnings of the Al-Qaeda structure back several years, mainly around the Iranian border, and within Iran.

It truely IS amazing what you can learn if you just dig a little.

As we were about to trap Osama bin Laden in Toro Bora, I think that Karl Rove said to George Bush, "If we capture or kill bin Laden, there won't be a buggy man loose out there for Americans to fear. You came way too close to losing this last election and we don't want another one like that. For the one in 2004, you need to be a war president."

I call myself Old Warrior because I was a helicopter gunship pilot in a war that was only a little less stupid than the Iraq War. I am by no means a pacifist but I can't believe how Bush has squandered our military. Our military is in tatters. I can't believe that we didn't learn anything from Viet Nam. Nice going George! Oh, that's right, you weren't there.

Ed, get a clue:
1. Afghanistan never attacked us, either. For that matter, Nazi Germany never attacked us.
2. Al-Qaeda WAS in Iraq prior to the invasion - THIS is a fact which is not in dispute.
Stop consuming every piece of pap your agenda-driven liberal news outlets try to feed you and TRY, at least try, to think for yourself.

Hope this helps.

The facts are: 1.Iraq never attacked us. 2. Al Qaida was not in Iraq before we invaded.

Hey "Watching carefully"... Here's something worth watching:

Winter Soldier: Iraq and Afghanistan is a four-day summit that will bring more than 200 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans together from March 13 to 16.

Veterans will provide specific evidence related to everything from the killing and injuring of innocent civilians and unarmed combatants to the cost of the war at home.

Winter Soldier launches at a news conference at the National Press Club in Washington at 1 p.m. on Thursday (that's tommorrow).

Video of testimony will be webcast via IVAW's webpage: http://www.ivaw.org

I think everyone needs to take a deep breath and relax. Everything's fine with Iran - we have a Bright Future and it's time for New Ideas to permeate the Will and Spirit of the American people. How will we handle Iran when I, Barack Hussein Obama am elected? Well, through New Ideas, which will in turn lead to a Bright Future. Say it with me: Bright Future, New Ideas. Just keep saying that - we'll be OK. Really we will. Yes.

GW: "When oh when are we going to stop fighting the Jews' wars?"

I'm a jew, and it's not MY war.

It's a christian zionist war...
Your friends...

Judging by the ideology normally attached
to ignorant statements like that.

Admiral Fallon was filling a post similar to Eisenhower's during WWII. Eisenhower was dealing with many countries on a daily basis, as well as directing their armed forces. If Churchill wanted to talk to him NOW, He had better talk him and not kick it up stairs for a Presidential opinion. Being an area commander, or dealing with only one country, Political, as well as military skills, are necessary. Political situations influence military situation, and military actions influence political situations. Therefore , to some extent, military commanders will become necessarily involved in political situations, and they need to have some discretionary authority to deal with these matters. Eisenhower's experience as SHAPE commander provided him with useful foreign policy experience for his future roll as President. The Presidential candidates in both parties could benefit from Admiral Fallon's experiences in the Far East, as well as the Middle East. If Admiral Fallon retires, he can be more frank about his opinions, and he may have some useful insights.

Major McDowall: "Publicly disagreeing wiht the Adminstration undermines civilian control of the mlitary (see Truman's firing of MacArthur for reference)."

All well and good if George Bush and his henchmen were acting constitutionally, or realistically... or rationally, in relation to the societal needs of the American public, who are about to find out what terminal economic recession due to funding unnecessary wars means (during the last recession we still had plenty of inexpensive energy resources and a fair amount of industrial manufacturing capacity to drive an economic recovery unlike today, hence terminal... a spiral-in...) in their persecution of a war for no-cause-they'd-care-to-state on Iran.

That makes GW & company DEFACTO enemies of the United State... They've reneged on their citizenship as far as I'm concerned.

in regards to the comments of Mr. Tom Colton:-
As a life long civilian without even so much as cub-scout training I feel I have just as much if not more ability to manage an armed conflict than someone who has,for whatever reason,played cannon fodder at some point in his/her life.
I once entertained the idea of joining the air force but found out I was not "AAA" USDA grade meat for the sausage machine due to a hearing defect. Apparently the military demands the very best to kill and be killed.
What exactly does lack of testicles have to do with killing or being killed? Every day the best and bravest are dying or being horribly maimed not for strategic military reasons but for obscure and possible irrelevant political agendas.
What exactly makes you more in touch with reality than the rest of us and what exactly is it we should be in touch with?

Who are these desert warriors you speak about? I see men of an age (18 -28) who believe they will never die, who are sexually repressed due to the idiosyncrasies of their faith, who are unemployed and in many cases illiterate for all practical purposes, being manipulated and taken advantage of by a few smart guys.
What omnipotent being informed you that war with Iran is just, necessary and inevitable? America has been snarling at Iran since the end of WWII with a steady string of political cock-ups to show for their ineptitude.
Get your Muslims and Islam straightened out. Islam is the faith. Muslims are those who practice it in a multitude of forms which make different interpretations of Islam. Can yo say Shia and Sunni? To say that all Muslims believe killing their guests is perfectly acceptable is to do a great disservice to common sense, something that even vets are supposed to have. Talking about opinionated you certainly seem to have strong ones though not necessarily well thought out. You may be correct though that America is going like Rome
All empires eventually fail. Rome failed partly because it ceased to gain wealth by capturing new territory. It also failed due to internal corruption and incompetence. America is moving along a similar path. Rome took some 400 years or so to collapse from its zenith of opulence. I wonder if America will last as long.
You get out there boy and fight for me if you want. You can even die if it makes you feel good!
Shalom

President Bush gets away with lying to our country and dismantling our Constitution because he his attending to two things. The first is our consumer need for oil and petroleum products. Practically speaking, we are sold on the fact that he is just taking care of our thirst for oil, our obsession with consummerism at ANY price. Undeclared war, deaths, invasion of another country, torture, ect, etc. is the price we have paid in part to this point. Second, he is catering to our free market obsession and our belief that people getting filthy rich is what this country now stands for. It has become our raison d'etre. Yes, we say to ourselves, why worry about the deficit we are in the process of creating for our children when we can subsidise the war via Blackwater as well as turning Dick Cheney into the next billionaire. Making money and spending money is all this country collectively cares about. The Republican dream has been fulfilled. We have sold out. Our democratic ideals may still have some life left in them but not much.
Mr. Arkin, the author of this article, is trying to get us to focus on the bigger picture here. The details of what has been taking place the last seven years have been placed out of the context of reality, and need to be put in a context that will make it possible for us to rearrange our perspective on what has been happening since Bush came into office. The reality is horrifying, by the way, truely horrifying. Mabe that is why we have been so successful in avoiding it.

Totally of the subject of this well written article.
The 2nd comment: From Tom who thinks he is a scholar that can quote the qur'an (lower case for a reason) incorrectly and at the same time think he is a harden veteran that is the only person that truly knows what is going on behind the scenes unlike the rest of us "wussy civilians". Tom; are you so naive to think that only military men are as tough as you think you are and have the insight none of us have? Give me a break! I have four friends that made into the Airborne Rangers and served in the first Iraq war and I can still take anyone of them, plus they so brain washed! For them to have an original thought beyond what is "militarily correct" is remote at best. You are ones that are blinded by your own egos and cannot see that the puppet masters are playing out this whole thing. Cut your strings and you will see that this all about money and power. The Bush's and their Dick have nothing more in mind than to further their own agendas which is making money and to better control those resources after they leave this mess for us tax payers to clean up afterwards. Yes God Bless those men and women serving our country but please
Let stop pretending to have better understanding than the rest of us. I for one thing most of us civilians do not lap up everything coming out of the Pentagon mouth as if from Gods mouth.

Arkin writes;

-- I find it much more worrisome that there is nothing particularly "military" associated with most of the decisions we are making regarding Iraq, Afghanistan or Iran, and yet we continue to make a fetish of according the brass some superior understanding of the nation's needs. --

Two points.

The senior "brass" probably do have a better understanding of the nation's needs than most; Admiral Fallon, in particular. His years of education and experience (and most especially those tours after making Flag rank) in understanding, and advancing, the nation's interest overseas shouldn't be discounted out of hand, as Arkin has done.

Second.

Perhaps 'the fetish of according the brass some superior understanding of the nation's needs' has less to do with 'the brass' understanding the nation's needs, and more to do with NO ONE ELSE IN A POSITION OF AUTHORITY exhibiting any understanding at all. Perhaps 'the fetish' occurs because a vacuum of trust exists, and by default the military (one of the most trusted institutions in the US) has filled it.

What an asburd headline and commentary. This is not micromanagement of the man's work. His problem is his big mouth. Even MacArthur was fired for the same reason. Military is to be seen, not heard. He is not elected, he does not contradict the commander-in-chief thereby giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

I'm going to guess he had the same problem as MacArthur and McLellan: a huge ego.

And no, I am not a Republican.

What an asburd headline and commentary. This is not micromanagement of the man's work. His problem is his big mouth. Even MacArthur was fired for the same reason. Military is to be seen, not heard. He is not elected, he does not contradict the commander-in-chief thereby giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

I'm going to guess he had the same problem as MacArthur and McLellan: a huge ego.

And no, I am not a Republican.

I am responding to a number of comments in the blog and the article. Firstly, I am shocked at the illiterate and misspelled tirades of many writers. This is my first posting on this blog. Let us first review the facts. We invaded Iraq on false premises and weak data. The Pentagon just completed a thorough review of all documents seized in the invasion of Iraq concerning the government under Hussein. The conclusion: there were never any WMD since the first Gulf War or plans to invade the U.S.

We have been responsible, as a country, for the destruction of a society and a country on the whim of a Commander-In-Chief, who is unfit and is a pathological liar. Remember that Bush during the Viet Nam conflict was a week-end warrior who did not report for his flight physical ignoring direct orders. The reason was simple. A flight physical would have shown he was at the time abusing cocaine and alcohol. I know this because at the time I was a Naval Aviator on active duty, and have seen the information that could be obtained in blood test conducted with such physicals. His associates and others have confirmed that he had a problem with drugs and alcohol during this period. Had he been found to have drugs in his system, he would have received a dishonorable discharge.

Now we look at Admiral Fallon, a combat commander of forty years with expertise in combat planning and military relations in the Far East and Middle East. He follows a line of excellent officers, Zuni, Shinseki, Powell who have been marginalized by this incompetent and corrupt administration. Fallon's crime was telling the truth and not lying for the administration, as did Franks.

No one can justify a continuation of Republicans in office after this total betrayal of the citizens in this country and the world.

But the MOST interesting question now is, how will either McCain or Obama, if elected, deal with the Middle East mess and our militarily weakened state across the rest of the world.

Would McCain, who like George Bush the First before him, understand Military and our Defense system so well that he made the Political, war aim POLICY, and LIMITS and delegated to our military commander Schwartzkopf and the Joint Chiefs, Powell the job of carrying it out. He did NOT micromanage. Like Rumsfeld did - and screwed up Iraq with yes men commanders, Franks and Abzaid.

Or would Omama, like Johnson and McNamara, before him start Micromanaging all things military, and screwing it up in Vietnam.

Fallon is a quitter in every sense of the word. If he had any integrity he would have tried to stay the course however unpopular he might have been and work from the inside to prevent war with Iran. Now he's just marginalized himself. He's rendered himself impotent just so he can spout his fears to a clueless public without having to engage in counterpoint and intellectually challenging discussions with his peers.

And went to Esquire? Am I the only one who sees how pathetically opportunistic and telling that he'd sell his story to a publication that's just a step above playboy in terms of sleazyness? If he wanted to sabotage his reputation I don't think he could have done a better job.

Tom Colton states: "None of you understand the mind of a desert warrior of Islam. Your
stupid remarks about whether to fight Iran
or not clearly demonstrate your ignorance
of the global struggle against this current
wave of Islamic expansion ( there have been
several in the past 1300 years ). You don't
have a clue as to what the consequences of
backing down to the nomadic warrior mentality means to the much foreshortened
future of Western Civilization. Muslims
despise enemies who parley and negotiate."

Mr. Colton's view is typically ethnocentric. His comments on muslim expansion may or may not be correct. However, by neglecting to discuss US expansion since WW II, he exhibits the one sided point of view that has made this country despised throughout the world. Specifically, how many military bases does Iran have spread throughout the world? Last count I know of was zero. However the US has about 750 overseas bases and about the same number in the states. The US currently has a naval task force sitting off the coast of Iran as well as 130,000 US troops in an adjacent country. As far as I can tell, Iran doesn't have a task force sitting off DC and hasn't attempted to invade Canada. If indeed Mr. Colton is concerned about the expansion of Islam as a political force then perhaps our cultural and military expansion is equally a concern to them. My point is that there are no good guys here. Radical Islam is a horrible thing, but so is invading an Islamic country under pretences that have been proven false.

Adam: Your analysis of the reasons for war in Iraq are right on the mark. Our goal was not winning but creating instability in order to prevent a future Islamic power base from a future attack on the US. The problem is such reasoning is politically incorrect-and one would guess the rest of the world would find it morally repugnant that we would cause so much destruction just to safeguard our consumerist lifestyle.

So we went to war instead with flimsy lies veiled with patriotic fervor to cover our true intent. We never got to discuss the real reasons for our fight, never got to discuss whether it was reasonable to think that future threat would come to pass. The two factions of Islam are currently at war. It is a civil war into which we have injected ourselves in order to keep anyone from winning and possibly causing us harm at a later date. When this date of a future threat would be is unclear. Perhaps we have postponed it. But since our country is on the verge of economic collapse it would seem debatable that we would even be a target of Islamic takeover years down the road. This so reminds me of our cold war fight with the USSR, we won by bleeding them dry in Afghanistan. Now we are being bled dry in the middle east but we are doing it to ourselves.

I believe the philosophy of our current leaders is based on a paranoid fear of others (Islam) and not on a rational intellectual argument that Islam is a real threat to us anytime soon.

Tom Colton wrote: "your conceited notions of being well informed."

Wow. You're sounding an awful lot like St. Augustine there, pal.

Middle Ages anyone?

The American Empire is definitely on the edge of a complete and irreversible collapse.

this is just the beginning, most of you are so ignorant to the real threat. world government!! domination!! 911 was the starting point to bring down america and it was not islamic extremist like most of you believe to be. do you guys really believe that some idiot could flight a commecial plane like that? lol be off route for 80 mins without interception? give me a break!! wake up and face reality this country is targeted to be demoralized, its economy to be crumbled.. aint that whats happened so far? guess what.. its going to get worst!!!

Another book to read -- God in the White House: A History: How Faith Shaped the Presidency from John F. Kennedy to George W. Bush by Randall Balmer. It goes all the way from Kennedy saying, "I'm the President first and then a Catholic" to Bush saying, "God wants me to be President"

Anyone who believes this administration is not hell-bent on furthering its imperialist expansion has their head buried in the sand. This country used to have citizens with a brain and a spine. Now we all just cower in fear at the "news" reports and political rhetoric of "impending doom". The "War on Terror" is nothing more that a political scheme to undermine all of our individual rights, i.e. the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act. WAKE UP AMERICA!!

Bush will continue to drag our country down into a quagmire of over stretching our budget and military just as he went bankrupt in most if not all of his business dealings, as long as he is President. The only sane people in our country live in Brattleboro, VT who is calling Bush and Cheney for the criminals that they are.
He has never suffered the consequences for his actions in his life because Daddy and the Saudis were always there to bail him out. He's a spoiled high class moron in charge of the most powerful military on this planet. What can you expect from that scenario?

Overlooked by those who think Adm Fallon should just have saluted and struck Iran, if you read closely what was written about him in Esquire, you can see that he understands (after all he not only attended the War College but also got a degree in Political Science) the concept of National Interests. That nations follow them more than any ideologcal, or emotional, motives.

That the way to deal with so many troublesome Middle Eastern nations is to find out what they NEED (like the Irans need to stop the drug flow from Afghanistan), and that Bridge in Afghanistan) and try with US power and influence to meet the. I.E. using Realpolitick to make hard headed deals with them, and not always try to solve problems with military force.

Of course that is what Condolessa Rice is supposed to be doing, but Fallon, just like Zinni before him understands MORE than 'just military.'

Hardly micro management,Policy.Even a poker player does not reveal his hand,a military commander ,even one who will be the darling of the left(want to bet?)Can not do anything but implement policy.He can not go public-who elected him?He can give his personnal opinion to his superior,We shall see if he has a personal agenda,remember John Kerry wearing his uniform trashing the military to give him the proper left credentials to Congres,back in the day..Republican, or Democrat our system can not stand media military remember McArthur.Pardon me, but your hatred for Bush is showing.This is greater than party.Pick a legitamate forum to hate Bush.

The options the US now has in facing global issues are dismal to say the best. The past few years have reuined much of the credibility and general ability to have positive influence on global affairs. Bush has made other nations question our intentions, credibility and moral standing. I have been a life long Republican, but the past 7 years have truly been ones to be ashamed of.

A scenario to consider:

A thermonuclear device goes off in New York, killing most of the inhabitants. President Bush does two things.

1. Ties it back to Iran and the middle east and sends in the troops, reinstates the draft with everyone's approval

2. Declares martial law for an indefinite period of time, suspending elections "for awhile" until everything is "ok".

Might be a scenario, but you know folks, this administration has accomplished more than I ever imagined a government could. If you don't see what they have done to our democracy, with rousing support, then you might want to step back and review.

The constitution has been bypassed in ways that amaze me. we excecuted japanese soldiers for doing exactly what we are doing today.

The corruption of this republican led congress and executive branch has been equaled by none before it (and I was a registered republican).

The war has been poorly executed, poorly run, and if there were a draft today, I firmly believe that there would have been a revolution to end it much sooner than what has happened.

As for the all powerful, aggressive, and well armed "terrorists" that we are fighting... give me a break. What are they going to do? Load up in a row boat and play "Sands of Iwo Jima" on Florida? Or better yet, load up a 4 ton nuclear weapon in a canoe and plant it on the steps of DC? They are of little true threat to the US as far as an invading force goes. As for terrorists on US soil, if we aren't secure, would someone please tell me why we are spending billions of dollars on these really cool anti-terrorist systems? Or do they not work too well....

As for "kicking ass" on the Iraqi's. We have done a great job of that. over a million dead and counting.... and only 4000+ American dead. We are pretty good at it... and again, how many of those million were an actual threat to the security of the US?

One more item, where are our permanent bases located? *hint. next to the oil fields.

Oh, and for you folks that are declared right winged, or whatever, who would call me a "left winged liberal". Eat this.

USMC 1981-1987.. I just didn't drink the Kool Aid this time.

Semper Fi

If other memebers of the Government outside of Pres. Bush allow this sort of thing to continue it will be a horrible mark (along with many) on this era of American history. What is going on? Things have definitely gotten whacko with Washington. If they don't stand up to Bush in D.C. there WILL be a revolution, at all levels of American society.

If you would like a truly comprehensive look at this situation, check out truthout.org and you will learn:

"But Fallon, as the commander responsible for the entire Middle East, was concerned about more than the consequences of actually exercising the military option. He was prompted to enunciate a "no-war" line on Iran by the panicky reactions of Arab states to what they thought were indications of the warlike intentions of Bush administration.

In the latter half of 2007 friendly Arab regimes were upset by the possibility of a US-Iran war, which they feared would destabilize the entire region. Fallon is quoted as telling Barnett, "[I]t's all anyone wants to talk about right now. People here hear what I'm saying and understand. I don't want to get them too spun up."

Fallon told Barnett that his ruling out of military action against Iran was necessary to calm the very regimes the Bush administration was hoping to enlist to support its anti-Iran line. "Washington interprets this as all aimed at them," Fallon said in Cairo, according to Barnett. "Instead, it's aimed at governments and media in this region. I'm not talking about the White House."

Fallon was arguing, in effect, that it makes no sense to make the possibility of an unprovoked attack part of your declaratory policy if merely induces confusion and panic among friendly governments without influencing the target of the threat.

Barnett quotes Fallon as complaining that "they" - meaning White House officials - were asking him, "Why are you even meeting with Mubarak?" But Fallon strongly defended the diplomatic role he was playing in relations with Mubarak and other Middle Eastern leaders. "This is my center of gravity," Fallon told him. "This is my job."

We should have gotten Osama bin Laden. Read Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA's Key Field Commander by Gary Berntsen and Ralph Pezzullo

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FALLON_RESIGNS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

This story is being misconstrued to the point that it is dangerous. Fallon has not once said that he disagreed with President Bush's policies. Much less has he said anything about micromanagement. Reread the first line of this column:
"On the surface, the early retirement of Adm. William Fallon appears to be another instance of the Bush administration's contempt for military advice and a mark of potential war with Iran."

How about on the surface, the early retirement of Adm. William Fallon appears to be for THE REASONS THAT HE HAS STATED.

If your house is of glass, don't throw rocks at others.

Tom Colton - Current wave of Islamic expansion? 19 hijackers don't make an expansion. We invaded Afghanistan and Iraq -they didn't invade Europe or the US. If you had "cojones", you wouldn't be frightened when politicians talk about world war 3 and the end of Western civilization --you would realize it is fear mongering.

Iran may be a potential threat to us, but invading Iran would open pin our army between to hostile groups of Shiites and unify them with the Sunni insurgents to kick us out. To maintain an occupation, we would have to give up considerable power in other parts of the world, and we still might not win. In fact, it is probable that a new united Shiite nation would emerge and we would be worse off than now.

Bush's day will come. His time is almost up.

It's simple. The Admiral made political statements,
and that's not his job. The President is Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces . Policy is his decision, like him or not, that's why we have and election every 4 years.

Until they retool, refit and re-target military activities to an al-Qaeda attack
force, rather than an occupational and regime building cluster-f*ck, Gen. Thomas J. Jackson couldn't "win" this shizen.

Wussy civilians?

How about pathetic, stupid, losers-like you-recruited to kill for chump change in stinking, worthless deserts?

Who's the bigger fool?

As a war vet with infantry training I find
it absurd that so many wussy civilians in
both parties think they know how to manage
an armed conflict. The very idea of posting
a public notice of your future pull out date is sure to promote a bloodbath during
withdrawal. You mouthy dimwits are getting
people killed because of your lack of
cajones and your conceited notions of being
well informed. The great historian Arnold
Toynbee remarked shortly before his death
that a lifetime of study in the rise and
fall of great civilizations had taught him
that more frequently than we might like to
accept, entire societies can be out of touch with reality. You guys are a textbook
case in point. None of you understand the
mind of a desert warrior of Islam. Your
stupid remarks about whether to fight Iran
or not clearly demonstrate your ignorance
of the global struggle against this current
wave of Islamic expansion ( there have been
several in the past 1300 years ). You don't
have a clue as to what the consequences of
backing down to the nomadic warrior mentality means to the much foreshortened
future of Western Civilization. Muslims
despise enemies who parley and negotiate.
They believe Allah lets them lie to such
weaklings and then slaughter them later
at their convenient leisure. There is no
dishonor in killing your enemy in his tent
after making peace with him according to
Quran. You're like the last of the Romans:
weak, stupid, full of yourselves, opinionated and craven. When you engage a
muslim in a fight, you either kill him or
die-there is no time-out or peace.

Posted by: Tom Colton | March 12, 2008 1

YEH I AGREE WITH CLEAR VOICE

I CANT WAIT FOR MORE PEOPLE TO DIE SO WE CAN SHOW LIBZ HOW DUMB THEY ARE

Fact: "Al Qaida in Iraq" did not exist before Bush started the war. It exists today and is a potent terrorist organzation.

Fact: Because troops were siphoned off Afghanistan to fight the ill-conceived war in Iraq, Osama Bin Ladin is still a free man and planning the *next* 9/11-style attack.

Fact: Because Bush has taken his eye off the ball in Afghanistan, they will produce a record poppy harvest this year, which will show up as cocaine and heroin in our own country.

Fact: Bush sided with a corrupt government in Pakistan because it was expedient for his purposes in Iraq. The dictatorial Musharif regime has now been trounced and because of Bush's support for that regime, public support for America in Pakistan is at an all-time low.

Fact: Under the Musharif regime, which Bush supported, Islamic extremist who support terror have proliferated in the area near the Afghan-Pakistan border.

Fact: Bush's foreign policies have encouraged record-level enlistments in Al Qaida and other anti-American terrorist groups. We are *much* less safe today than we were when he took office.

Fact: Bush has a solid history of replacing efficient, knowledgeable bureaucrats from previous administrations with incompetent cronies - including the ones running "Homeland Security" and the Justice Dept. (which he populated with dozens of attorneys from a *4th tier*, low-quality law school as a pay-off for Pat Robertson's support because that school is *owned* by a fundamentalist christian organization).

Opionion (but well supported): Whether it is micro-managed by war generals or public opinion, the war needs to be managed by *someone* else and taken out of the hands of an incompetent Bush Whitehouse. It's hard to imagine how he could have hosed-up America's future any worse!

I spent some time in Vietnam following orders. I was not happy to be there, but our country asked me to go, so I did. My G'dad was in WW1, mom and dad in WW2, so I figured it was just my time to be on the frontlines "defending" democracy, and this time halting the spread of communism. Did it work, maybe. Did it matter, each of us has to answer this one.
"Yesterday" we were attacked on USA soil by some radicals. Once our intelligence figured out who, the administration did what you would expect, and went after them in Afganistan. This was good. We had the world behind us, even helping out. While this was going on, the administration decided to launch a pre-emptive strike on another souvereign country again based on some "intelligence" that today we know was bogus. Most of the world didn't think this was a good idea, so has stayed pretty much on the sidelines. I can't blame them. Our dedicated military GI Janes & Joes has been working 100% for quite some time trying to deal with the Afganistan and Iraq situations, and they are tired. This country is out of real money, and no end is in sight. Except for those few citizens that have family "over there", we do not have any ongoing sacrifices in support of our soldiers. This long "war" hasn't made a dent in the lives of most of us...and has it made us any safer really? The new generation of radicals that have been spawned as a result of the incursion into Iraq will be with the world for some time. Would there have been such an increase if we'd placed all the efforts on Afganistan and the capture/demise of bin Laden...hard to say. Whatever, today's situations are here and real, and we have to pony up to the fact and deal with it. It is time to raise the size of our military forces to accomodate this new global situation. This may mean bringing back the draft, but one where every girl and boy if breathing will have to spend some time either before college or after college doing something for this country. I don't mean that all would be in the military, but other social services to and for this country. The military would offer the best "after service" rewards for those who chose to stand in-harms-way.
It is also time for the other nations on this planet to ramp up their defensive military organizations to help thwart the not-so-new advisaries of "live and let live". We are not alone as targets.
As to the issue of the Admiral going public with his differences with the administration...in any business you will have staff taking a different approach to a situation. The boss needs to hear these approaches, and ultimately make the final decision based upon all that they hear/read & personally believe. If the staff feels this is not the right approach, they should polish the resume and seek another orgainization to invest their time & energies into. In the military, this is tougher. Reality is if the commander-in-chief says "Jump", you jump. If you not want to jump, you are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Apply for a transfer, or just resign.
In my opinion, it is the Congress that needs to accept responsibility for allowing this situation to go so awry. The person at the top is only the democratically elected president, not some infallible being, or despot.
Oh yes, our sacrifices. Let me clarify that by saying these are yet to come......

To the "war vet with infantry training" --- Exactly, if W really believed that there were WMD and all the other bad things in Iraq, he should followed the Powell Doctrine and gone in with overwhelming force. General Zinni of CENTCOM, who probably knew more about the mid-east than most in the mid-east, wanted 325,000 troops followed up with every MP we could muster and legions utility workers to stand the country back up and immediately make it a much better place to live than it was under Sadam. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld decided to do it on the cheap and they sacked Zinni and found Franks. (I read his book and think he wrote it in crayon.) Franks said he could do it with 125,000. So he junked the plan that CENTCOM had worked on for eleven years and came up with his own. He told Colin Powell, "We don't need all those troops Colin, this is a new Army." (That's a quote from Franks' book.) How arrogant! Just like his boss. You should read the book. Better yet, listen to the audio book, Tommy Franks reads it him self. Tommy Franks et al planned it all the way up to "Mission Accomplished" and that's where their planning ended. Nice going Tommy! And nice going George!

The house of a tyrant is a ruin. بيت الظالم خراب

It sure is nice to hear how well-healed and safe people respond to war politically while it affects the realities of families and individuals. I'm enlisted in the Army working towards my 30th month of deployment since joining in 2001. I think it is sad that people are worried about allegiances to the top while the bottom gets silenced or ground up. Adm. William Fallon is akin to the rest of the military in that we are to remain faceless unless we smile and agree. If we disagree, we must hide it, keep going, or get out. He did what any professional does when he can't stomach the environment and can sustain himself afterwards: resign. My question is what do you do when you are enlisted and can not resign?

First off all, commenting on anything Arkin writes is useless waste of your time. The guy makes up what he wants when he wants. He has been called on it and won't explain any of his comments to any hard news organization. He can only write about it because he is a yellow piece of cow dung.
Then again, the washing post is crap anyway.
Oh yeah, I follow this piece of cow dung to see what miss truths he writes about. Iran is a big problem and all news is starting to point that way. I can't wait for the next attack by a country so that all the liberal sick'os will finally get it. Just like the 700,000 people we killed, just like how we brought down our own buildings on 911. This is the type of man Arkin is.
I'll say a pray for all or you. Remember, "Liberalism is a disease"

Might I also add Fallon "knew" that a troop surge wouldn't work. Good riddance. He did far more damage than good while in office, and his demoralizing tactics worked more to prevent victory than secure it. Lastly he's a quitter in every sense of the word and his resignation proves it. Good riddance.

Isn't it about time this Commander and Chief step aside and allow the military to do what they do best and that is fight with skill. We don't need a big decider and a little decider from which neither have military experience. They are politicians plain and simple. It is pathetic to see this smirking President Bush gloating over his presumption as superior Chief of anything. He would be wise to return to Crawford, TX and start shoveling crap there first. He is definitely someone I have little or no respect for now. I voted for this viper twice to my regret for the rest of my life.

FINE U STUIPD LIBZ

YOULL BE SORRY WHEN IRAN INVADES AND KILLS U CUZ YOU GAY MARRIED AN ILLEGAL ALIEN

Small children, small problems; big children, big problems. Whenever two are fighting - the third wins.

It is probable that micro-management BY the military is more likely than all of ther rest. The Joint Chiefs have pushed field commanders into awkward positions many times before. They tend to "serve the services" when anticipating political change at tne Commander and Cheif level. I submit that brave ADM Fallon fell-not as the old soldier MacArther as your article suggests-but as a mouth piece of the Joint Chiefs and their posturing the services for survival against a potential slasher of troops and budgets at the top.
American warriors have seldom been allowed to wage war in the purist sense of winner take all without since George Washington.

No WMD found, military intelligence says 600,000 documents seized shows there never was an Iraq/AlQueida tie...FOLKS, LETS STOP ALL THE DISCUSSIONS...WE WERE LIED TO, PLAIN AND SIMPLE! Whatever the reason, we were led into a disastrous war with poor planning and poor execution, at the expense of thousands of US lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's lives and TRILLIONS of $$$. That's the truth, no matter how you want to spin it based on your political bent, etc...wake up, put politics aside and use the common sense God gave you to admit the truth....

What is meant by "new era in micromanagement" Don't you remember McNamara who, under Kennedy/Johnson, ran a ridiculous campaign in Viet Nam and senslessly killed over 45,000 young americans.

Our comander in Chief, Senate and congress should decide what war to fight, then turn it over to our Generals and shut up untill it is done.

When it comes to the merits of the arguments -- Petraeus got it right and Fallon was wrong. Admirals are particularly ill-suited to direct ground warfare and the same for generals conducting naval warfare. The important thing is to get the right man for the job. President Lincoln went thru five generals before Grant.

The world is a dangerous place but it doesn't have to be a stupid place, but we have an incompetent, who is "the decider", yes that he is
indeed!

Arkin's article here displays a massive ignorance about the constitutional approach to wartime conflict. For one, Commanders are called commanders because they are the right hand arm of the Commander in Chief. They are not called commanders because they get to decide policy. They are not elected officials and intrinsically do not necessarily represent the will of the people.

That's why the president is called the Commander in Chief. If he consistently doesn't share the vision of his electorate or is sufficiently incompetent then shame on us and he should be removed from office, and we need to either proceed with that process or support his efforts enough to improve his chances of success ... but to suggest that a lower ranking commander's opinion's should take precedence when he is neither elected nor sees the big picture is absurd.

Articles like this prove the ignorance of the MSM and should be an embarrassment to the journalist establishment.

You don't present any evidence whatsoever that the administration is 'micromanaging.' Do you even understand what the concept means?

Your article gets worse from there.

Bravo!

Someone above asserts that the commanders are only suppose to 'carry out' the policies of the Commander in Chief. Thats not correct. By law they (including the Joint Chiefs of Staff) are charged with 'advising' the CinC, especially as to their capabilities, or NOT, to carry out a policy requiring military force. Adm Fallon knew WE DO NOT HAVE THE SUSTAINED MILITARY STRENGTH NOW TO ALSO GO TO WAR WITH IRAN. And further, that the commitment of so much of our strength in both Iraq and Afghanistan is committed - even OVER committed - that we cannot meet (or properly deter) ANY other conflict that may boil up in other parts of the world. Taiwan, Kosovo, Pakistan, Korea. We are tapped out with our VOLUNTEER ONLY forces.

And he also, wisely as a military strategist, asks, which Gen Franks did NOT even when Gen Shinseki did, WHAT do we do AFTER the initial assault on Iran? Occupy the nation? And with what forces?

Professional soldiers are not just there to blindly follow orders already made, but to give the best military advice possible. And if overruled (which Rumsfeld did over his commanders) to either just 'try' or resign. Which Fallon did.

There is a quick fix to both our problems with Iraq and the economy...

Whoever the next President is should institute an "Iraq War Tax" forcing every individual (corporations included) to pay for the trillions of dollars this war has already cost us, and any future cost we may incur with our unlawful occupation of that country.

Something tells me the irrational hard-line right wingers (you know who you are) would suddenly be very receptive to a timetable for withdrawl.

Since it was the Bush administration who afforded Fallon his position, "making a fetish of according the brass some superior understanding of the nation's needs," is something this administration has done consistently, walking around their commanders as if on eggs, I can recall no other administration fearing retribution from so many critics from [their] military brass. And as no other administration in recent history has received as much vitriol from the general public, it is amusing to watch them twitch in their britches. No Bush won't invade Iran, because he knows he will receive zero support from either his commanders, or the public. Cowards rarely pick fights they know they will lose.

The 'micromanaged military' is the biggest myth the military ever invented to cover up their own incompetence in Vietnam and Iraq.

The fact is they are all clueless because they're doing a job that they were never designed to do. Preventing coups and fighting insurgencies has always been the domain of the CIA, not the military. Of course the military always manages to get involved where they shouldn't because A) the President controls them directly and B) they're a huge bureaucracy with lots of power.

The military should have begun pulling out immediately after the conventional war ended and started turning over counter-insurgency and stabilization operations to the CIA. Then we would probably not be in this mess today...

Respectful question: What occurs in the U.S. Executive Branch if, after the November elections for President and VP (which obviously cannot be Bush/Cheney), the newly chosen President & VP elect are indisposed to continue?

In that unlikely but nonetheless horrible event, do Bush and Cheney continue in their current roles past January 20, 2009? If so, for how long? If not, why and who would take their places given the newly elected pair cannot?

Thanks.

The people that need to resign are GWB & Dick-head as they are the war mongering republician pieces of crap that are ruining this great country!

I am so ashamed to be an American right now it's not even funny!

To Tom Collins:

Which Quran are you reading? Please, if you are going to cite things (i.e. historians, the Quran, accepted historical military tradition, etc) then CITE THEM. You may have experience on the battlefield (may), but you obviously have no experience in the fields of reason or research.

Also, given the general leadership of the most experienced military commanders in Iraq, as well as the processes by which the Commander in Chief of the military makes decisions, and given that the command structure is all important in the U.S. military, then it must be deduced that your statements are false, as they fall in line with the same ideals that have so neatly trapped us in Iraq.

What can be said about the competency of the current administration that hasn't already been said? What I find unfathomable is that the American people, with the possible exception of those whose sons and daughters are dying or being maimed seem to be indifferent to the political farce that is being played out. Is it the apparent but probably coincidental "success" with the "war on terror" that has allowed them to ignore the real events that are occurring every day.
Peace in the middle east can only be achieved through political means. It is possible for America to bomb its "enemies back into the stone age -- a short trip for many but that will not solve the real problems.
The sacrifice of Admiral Fallon on the alter of expediency just illustrates the continuing slow but steady erosion of any competency the Bush administration may have had. One can only hope the next administration will not be crippled with the Baby Huey mentality of the present one.

I agree with your articles premise. This poorly run administration, should at least be wise enough to allow the generals to make the call. Only they have the knowledge and experience to make this so called "war on terror" work. Its just like the "war on drugs", same hoopla and feldercarp about something, to distract the People from the real issues. Going into Iran is a mistake and as unecessary as going into Iraq was. Afganistan was the target and should have been the only target (Osmamo Bin Laden & the Taliban idiots). Then we should finish this job and get out. I too agree that we will have permanent bases in this region, like Germany and Japan.

I don't know how many more soldiers must be killed and injured so the American politicians finally see no end in going further with this war and potentially another war in Iran. If Russian and China who are neighbors of Iran are not worried about their nuclear capabilities I don't get what is going into Bush's mind and why he brain wash our minds by provoking another war.
I will say more soldiers killed fast we will withdraw from this mess.
I feel sorry for Iraqis.

So, are you Liberal/Leftists planning to run the Military by popularity of Blog postings to back stabbing articles in Esquire?

Officers in the Military give up their rights to backstab, even if what they say may be vadid. The way they are supposed to do it is by quitting and becoming offical quislings like Wesley Ashley Wilkes Clark. The Commander may just be anglng for a job as a democrat.

Of course, you lefties may have trouble raising a military force under your planned Socialist-Commie loving new leaders. Those nice Southern Boys might stop enlisting, and your iPod totting kiddies might have to cut their hair and go serve the Country!

One of my strongest problems with this whole "war" situation is a very, very simple one; namely, that Congress never declared war on any of these countries. Call me a believer in the Constition if you want, but under the United States Constitution, war powers are divided and not equal. Only Congress has the power to declare war and raise and support the armed forces (Article I, Section 8), and not the President. The President can send troops into war abroad only by authorization of Congress or if American troops are already under attack or serious threat. Iran is not doing any such thing, and neither was Iraq.

Tom Colton: tell it like it is, brother. We are all WAY too fat and happy and willing to believe that the Religion of Peace is just like buddhism or christianity, even while they murder and massacre innocent civilians right next to us. Just take a look at all of the hot spots around the world today - they are ALL muslim-instigated. And these fearless warriors WILL NOT STOP until they have brought their beliefs to all of us with bomb and bullet.

Respectful question: What occurs in the U.S. Executive Branch if, after the November elections for President and VP (which obviously cannot be Bush/Cheney), the newly chosen President & VP elect are indisposed to continue?

In that unlikely but nonetheless horrible event, do Bush and Cheney continue in their current roles past January 20, 2009? If so, for how long? If not, why and who would take their places given the newly elected pair cannot?

Thanks.

The Bush quote"We let the generals make the decisions not the politicians regarding war strategy"

as I go to the pump & pay more for gas then ever before its just a reminder of the most bungled american foreign policy ever.W cannot even occupy a country & pillage their resources.

More insanity in the reply to Arkin's article. Now the right-wing nuts expose themselves for who they are really are: people who are WISHING for the death of thousands of Americans in a new 9/11 style attack just to prove the themeselves right. You nuts just don't get it do you? You can't simultaneously accuse "liberals" (read: anyone you disagree with) with leaving America open to attack, thus making them America haters but then proclaim you HOPE for an attack just prove how liberals have messed everything up! Wishing for the death of Americans strikes me as the most insane thing I can imagine and the most anti-American thing I can imagine. You right wing wackos (distinct from regular conservatives) are clearly insane, evil, or Stalinist. Maybe all three. You want pro-Americans visions (your version) to win at all costs and you don't care how people die to prove you right. Heck, you're the kind of people who would blow up a federal building in order to save America, aren't you? Or who might try to
fake an AQ attack just to "wake America up." You're despicable. Get out of this country. Get a time machine and move back to 1940 Germany.

W = Worst president ever.

Maybe commanders should keep their opinions to themselves, but the problem with Bush is that he wants it both ways. He's more than willing to use his commanders as PR tools when their opinions can be spun to support administration policy, but anyone else had better shut up. If his commanders are to keep their opinions to themselves then that should go for all of them.

As a war vet with infantry training I find
it absurd that so many wussy civilians in
both parties think they know how to manage
an armed conflict. The very idea of posting
a public notice of your future pull out date is sure to promote a bloodbath during
withdrawal. You mouthy dimwits are getting
people killed because of your lack of
cajones and your conceited notions of being
well informed. The great historian Arnold
Toynbee remarked shortly before his death
that a lifetime of study in the rise and
fall of great civilizations had taught him
that more frequently than we might like to
accept, entire societies can be out of touch with reality. You guys are a textbook
case in point. None of you understand the
mind of a desert warrior of Islam. Your
stupid remarks about whether to fight Iran
or not clearly demonstrate your ignorance
of the global struggle against this current
wave of Islamic expansion ( there have been
several in the past 1300 years ). You don't
have a clue as to what the consequences of
backing down to the nomadic warrior mentality means to the much foreshortened
future of Western Civilization. Muslims
despise enemies who parley and negotiate.
They believe Allah lets them lie to such
weaklings and then slaughter them later
at their convenient leisure. There is no
dishonor in killing your enemy in his tent
after making peace with him according to
Quran. You're like the last of the Romans:
weak, stupid, full of yourselves, opinionated and craven. When you engage a
muslim in a fight, you either kill him or
die-there is no time-out or peace.

Bush may be a war-monger and a congenital liar with a penchant for superlatives, exaggeration and drama, but the American people allow him to dictate his own terms as to their future. As for Cheney, the least said the better for it is obvious he is a war profiteer of unmatched greed. Complaining about Bush serves no practical purposes. The likes of him and Cheney should have been stopped years ago rather than allowing their greed and incompetence to go on and on like a malignant tumor. America under Bush/Cheney has the values and morals of a third-rate country . It is no longer a nation of laws but a nation of men corrupted by power and beholden to large energy corporations and their greed. It is such a tragedy that so many have died not knowing that they died for nothing while the cowards live and fool others another day.

If only Karl Rove hadn't come up with that story that John McCain had a black child on the Friday before the Tuesday 2000 primary in South Carolina. John McCain does have and adopted child of color but that's not what the preachers put out on that fateful Sunday. Oh, what a different world we would live in. It would sure have been nice to have a guy with brain in the White House on 9/11. Those seven minutes after W found out were... I can't find the word.

Guess what? The CIA funded Al Qaeda. Bush needs war to make more profit. Something that these military goons won't tell you is that they are supposed to DISOBEY an order that they believe is illegal. If he explains himself it will be to embarass the administration, hence, early retirement for Fallon.

We must expect no less from a "commander-in-chief" who obviously used military service as a stepping stone to become president some day not as dedicated service to his Country. You cannot expect someone who has such lack of respect for the services that guard our nation to respect their opinions and experience. What started as a noble cause has become another political chess game. God Bless our Troops.

I think we have some media spin here, because it doesn't make sense that he'd retire because of a difference in opinion with the current administraion. There's an election just down the road.

"Might I also add Fallon "knew" that a troop surge wouldn't work."

The troop surge didn't work. What is "working" - tenuously - is that we have bribed 100,000 former insurgent Sunnis into a makeshift police force and at the same time the Mahdi Army is engaging in a truce. Either or both of those forces could turn on us or each other at any time. There is no love for us on either side.

There is some measure of peace in some parts of Iraq, especially Baghdad. In other parts of the nation, not so much. It's very brittle and could change with the slightest provocation - say, for example, the US "getting tough" with Iran, infuriating the pro-Iranian Shiites who are the dominant political force in the nation now (thanks to our invasion).

And of course political progress - the rationale for the surge - is entirely nonexistent.

And guess what? 2007 cost twice as much as 2006, and the surge is largely responsible.

Instead of securing our ports and cities, revamping our transportation system (heads should have rolled at the FAA and USAF over 9/11), invading Afghanistan with a proper force and capturing and prosecuting Bin Laden, we chose to invade a nation that was no threat to anyone (as Colin Powell famously stated in the summer of 2001). Continuing to defend this idiotic war is... an idiot's game.

The facts are: 1.Iraq never attacked us. 2. Al Qaida was not in Iraq before we invaded.

The Iraq fiasco is a redux of the Panamanian invasion of '89 by G.H.W. Bush. Go to your local library and check out the Academy Award winning documentary "The Panama Deception". It's all there, from the U.S. press being played like suckers to the mass graves that the American forces filled with Panamanians. GHW Bush needed to lose his "Wimp factor" and Panama became his whipping boy in order to arrest one man. Manuel Noriega. All the same bad actors are there, Dick Cheney, CIA, the DEA, and of course some variation of all things Wimp, a Bush!

In a broader context, this is something to take note of...but unfortunately not surprising. The naming of the Iranian Rep. Guard as "terrorist" last year set the pretext to expand the War on Terror. Geographically, it's the next domino between Iraq and Afghanistan in the most strategically important part of the world.

I think people see failure in Iraq, when if nothing else, the US I believe sought to destroy the Saddam-era Iraqi state, leaving it even more powerless to the occupying US forces. So in that sense, there is no failure in a Iraq...delays maybe, but their ultimate goal of creating a permanent US military base in the heart of the world energy production has been successful. Even after "withdrawal" of troops, those bases aren't going anywhere.

Empires crumble from within...read your history books Americans, your empire is no different.

I love hearing the wackos come out: terms like MSM, calling the writer a socialist and a schill for Pravda. Even these crazy accusations are about 20 years out of date! Wake up crazy right wing commentators: no one listens to you because you are crazy. Fallon, by the way, is a more loyal American than most of you crazy conspiracy nuts. Some people think Fallon's wrong and his dismissal is correct. That's fine. But it's legitimate, unless you're a fascist or Stalinist, to criticize his dismissal. Criticism doesn't make you a communist or a defeatist or anything else. What you crazy right-wingers want is a dictatorship-of-you, where only your views are acceptable, where Pro-American is whatever you decide and everything else is socialist, communist, pinko, a product of the disloyal MSM, etc., and where those who fall outside your insane, twisted version of American should never be allowed to talk.

The Iraq fiasco is a redux of the Panamanian invasion of '89 by G.H.W. Bush. Go to your local library and check out the Academy Award winning documentary "The Panama Deception". It's all there, from the U.S. press being played like suckers to the mass graves that the American forces filled with Panamanians. GHW Bush needed to lose his "Wimp factor" and Panama became his whipping boy in order to arrest one man. Manuel Noriega. All the same bad actors are there, Dick Cheney, CIA, the DEA, and of course some variation of all things Wimp, a Bush!

Admiral Fallon didn't understand the art of politiks or negoiation.

He layed out the US cards on the table for all to see.
What was he thinking?
Did he think it would help US out?

Admiral Fallon weaken the US diplomatic hand
by laying all our cards on the table.
It was like he was from amateur town
at the Vegas strip getting rolled over by some profressionals.

I was completely amazed
he couldn't see or undertand
the art of the deal.

Do we have to spell it out for you,
the psychology behind the art form
or can we find someone who's a little quicker on the uptake?

I would have fired him 6 months ago.

"yet we continue to make a fetish of according the brass some superior understanding of the nation's needs"

Well, since these ARE in fact military matters I think it would be wise to consider what the military has to say. Had we done that we would not be in the losing Iraq mess we are in now. Instead the Bush Administration listened to clueless people like William Kristol, whose bloodlust seems to be in inverse proportion to his logistical and geopolitical expertise.

Admiral Fallon didn't understand the art of politiks or negoiation.

He layed out the US cards on the table for all to see.
What was he thinking?
Did he think it would help US out?

Admiral Fallon weaken the US diplomatic hand
by laying all our cards on the table.
It was like he was from amateur town
at the Vegas strip getting rolled over by some profressionals.

I was completely amazed
he couldn't see or undertand
the art of the deal.

Do we have to spell it out for you,
the psychology behind the art form
or can we find someone who's a little quicker on the uptake?

I would have fired him 6 months ago.

The Bush administration can't solve THEIR problems because they aren't listening to their commanders. The first ones they should have listened to were Powell and Zinni. I'm convinced we wouldn't be in this mess if they had AND Hillary or Obama wouldn't be poised to win in November with a 60 Democratic senator coat-tail effect. Nice going W!

It is interesting that we invaded Iraq, conquered the country and some people claim that we are fighting Islamic expansion. That's funny. We went there and conquered them. Remember that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

So how is this Islamic expansion Tom Colton? Or do you just hate Muslims and will use any excuse possible to satisfy your blood lust?

Please do the world a favor and go hunting with Cheney.

Looks as if the writer has hit it on the head.

Everyone forgets the under the US military system the civilian authorities are in charge of policies and the military commanders are supposed to carry it out. They are not supposed to comment or disobey orders and certainly not subvert those policies. Many other commanders in american history have been relieved for less than he has done.

"If Russian and China who are neighbors of Iran are not worried about their nuclear capabilities"

Are you nuts? Who do you think is helping Iran?

For all of their overcompensating and not letting the military conduct the military, Bush and his entire gang must maintain the smallest penis' on the planet.

The Bush administration has NOT solved any of their problems. If we march foolishly into WWIII at a time when our dollar has sunk to all time lows, when the administration has squandered the surplus it found upon it's entrance, when our troops are serving the longest deployments ever....

Why should you complain about George Bush, you are the same as him you micromanage the news, with your point of view, American news shuold have both sides, which Bush does and you do not.

Well, the war in Iraq is not being lost by any means. At least, now it's going pretty well. An unjust war maybe, but we are doing a good job and troop reductions are already in the works under Petraeus' watchful and experienced eye. I do not see a war with Iran in the future, even with this guy leaving.

i think someone wanted the man out, that is why he was offered the job of commanding ground forces when he was a navy commander. this has nothing to do with iraq or the region. someone wanted him out!!!

interesting that you suggest challenge as though it might be something out of the ordinary when considering the offerings of a reporter. Hardly.

I often wonder if you are not a local branch of Pravda.

Doesn't anyone remember General MacArthur's fate when he objected to the goals and guidelines set by President Truman? The only difference here is that it gives the Bush-haters yet another excuse to make stupid remarks. The fact that they agree with Admiral Fallon doesn't make him right. And to call it micromanagement is completely asinine.

My goodness...what a display of liberal illogic and ignorance!! Let's be clear: our constitution established a military run by civilians, who by definition are all politicians! Adm. Fallon, whatever the true reasons, did the honorable thing. For those who think we've entered a "new era" of micromanagement, get a grip...wars are more often micromanaged by our civilian leadership than not (witness Johnson selecting bombing targets, Lincoln's visits to the battlefield, etc). Like it or not, it's the system we have (and if you don't, feel free to join Streisand and Baldwin in France). Oh, excuse me, they didn't leave the country after all??? Imagine that--a Democrat not keeping their word!! The next thing you know, we'll have Spitzer the Brave getting caught in some kind of scandal!

THE ADMIRAL IS RIGHT, BUSH AND CHENEY ARE WRONG, WHAT ELSE IS NEW.

Mark W you said the president answeres to WE THE PEOPLE... thats a joke he only answeres to himself. over 60% of the people in this country want out of iraq and are aganst this war. but you still see him firing his generals who he cant get to cover up his mess for him. Its a joke to say we the people are over him. Its his way or the highway and this is going to end in november when we fianly elect someone who is going to end his war. If WE THE PEOPLE WAS in control of the president he would have been impeached 3 years ago. And i am a republician by the way. But not anymore.

An interesting take on this that seems to get lost is that maybe "winning" in Iraq has never been the point.

As the only true world power it is in our interest (selfishly albeit) that we remove potential threats to our way of life. Terrorism is not an actual threat to our way of life. It is inconvenient and horrible, but terrorists are not actually going to bring down the US or fundamentally lower our standard of living.

What would do a considerable amount of damage to us is a unified Islamic nation or people. This would represent a significant portion of the world population and if a unified Islamic world presented itself we would not be able to maintain our position as the only world power.

What if our intention in Iraq and the Middle East was simply to de-stabilize the region to cause conflict and strife between the different sects of Islam and prevent anyone from truly allying themselves in the Middle East.

In this sense, no matter what happens or how awful our strategy is, we are still accomplishing our goals. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, the costs are low (only 10,000 dead of a total population of 300,000,000) and only represent 0.0000333 percent of our population.

I know this is a selfish view of the world, but I also recognize that I care far more about my way of life and the way of life of my children than I do about others. I am not willing to give up the hegemonic status that the US has just because someone else cries foul because they are unwilling to change their own views to work within the current world socio-economic system.

They have every right to try and change the system and we have every right to try and keep it the way it is. That is what it means when you are the biggest kid in the sandbox.

This is such a sad commentary on our country. People with any degree of sanity are dropping like flies. We have already bankrupt our nation with Iraq and Afghanistan. How can we afford to fight anything? We cannot afford to fix our own problems at home. I shudder to consider the plight of my grandchildren in the country in which they will be living. Power has corrupted...and will destroy us.

What if General Fallons' resignation signals actual intent to invade Iran?

What are you, personally, prepared to do about it? Will you stand up, or cower?

The myth of leadership is that leaders do what the followers can't, or are too afraid to do. The reality is that leaders only go where their "followers" already are.

I op