Iran and the US: Where Adm. Fallon Went Wrong
Admiral Fallon, the top US commander in the Middle East resigned.
It’s good that he resigned and what he said could only hurt US national interests and the cause of peace.
His statements that challenged the President are improper. He is a soldier and soldiers follow orders. In a democracy the civilian officials make foreign policy decisions and war decisions. Not the men in uniform no matter how high ranking they are.
Esquire writing that he is “brazenly challenging his commander in chief” regarding a possible war with Iran is just plain constitutionally wrong. Again because he is a soldier and Mr. Bush is his commander in chief and soldiers do not brazenly challenge” their commander in chief- not publicly, at least
Gen. Fallon does not want the US involved in more wars. This is a good mindset for soldiers. But Iran is an aspiring regional power that stands accused of supporting the enemies of the US- financially and otherwise. Mixed messages can only embolden this adversary. Adm. Fallon stating that war with Iran is “strategically unsound” and his playing down the possibility of an American strike on Iran and characterizing a possible attack as “a mistake” can only embolden the Iranians to take more risk in dealing with the US. This emboldening makes armed conflict much more probable, if not necessary.
An Iran that is not afraid of a possible American attack is an Iran that makes an attack inevitable.
President Bush handled the situation with dignity in thanking Adm. Fallon for serving his country “with honor, determination and commitment.”
It’s good that he resigned and what he said could only hurt US national interests and the cause of peace.
His statements that challenged the President are improper. He is a soldier and soldiers follow orders. In a democracy the civilian officials make foreign policy decisions and war decisions. Not the men in uniform no matter how high ranking they are.
Esquire writing that he is “brazenly challenging his commander in chief” regarding a possible war with Iran is just plain constitutionally wrong. Again because he is a soldier and Mr. Bush is his commander in chief and soldiers do not brazenly challenge” their commander in chief- not publicly, at least
Gen. Fallon does not want the US involved in more wars. This is a good mindset for soldiers. But Iran is an aspiring regional power that stands accused of supporting the enemies of the US- financially and otherwise. Mixed messages can only embolden this adversary. Adm. Fallon stating that war with Iran is “strategically unsound” and his playing down the possibility of an American strike on Iran and characterizing a possible attack as “a mistake” can only embolden the Iranians to take more risk in dealing with the US. This emboldening makes armed conflict much more probable, if not necessary.
An Iran that is not afraid of a possible American attack is an Iran that makes an attack inevitable.
President Bush handled the situation with dignity in thanking Adm. Fallon for serving his country “with honor, determination and commitment.”
Comments