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.”

Comments

James said…
I enjoyed reading some of your blog, its nice to have some insight into the middle eastern world. However, I must point out America is a Republic, in which we elect representatives to make the decisions. Civilians have no say in any act of government, they can only elect some one who they believe will do what they want.
March 12, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is Mahr Enforceable in a Court of Law?

-
Image
Love Struck When I was in law school in Toledo, one of my classmates told me that when he married his Palestinian wife, on the wedding eve, the father of the bride made him sign a paper saying that he owes his wife $100,000 in the event of a divorce. The love struck young man was reluctant to sign it but could not protest given that that would have caused a lot of problems (a possible bridezilla outbreak?). He told me that now he knows that that paper has no value as a contract since if it did meet all the requirements of a valid contract as set by Ohio law and was executed under duress. It does not have to be this way. What is Mahr? It’s easy to say what it is not- It is not dower, not dowry and not bride price. Mahr is frequently misunderstood as dowry. It is not. It is not a bride’s price, and not dower. Dowry is assets (goods, money and real estate) that a wife brings to her new husband- it’s a common practice in India. It becomes the husband’s property. Bride pric
Read more

Response to Amer Zahr’s Sexual Harassment Column

-
Image
Rana Abbas, former ACRL executive director Amer Zahr, Rana Abbas's BFF Response to Amer Zahr’s Sexual Harassment Column The Imad Hamad saga has attracted a motley crew of individuals who joined in for two reasons: 1. To say, without any legal basis for personal knowledge, that the allegations are “true” for a variety of reasons.  2. To say that we basically need no investigation and that Imad should be fired because these two women have made these allegations. Allegation is the key word. Let’s look at the bright side of this sordid affair. Who knew that everyone in our community is a solid supporter of women’s rights? This is great! It really is. However, by God, people will prove it by piling on Imad Hamad before receiving all the facts. Let me make one thing clear. I am not stating these women were not harassed; nor am I stating they were. No one, other than Imad and the women, was in the room when the alleged harassment occurred.  No third party could
Read more

In Defense of the Dream During the Night of the Long Zionist Nightmare:

-
Image
    “When you were still swinging from trees, we had a state here.”   Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennet, speaking to an Arab member of Knesset.     Zionism is Jewish nationalism. Whether the Jews are a people or not, a nation or not, is for the Jews themselves to decide. For Arabs and Muslims, the issue of Zionism is not a theoretical issue. It is how the Zionist project has been carried out in Palestine. It is a settler colonial project that has been inflicting catastrophes on the indigenous people of Palestine. The indigenous people of Palestine include Muslims, Christians and Jews. The Zionist violence in the West Bank and Gaza is the most recent chapter in the settler colonial  book of horrors.    Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib got in trouble with some in the Jewish community for using the common, perfectly moral and just slogan "From the River to the Sea Palestine will be Free." This slogan captures a vision for Mandate Palestine and is a common slogan among the
Read more