THE RIGHT THING TO DO

March 17, 2008 

Admiral William Fallon’s resignation last week as commander of US Central Command immediately drew comparisons to US Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki’s early retirement in 2003.  Shinseki stepped down early after Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld named the General's successor following Shinseki’s testimony to Congress that it would take in excess of 400,000 troops to stabilize Iraq.  Many in the media and Democrats in Congress again are portraying the Bush Administration as intolerant of its senior military leaders’ dissenting opinions.  The March 11, 2008, Esquire Magazine article on Admiral Fallon, declaring him the man that stood between Bush and war with Iran, was all the evidence they needed.

The Fallon story has been temporarily overshadowed by revelations of now former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer’s serial dalliances with prostitutes and the videos of anti-American sermons by Barack Obama’s pastor.  You can be sure it will resurface when the Democratic Congress invites Admiral Fallon to testify about the reasons for his departure.  In the current politically-charged atmosphere, however, I doubt the controversy will have subsided or that Americans will be any better informed.

To its credit, the editorial staff of the Washington Post swam against the tide when it concluded that Esquire’s assertion that Fallon was the main obstacle to a decision by the Bush Administration to go to war with Iran was “ludicrous on more than one count.”  As they pointed out, “. . . there is very little impetus among senior Bush administration officials for an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities in the next 10 months.  More to the point, it's more likely that Adm. Fallon increased rather than lessened the small chance of war by stating publicly during his travels in the region that there would be no U.S. attack.”

They also pointed out that the December National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that judged Iran had stopped work on its nuclear weapons program in 2003 undermined international support the US would need to impose strict sanctions on Iran.  Nevertheless, it concluded, "Certainly, a new US military chief in the Middle East should be prepared to take military action against Iran and should avoid ostentatious posturing to the contrary."

Senior general and flag officers, especially geographic combatant commanders like Admiral Fallon, have every right to express their dissenting opinions to their bosses--in this case the Secretary of Defense and the President of the United States.  Indeed they have an obligation to do so.  But like all military officers who find themselves in serious disagreement with their commander they have two choices.  They can salute smartly and do what their commander wants them to do, or they can resign.  If they want to take their differences into the public arena, they can do that after the leave the service.  Currently there is no shortage of retired general and flag officers who are critical of President Bush.

Secretary Gates in his statement announcing Admiral Fallon’s decision to retire is informative.  “Admiral Fallon reached this difficult decision entirely on his own.  I believe it was the right thing to do even though I do not believe there are, in fact, significant differences between his views and administration policy.”  He didn’t say there were no differences.

Giving Admiral Fallon the benefit of the doubt, I’m not sure he fully appreciated in advance how Thomas Barnett would portray him in the Esquire article, or the impact it would have.  Like many generals and admirals before him, he exposed himself a little too much to the press.  Once the article appeared in print, the Admiral had gone a bridge too far.  He clearly understood he had an obligation to resign.

You can certainly make the argument that uniformed military officers in high positions in this democracy have a moral obligation to the American people to speak out when they believe their civilian leadership is not acting in the best interest of the American people.  They certainly do, but to do that they must step down.  The President of the United States, as Commander-in- Chief, cannot command and direct the United States Armed Forces effectively if he has to compete with his generals in public.  No general or flag officer should put him in that position.  General MacArthur did, and President Truman was obliged to fire him.

This doesn’t mean that a senior general or flag officer can’t or shouldn’t express his honest opinion to a congressional committee, as General Shinseki did.  He was asked a straight-forward question and he gave an honest answer.  You can’t fault him for that.  But when you take your differences to foreign leaders or the press, you are out of line.  It’s not the mission of the geographic combatant commanders to oppose the President when they believe he is wrong.  That’s the job of the Congress and the press, and they do a pretty good job of it.

I have to admit that from a personal perspective I’m not sure that Fallon was the best qualified person to oversee two land wars in the Middle East.  But I'm a retired US Army officer, and I'm biased.  Secretary Gates, I'm sure, had a good reason for nominating him to the Central Command job, despite the Admiral’s reputation for outspokenness and some of his missteps as Commander Pacific Command.  Bush and Gates certainly should have known what they were getting when they transferred him.

In any event, we don’t know if someone told Fallon he needed to retire or if the Admiral reached this conclusion completely on his own.  Secretary Gates said it was Fallon's own decision, and we have no reason to doubt him.  Whichever the case, stepping down was the right thing to do.  Admiral Fallon did the honorable thing, and we should recognize him for doing so and for his forty plus years of honorable service to his country.  But the President needs military commanders that will support and execute his strategy.  Changing, continuing, or modifying this President's strategy in the Middle East is what this elections is largely about

It will be interesting to hear what Admiral Fallon says when he appears before Congress.  And it will be interesting to see which presidential candidate he endorses, if any.