Casualty of Disagreement?
It was announced today that Admiral Fallon, the commander of all U.S. Forces in Central Command, who is top commander overseeing all operations and forces within the Middle East including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, retired prematurely today after only approximately a year in his post. This is event is curious at best given the current situation facing America in this region. The official story is that a recent article written in Esquire magazine concerning apparent disagreements between President Bush and Admiral Fallon concerning ongoing operations in the region, notably the stance to take toward Iran, had caused him to be ineffective in his position due to the distraction it has caused. BULLSHIT. Anyone that can read through the lines concerning politics knows there is more to this story. Then, the begging question remains: What is the real reason behind his departure? Some sources outside of the mainstream have claimed that his departure is due to his apparent disagreement with the president regarding a possible military strike on Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The issue is not whether or not the president and the top US military commander in the region disagreed on what action, if any, to take toward Iran. The real question is why the president would fire someone with knowledge and expertise in this area given the situation that America currently faces in the Middle East. This appears to be another link in the chain of a series of purgings at the highest levels of anyone not willing to get behind the administration 100% on all its goals. The goal of the military and its officers is not to bow to political pressure and opinion. Instead, they are to be neutral and to provide the political officials elected over them with the best information, analyses, and recommendations so that those elected officials can make informed decisions that best serve the interests of the country. When a president decides to purge the military of officers who fit this description in exchange for those that will get behind administration policies without question, the overall natural security of the country and the neutrality of the military is severely threatened. To avoid group-think, there must be individuals who question, officers who provide recommendations regardless of political preference. It appears long gone are the days of presidents choosing advisers from various backgrounds and perspectives in the hopes of debate that will produce the best overall result for the country. When everyone agrees, group-think has succeeded. When dissent is snifled, the resulting debate is lessened, and hence, the outcome will suffer. Great leaders foster debate within their circles to allow the best solutions to arise. Presidents allowing individuals who disagree with them to serve under them and to affect their decision-making abilities is not unheard of in history. President Lincoln was reknown for his willingness to work with those he disagreed with. He even appointed some of those he disagreed with most to top positions in his administration in hopes of bringing about thoughtful debate that would bring about the best recommendations. President Kennedy also fostered intense debates within his administration. On numerous occasions, he purposefully left debates so not to influence the parties involved in hopes of allowing his subordinates to argue fully for what they believed was the best course of action. Any president that denies debate within his circle and is not capable of taking advice and recommendations from those that disagree with him, while balancing that advice with those that do agree with him, will ultimately hurt his presidency, and more importantly, the country as a whole. Outside perspectives must be acknowledged and incorporated into decision-making, because without it, the process of coming to well-thought-out conclusions is greatly hindered. The president is the ultimate authority and holds the final say in what course the country will take, but it is the process through which he comes to those courses of action that are important. With hindsight in full view, it is apparent that this is not the first time that this president has purged his circle of those that do not fully agree with him (Colin Powell, General Shinseki, etc). The military should not be a tool to advance policies of a political party or a certain perspective, but to advance the interests of the country as a whole. Many of the problems that we are facing in the Middle East today, including the conduct of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, were foreseen and highlighted to the president by numerous military officers. Many of them had their commands and careers terminated, only to be replaced with those that had a more favorable view toward the president’s policies and goals. What are the consequences of such actions? Future officers may not feel free to express dissent (in safe arenas) and to propose alternative courses of action that in the end may be the better course of action. I hope that this is not the case. The military is not a mute organization that should blindly follow the political leaders. Instead, they should fully express their opinions and recommendations to those leaders in appropriate arenas (out of public eye). In the end though, when full discussion has taken place, the military is charged with executing the orders of the political leaders elected over them according to the Constitution, whether they agree or disagree with them. The military will follow the orders of those appointed over them but no where in the Constitution does it say that those elected leaders do not have to listen to those who will execute those missions. Do we really want our military actions and decisions made by civilians without the input of the best in the military? I think not. These people bring great insight and expertise to these situations because conducting war is their job and what they have been training to do their whole lives! This is equivalent to not listening to the doctor on how to treat an illness but instead surrounding yourselves with those that agree with you that the prognosis isn’t as bad as the data shows!
Our country cannot afford an intellectually-emaciated officer corps who is unwilling to let their voices heard in their area of expertise!
I leave you with this: “Any nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its fighting done by fools and its thinking done by cowards.”
RIP Admiral Fallon - a casualty of dissent.
