Pentagon Rules Out Fallon Testimony

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,164526,00.html

quote:

"In declaring that Fallon would not join Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker as witnesses before Congress next month, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said the decision had nothing to do with Fallon's views on Iran or the reasons for his unexpected resignation and retirement. "I know there have been requests, in fact, from members of Congress to have Adm. Fallon testify with Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, and I can tell you that Adm. Fallon will not be testifying" with them, Morrell told a Pentagon news conference.

Right, unless Congress sends him a subpoena to appear, that is. I wonder what he could say that makes them so fearful of his words... ?

I think that Congress should subpoena Admiral Fallon; and I think that they will. But Congress should do so AFTER he retires. On active duty, I believe that the Pentagon and Bush Administration are within their rights to keep him from testifying at the same time and place as Petraeus. That doesn't mean that he couldn't testify before he retires; but I think that he will feel more free to comment afterwards.

On March 19th Senator Webb issued a statement on the fifth anniversary of the war in which he specifically stated that he looked forward to an opportunity to hear the testimony of Admiral Fallon. This is another delaying tactic from the Administration, which only wants cheerleaders testifying and not people with opposing viewpoints. Well, they can delay it for a short time, but no doubt Fallon's going to be subpoenaed to appear before the Senate Armed Services committee and a few other people on Capitol Hill. Nice to see a retiree with such an active schedule.

quote:

Originally posted by MarineAuntie:
On March 19th Senator Webb issued a statement on the fifth anniversary of the war in which he specifically stated that he looked forward to an opportunity to hear the testimony of Admiral Fallon. This is another delaying tactic from the Administration, which only wants cheerleaders testifying and not people with opposing viewpoints. Well, they can delay it for a short time, but no doubt Fallon's going to be subpoenaed to appear before the Senate Armed Services committee and a few other people on Capitol Hill. Nice to see a retiree with such an active schedule.

A fine post.

Silencing Adm. Fallon puts feel-good politics ahead of war-winning ... yet again.

Someone needs to CONVINCE Admiral Fallon; he's supposed to be "opposed" to the Administration's policies.

Apparently; he's part of that 10 percent that "never gets the word!"

"In one of his last public appearances in military uniform, Fallon spoke at the Navy League’s Sea, Air, Space Expo on the fifth anniversary of U.S. operations in Iraq.

The commander’s remarks came a week after he submitted his resignation amid news reports suggesting he had fundamental disagreements with the White House on key elements of U.S. foreign policy in the Central Command region.

“Although I don't believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command area of responsibility, the simple perception that there is makes it difficult for me to effectively serve America's interests there,” Fallon said in a statement released by Central Command March 11.

Revisiting the issue last night -- which he dubbed “the elephant in the room” -- Fallon dismissed as “pure bunk” the speculation over a reported disconnect between his own views and those of the Bush administration.

“The sad part is that this kind of inside-the-beltway drama is really obscuring what’s really important to me, and that is the effort of our men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa and these other troubled places in the Middle East and Southwest Asia,” he told the 1,250-member audience. "

See:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=49330


From A Proud Vietnam Veteran

quote:

“The sad part is that this kind of inside-the-beltway drama is really obscuring what’s really important to me, and that is the effort of our men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa and these other troubled places in the Middle East and Southwest Asia,” he told the 1,250-member audience. "

Interesting that he did NOT specifically say Iraq.

Isn't it, LES?

If I let a fool drag me into an argument, I've have already lost! So, I'll just point out the truth; and, not further reply to you on this.

Most people know Iraq is in Central Command's Area of Responsibility! Obviously, some people "guess about everything!"

And; BTW, You are what you think I am.



“Although I don't believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command area of responsibility, the simple perception that there is makes it difficult for me to effectively serve America's interests there,” Fallon said in a statement released by Central Command March 11.

From A Proud Vietnam Veteran

quote:

Originally posted by Weatherguesser:

--------------(Snip)-----------------

Interesting that he did NOT specifically say Iraq.

Isn't it, LES?

quote:

And; BTW, You are what you think I am.

Wow man... that hurt. Uuff-Duh.

Do you have a subscription to an "adult" version of Highlights Magazine, or did you get that line out of your granddaughter's latest children's version?

BTW: "The faster you run for the hay bale, the quicker they walk over and eat ice-cream"... (or something like that).

I would hope that the Senate not subpoena Adm Fallon -- I'd rather that they request his appearance. That way the Admiral would appear and testify voluntarily.

To have the voluntary testimony of such a senior officer as to his reasons for relinquishing such an important command would be most compelling. As the senior officer, his insights would be most revealing.

Let's hope his presence is requested.

quote:

Originally posted by fnewt:
I would hope that the Senate not subpoena Adm Fallon -- I'd rather that they request his appearance. That way the Admiral would appear and testify voluntarily.

To have the voluntary testimony of such a senior officer as to his reasons for relinquishing such an important command would be most compelling. As the senior officer, his insights would be most revealing.

Let's hope his presence is requested.

Until the day Admiral Fallon takes off his uniform (retires), that decision is not his to make.

From purely political point of view, it would make sense to keep Adm. Fallon on-duty (in some harmless) position, and so forbid his testimony, until after the November election.

This would serve the troops ill, and so I hope it does not happen.

John - I'm sure that you are correct. In that event, I hope that Fallon will be given a subpoena.

If Congress asks him to testify, he will appear. There's no need to subpoena him.

And if Congress wants to see him, there's nothing the DoD can do to prevent him short of whine to the President, and then we have another political fight that does nothing but cause more gridlock.

And that's basically what the admiral is speaking of here (this is for you, Wes):

“The sad part is that this kind of inside-the-beltway drama is really obscuring what’s really important to me, and that is the effort of our men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa and these other troubled places in the Middle East and Southwest Asia,” he told the 1,250-member audience. "

This is the sentiment of many of our most senior officers. Politics has bled into the US military in a way probably not seen before.

quote:

Originally posted by mcgreer:
If Congress asks him to testify, he will appear. There's no need to subpoena him.

And if Congress wants to see him, there's nothing the DoD can do to prevent him short of whine to the President, and then we have another political fight that does nothing but cause more gridlock.

And that's basically what the admiral is speaking of here (this is for you, Wes):

quote:

"The sad part is that this kind of inside-the-beltway drama is really obscuring what’s really important to me, and that is the effort of our men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa and these other troubled places in the Middle East and Southwest Asia"

This is the sentiment of many of our most senior officers. Politics has bled into the US military in a way probably not seen before.

That is an outstanding post, mcgreer.

It accords with our family's experience (son now on third tour) that the more tours that Marines have had in Iraq and Afghanistan, the *more* emphasis they place upon pragmatic war-winning, and the *less* emphasis they place upon purely political ideology.

And *that* IMHO is why so many senior Army and Marine generals (and Navy Admirals too) get into political trouble when they come home and open their mouths. They forget that they are in a nation where politics too often comes ahead of the troops.

And *that* is why I don't mind saying: war-winning comes ahead of politics.

D*mmit.

I get it; on the powers of Congress! My point is; in this speech; Admiral Fallon is still "maintaining" that he is not LEAVING because of differences (or opposition) to the Administration's policies. Someone, needs to tell him -- he's supposed to be opposed -- according to the bloggers here at military.com..

Now, the Admiral may very well go before Congress and say "whatever." I would like to hear it!

I've yet to hear the "single expert" who has "everything right" about our Iraq Situation.
And, I doubt Admiral Fallon has it all "exactly correct!" He knows a "heck of a lot more; than I do." That's without question.

IMHO, with the "complexities of the Iraq situation;" the "real solutions" will emerge from many experts. And, I believe DoD and the Administration are working with many experts to reach solutions. As they said many times before; there're no "silver bullets." There're no "easy options."

I believe General Petraeus, Each of the JCS, and many others "are experts" equivalent to Admiral Fallon. Our Military is "second to none;" and it'll do "just fine" without Admiral Fallon's expertise. Trust Me on this!


“Although I don't believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command area of responsibility, the simple perception that there is makes it difficult for me to effectively serve America's interests there,” Fallon said in a statement released by Central Command March 11.

See:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=49330

From A Proud Vietnam Veteran

You need to read the admiral's statement very carefully. He did indeed leave for that reason.

He didn't say exactly whose perception has caused the problem, did he? And he also spoke about policy objectives, not the policy itself.

Our four-stars are national assets, Wes. And losing them always degrades the capability somewhat, as all the years of training and experience, plus their insight and judgment that's been uniquely honed by those things, are lost. We now have to start all over again to bring someone up to that level.

I have read the article at defense link. I have not read Fallon's full statement although I have attempted to find it.

Nevertheless, why would a top commander resign his position if he did not have serious differences with his superiors? The command that the admiral held was one that only very few attain -- it is not one that is casually surrendered. Additionally, Fallon had only held the position for a relatively short time.

I think that it would be valuable for the nation and the Congress to hear his reasons.

quote:

Originally posted by Weatherguesser:
Pentagon Rules Out Fallon Testimony

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,164526,00.html

quote:

"In declaring that Fallon would not join Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker as witnesses before Congress next month, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said the decision had nothing to do with Fallon's views on Iran or the reasons for his unexpected resignation and retirement. "I know there have been requests, in fact, from members of Congress to have Adm. Fallon testify with Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, and I can tell you that Adm. Fallon will not be testifying" with them, Morrell told a Pentagon news conference.

Right, unless Congress sends him a subpoena to appear, that is. I wonder what he could say that makes them so fearful of his words... ?

I really don't believe anyone has anything to fear of what he has to say. He pretty much said all he wanted to say already when he announced his resignation.

quote:

Originally posted by fnewt:
I would hope that the Senate not subpoena Adm Fallon -- I'd rather that they request his appearance. That way the Admiral would appear and testify voluntarily.

To have the voluntary testimony of such a senior officer as to his reasons for relinquishing such an important command would be most compelling. As the senior officer, his insights would be most revealing.

Let's hope his presence is requested.

I'm sure he's probaly already working on a book deal so he can get paid for what he has to say. Just like everyone else in D.C.

quote:

rkgtactical; I really don't believe anyone has anything to fear of what he has to say. He pretty much said all he wanted to say already when he announced his resignation.

You mean, he has said everything he can say, while still in uniform? That is the variable.

The trouble is, he won't be in uniform anymore when he is asked these same questions on some Sunday Morning gas-bag show and his answers could change, drastically.

I wouldn't bet against it, that is for sure.

quote:

The trouble is, he won't be in uniform anymore when he is asked these same questions on some Sunday Morning gas-bag show and his answers could change, drastically.

I wouldn't bet against it, that is for sure.

I would. Admiral Fallon is a far cry from being a "Wesley Clark". When Fallon says "pure bunk", he means it.