I Call B.S. On This Slur
Look. A four star doesn’t need me to defend him, and I’ll be durned if I know what the guy’s up to or how effective he is because I’m here on shore in CONUS. But this is just crap. Dean Barnett says the story has legs in the leftosphere. Here’s why I think this story is false on its face:
1. I have had a chance to work in close proximity to ADM Fallon. Not much, but enough to see the man’s style and to hear what the other seniors said about him. He didn’t talk that way to peers, nor did he talk like that to subordinates. The take on the man was that he was a gentleman. I saw him unhappy about things in rooms where it would be considered private meetings and he didn’t react that way or use terminology like that. Perhaps this is because he was relieving someone legendary for sandpapering his subordinates, but I doubt it.
2. It would not make sense for two people working towards the same goal to begin their working relationship in that manner, and both people were put in place by the same boss for the same reason. Both officers know they both have to succeed together.
3. ADM Fallon was also known in a previous command for reaching out to others and being an effective builder of partnerships. This doesn’t square with slamming a subordinate in public.
A four star doesn’t need me to defend him. But this is just stupid.
33 Responses to “I Call B.S. On This Slur”
Trackback URL for I Call B.S. On This Slur: http://gmapalumni.org/chapomatic/wp-trackback.php?p=2652
September 13th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
I’m with you Chap. Having just a sliver of exposure to ADM Fallon, and quite a bit more of that WRT CENTCOM – this is bogus as bogus can be.
September 14th, 2007 at 2:51 am
(1) Know a guy who had Fallon on his SSN — said the sound bite sounded “exactly like Fallon.”
(2) Is the Inter Press Service News Agency a credible source on the matter? Certainly no less than the spokespuppet at CENTCOM – really think he’d confirm this if it were true?
(3) The report doesn’t speak to “slamming {Petraeus} in public”. The meeting was private; the story was reportedly leaked by aides present at the meeting.
(4) Petraeus’s mission includes furthering the selling of the war utilizing the marketing paradigms of the CIC. His military mission in Iraq is tied to a political mission in DC as Crocker’s diplomatic mission is similarly tethered.
(5) Fallon’s sandbox covers the entire Middle East, almost all of what constitutes the GWOT on foreign soil; Petraeus’s mission is limited to Iraq and is subordinate to Fallon’s, and more importantly, Gates’ mission. Fallon is Gates’ guy — he put him there. Gates is the lead figure of the Iraq Study Group whose strategy is decidedly different than the President’s. In other words, a bit of friction between the two, especially if the junior officer is being played as a media pawn, is more than within the realm of the possible.
September 14th, 2007 at 4:29 am
Oh now this is just silly.
Fallon isn’t a submariner. On what basis is your guy making that assertion? A tour of the boat? Reading the paper?
I don’t think the news agency has any credibility with me based solely on this one report, but their story is being taken as true–and in some cases without attribution–in part of the blogosphere.
By the way: Your little “no less than” slam at a ’spokespuppet’ is highly insulting. The man that said it is at my rank, doing a job I could have been doing in another career path. I’ve worked closely with PAOs and consider them honorable; they’re media relations people doing public affairs work in wartime with strict rules on how to go about their business–this ain’t Vietnam and the Follies. Yes, the man is a media relations guy and thus will have a bias. On what basis are you insulting the guy for being less credible than some unknown news source using anonymous sourcing of no known provenance? The man has an institutional bias because that’s his job, but you’re accusing him of casually lying because it’s expected?
If there are aides present at a meeting then the meeting isn’t too private, is it?
War is the extension of Politik, so I hear. That plus that little thing about who the Commander-in-Chief is supposed to be.
Remember I mentioned something about who the Commander-in-Chief is supposed to be? What bizarre convolution of rationalization caused you to invent a gaping mission chasm between the two FO/GOs? What equally bizarre information are you using to expect that the cabinet-level appointee is expected and encouraged by the President to follow a different strategy than the President’s? Put in another way, what evidence do you have to think that this is so, since it flies in the face of what the military is about?
It could be true that there is vocal friction between commanders. It is also a constant of staff work that the other staff is all screwed up. Based on what I know of both commanders, including personal observation of CENTCOM actual at a prior command under stress, I don’t see the reported comments as likely. Further, I do not expect an aide present at a meeting between the two leaders to be leaking this kind of information, although stranger things have happened. I consider the report bogus until given evidence other than some anonymous quote at some news agency I’ve never heard of, and if it’s somehow true I still would want to know the context and real working relationship because I don’t see problems within the organizations either. If the report mentioned he banned swearing, or complained about the cleanliness of MNF-I HQ, then maybe I’d believe a lick of it. A comment about leakology here is of interest.
But go right on your merry way. Do tell me how everything works, since you know all this inside baseball and everything.
September 14th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Am I missing something here?
We have an article that is, on it’s face to anyone with any inkling of insight, total fabrication. Said article appears to portray derision, insubordination, and lack of unity among high-ranking military leaders.
We know for a fact that we are involved in a wide-ranging information war and are targets of several groups in the sandbox, as well as China, N Korea, etc., etc.
Why don’t we just let this fodder fall under the wheels of our cannons and just move on? I am not the strategist, but doesn’t enlarging the debate on this only serve it’s potential purpose (presuming it was done with such intent?). I guess the counter-balance to that is the need to hit this crap with the bright light of truth so that it does NOT enlarge. I’m not sure (making me even happier I’m not in a PAO slot)- opinions?
-Tu
September 14th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Why not ignore it? Because it’s not being ignored in other places and being used to further a narrative. Having me argue about the issue isn’t the purpose of stories like this; the purpose is to confirm existing biases and shift opinion of people otherwise unaware of the situation.
There has to be a better way–Dan Rather’s still making millions in the new industry, the TNR is still refusing to admit error, Pallywood is in full swing and kid’s shows are still indoctrinating jihad et cetera, et cetera. I don’t know what that better way is.
September 14th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
So if I understand you correctly, the solution is to have Dan Rather attend a correspondent’s dinner with TNR in Pallywoodland and have the folks making the kid’s jihad videos do a demonstration of how to properly execute the homicidal bombing maneuver? Problems solved?
Now the trick is what to do to get Dan there…..tell him the Marines want to give him a medal?
TNR is easy – “Beauchamp to tell all regarding secret dog fighting ring in Iraq paid for by NFL quarterback!!!”
-Tu
September 14th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Nice Job Chap…
Chap identifes a slur being tossed around about Admiral Fallon by the anti-war types. I think it is interesting, the anti-war types are basically attempting to apply the stereotype of General Tommy Franks to Admiral Fallon, claiming at the first meet…..
September 14th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Very good Chap. I concur for the same reason (s).
BTW, even if the comment wasn’t derived by the “fever swamp” and had been published in the “National Review”, I’d still say it was bogus.
John d- Do we ever question/critique you on teaching high school kids? You da expert at that. So it follows, why would you question we folks who have actual experience wid da man? Not because of convenient politics you would like to believe, right? LOL.
b2
September 15th, 2007 at 7:14 am
Tu,
The issue is more subtle than wishing violence on folks. The press shifted to white collar from blue collar, and gets acculturated via j-school (learned that one when I saw the midshipman majoring in journalism). There’s a narrative that must be matched, and there is very little if any immediate cost to putting out inaccurate information. There’s also an emphatic lack of diversity of opinion amongst the culture.
September 15th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Right on Chap –
I’ve known Fox Fallon from the time he was a department head in VA-65 in CVW-7 – I worked for him at AIRLANT following his DCAG tour and when he was VCNO. I am proud to count him among the senior officers I have served with (unlike some others who remain on active duty or have recently retired). I will say he does not suffer fools or incomplete staff work lightly – and a raised eyebrow, shake of the head and “this is bs” would be the beginning of a justly due wirebrushing – but not profanity laced or with raised voice; rather, with indisputable logic and as pointed out above, manners. I know so because I’ve been there as observer and briefer. There is much that I’m sure has (a) been taken out of context (there’s a surprise) and/or (b) willfully distorted (ditto).
“1) Know a guy who had Fallon on his SSN — said the sound bite sounded “exactly like Fallon.— Riiiight. Fox is an NFO who was an A-6 B/N. I suppose I should say something about fact-checking, but folks who like to spread this kind of character assassination around the ‘net typically are not bothered by such trivial matters…
Now, don’t those folks have something more in their lane they can get back to reporting on — like the latest Brittney bomb or alien abduction?
- SJS
September 15th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
[...] And the Petraeus slur. [...]
September 15th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Fox is an NFO who was an A-6 B/N
Started out in RA-5s BTW…
September 15th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
“On his SSN,” forsooth!
September 16th, 2007 at 5:40 am
Chap, I was with you, right up to the part about PAOs being honorable guys. Some may be. I can’t comment on the truth or falsity of the Fallon story, but the PAO’s line on it means nothing to me. For the most part, they strike me as more in the “Truth is a weapon to be used sparingly” camp. I’ve felt that way ever since, when the feces hit the rotating airfoils about the crest for the class of ‘79 containing the letters LCWB. Class of ‘80 was the first with women; therefore, the class of ‘79 billed itself as the “Last Class With . . .” The brass made them redesign the crest after over a hundred Plaque and Sabres had already been purchased and shipped. The last two guys to return theirs were in my squad. They came back from one on one meetings with the Commandant in tears, and finally gave ‘em up for new versions. Strange that there was so much fuss over four letters in a crest that, according to the PAO in an official statement to the press (PAO for an institution where the cadets “Will not lie, steal, or cheat, nor tolerate among us anyone who does,” mind you), stood for “Loyalty, Courage, Wisdom, and Brawn.” Right. Honorable. Right. Let’s just say PAOs are doing their jobs, and leave it at that. If you’re seriously offended by John calling PAOs “spokespuppets,” then you need a reality check, Horatio. “Casually lying?” “Why, man, they did make love to this employment” (5.2.57).
September 16th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
That bizarre information is American military and political history. The most accessible data to me are the pol-mil machinations of the Lincoln Administration and the Union Army. You can go read Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Team of Rivals among many other books to get a good idea of the infighting within the Lincoln administration. They did not speak with one voice; leaks, backstabbing, even an attempt to un-nominate Lincoln right before Atlanta fell were all part of the scene. Lincoln’s lack of control, both in the military and political sense, of the Army is legendary and hardly needs to be rehashed. Other easily accessible examples are VP picks — not done because the top guy loves ‘em or is in agreement with him but historically done because it brings factions together — JFK/LBJ, Ike/Dick, Carter/Mondale etc. Cabinet appointments are also are made with the notion of pleasing various disparate factions.
Our substitute for parliamentary government are Presidencies which are quite frequently coalitions of different factions much as ruling majorities operate in parliamentary systems. The stronger the President’s faction, the less he has to rely upon coalitions and sharing of power. The weaker the President’s faction, say in the wake of a 2006 election where, to use his word, he took a “thumpin”, the more concessions have to be made to other factions. In this particular case, the concession was to his father’s faction, the global realists — enter Bob Gates. Does Gates see the world in vastly different terms than the President? Don’t think so. But his pivotal role and endorsement of the ISG and its findings put him squarely at odds with a president who did not want to change strategy. It is logical to assume that Gates would select people, like Fallon, to further his views in an attempt to rudder the administration towards ISG goals.
There’s no slam at PAOs with the spokespuppet comment. I’m a spokespuppet and I tell my students that. The state of NC, the State Board of Education, the NC Dept of Public Instruction, all under the heavy influence of NC Citizens for Business and Industry, wrote the course of study I have to deliver and which my students are tested on and my school and district evaluated. But unlike the PAO, I have tenure and can mouth off about being a spokespuppet without real fear of retribution. He, on the other hand, has to follow orders, or so I’ve been told, or there are severe consequences in store.
Let’s backtrack just a bit. I was remiss in my first comment to not mention the fact that there was a bit of corroboration outside the admittedly dubious Inter-Press News Service. And that corroboration came from the editorially neoconservative paper, The Washington Post, which reported on Sept 9th:
Again, no direct confirmation of the slur, but corroboration of an environment from which it may have well sprung.
Ironically, I find the response Blackfive got from CENTCOM to be perhaps the most damning:
That’s a textbook non-denial denial. The story is “inaccurate?” How so? Did Fallon say General Petraeus was a “BIG……?” We have no idea. Why not categorically state that Admiral Fallon never uttered either the purported sentiment nor anything remotely like it? Outstanding relationship? Well, first what’s that mean exactly? Second, I can have an excellent relationship with someone, especially someone I respect, get frustrated and/or disappointed with one of their actions or utterances and call them on it in harsh terms, and still have a good relationship. Good relationships don’t preclude harsh words between comrades.
In spite of all the space I’ve burned, I don’t think this is the main issue. What is the issue is a man of most excellent reputation and service being placed in a horrible situation, both militarily and politically. General Petraeus has not only been asked to pick up the pieces of a failed military policy he has been ordered to stand in for the President as a spokesman for the war, not unlike the LCDR at CENTCOM, to defend a policy he would not appear to endorse 100%.
And has that happened before?
That would be from one Colonel H.R. McMaster, current advisor to General Petraeus, from his Dereliction of Duty, a commentary on Vietnam. Col. McMaster has been passed over twice for promotion to Brigadier General but one shouldn’t infer anything from that as there is never anything to see, we should all just move along since Machiavelli has been rendered inoperative in the American armed forces.
September 16th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Let me just suggest that it would be extemely ‘unusual’, to say the least, for a high ranking officer to so forget himself in front of subordinates.
That is what I was attempting to suggest in my post the other day, though I realize that may not have come across to people unfamiliar with the military. People occasionally exchange harsh words, but another characteristic of those who make it to the flag or general officer ranks is that (even when they have a reputation for forthrightness) they are not stupid. Pulling a stunt like that in a meeting, in front of subordinates, would be cause for a major a$$chewing if it the word got out (and it is unusual enough that people would be sure to talk about it). You’d have to be a complete idiot not to think junior officers would gossip.
Now comes the 64 thousand dollar question: How many people think Fallon is an idiot?
September 16th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
John,
I think we’re in agreement with much of what you argue here. Problem is, that’s not the argument I posed.
I agree that it is very possible to see vigorous debate and bureaucratic infighting. Frankly, I’m of the belief that a vigorous and loud debate, after which everyone proceeds smartly on the chosen direction, is the best way to go about things in a big staff. However, that’s not where I’m complaining. If the President puts someone in place, then the President expects that person to follow the guidelines, even if the guidelines are “try something new”. It is perfectly consistent to have both organizations engaged in vigorous debate…in the same direction the President wants to go. If I were to put someone in as a leading subordinate and told him to undermine what I wanted to do, that would be nonsensical. Thus my complaint, and your response is both something with which I agree and not what I’m talking about. I understand your historical example but the better analogy would be me complaining about, say, a report that Lee was getting lots of demerits in school because of a foul mouth.
In a casual aside for a previous comment, you impugned the integrity of a fellow naval officer absent any evidence for same, saying his credibility is less than that of an unknown news service report with a single anonymous source. I resent that. Your response does not address this.
Finally, you miss the point of my post. I assert, given anecdotal evidence, that a news report (citing an anonymous leaker of some kind) is false on its face. I understand the reason the story has legs is because it fits some people’s political position (off topic: the reason I haven’t mentioned Baird’s new political stand is because it fits my own narrative too well, and I have no new information, for me to say anything useful about it). However, I knew ADM Fallon at one time and know the man would not have said things like that in public.
I’m not saying whether Fallon’s smart or not. I’m not saying anything about his positions. I’m saying that I believe the man would not say such things in that manner, and that this report rings false.
September 16th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Doc,
A PAO is of course a media relations guy. I’ve spent some time working with them. Like any other group of people, there are good ones and bad ones. I’m especially sensitive–not to the “spokespuppet” epithet; that’s their job description–but to the comment about credibility. I’ve seen many folks in the PA shop, over and over, strain mightily to be truthful, push back against the other organizations who would find military use in OPDEC and so forth, to maintain their integrity. After spending a year or two watching PAOs fight hard to ensure they were not even considered in the force to report anything other than what they knew was true, I got the hint. (N.B.: PAOs aren’t reporters and if they get told bad info they might get played for suckers. If that happens the knives come out; PAOs generally get pretty protective of their need to be seen as honest and not just be honest.) I’ve seen the organization not do well, back in the early 80s, and that was driven by very bad flag level leadership (the Iowa case is a particular Navy low point and nobody was unscathed).
Humans are humans. I’m not saying they’re perfect and in no way want to intimate that they have no bias in their statements. But I am saying that calling a guy a liar with no evidence is an insult on the family.
By the way, when I was a young ensign the guys on the boat used to try to tell us “FTN” stood for something different than it did, and that the little paperclips on the pocket was just to store them…
September 16th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Cassandra,
I’ve seen guys publicly blast their subordinates–Sestak comes to mind, although I only know of that second hand (over and over). Fallon wasn’t that type of guy when I knew him.
And, uh, I’ve seen more than one flag officer be an idiot. More often I’ve seen competent flag officers rise to the level of inability and get floored by the new challenge, and look like an idiot. I’m not commenting on ADM Fallon’s abilities or positions here, but only on his personal style as compared to the news report…
September 16th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Chap,
I thought I did address the PAO comment where I called him a spokespuppet. I did not mean nor do I mean any assault on his integrity. I assumed he was not in the room if the remark was indeed made. If that assumption is correct, I can’t see how I have impugned him. If he was both in the room AND the remark was made then I would be calling him a liar but even then my understanding is that he would have to report what he was told to report but I don’t know what military law and reality are.
I have to say things all the time that I don’t believe. Or remain silent when my better judgment and/or instinct inform me otherwise. I work for the state as well and have my standing orders. As I said, I have more leeway to murmur an aside or roll my eyes than someone in uniform. I do not live in fear of a court martial but I can either lose my job for insubordination or pay other political consequences — if you saw the geography of my county they could come up with a nasty reassignment, that’s the preferred method of “correction.”
But if that explanation doesn’t wash with you or anyone else, then I apologize to Commander Miller and anyone else who was offended for the remark.
I believe your interpretation of what Admiral Fallon would and would not say is sincerely held. If I only had the IPNS story to go on, then you win. But the WP story makes it a tie which means you still win the case — a negative needs more than a mere tie to win in my book.
Where lack of common ground remains is our differing interpretations of what President Bush can and cannot currently control. Maybe Gates and his minions are merely a different prong of the same fork — I think that’s what you’re trying to say. In one respect I agree, Bob Gates is no Jack Murtha. On the other hand, from my perspective, he’s no Dick Cheney either and my sense is, is that he is significantly at odds with both the surge strategy and the slow draw down. My sense is that both Gates, Fallon, and even Crocker are concerned about continuation of the current approach in Iraq which further empowers Iran, ignores a dangerous boil on the Pakistani-Afghan border, and founders the Army and Marines in the process. It is out of that interpretation that the purported Fallon comment tracks.
As the Democrats are both powerless and spineless, it falls to Republican Senators and senior military officers to foment a change in approach if there is to be one. The only substantive question asked of Petraeus this past week was by Warner — that’s not an accident.
And to my good friend BadBob: (1) Chap has weighed in more than a time or two on my reading list and assignments — usually when I have solicited them and occasionally when I haven’t. He is quite concerned about my Zinn shelf but I have more Samuel Eliot Morrison than Zinn so we all can rest easy. (2) Dude, if you have any insights into providing a better education, particularly in American history, then shout out. Give me suggestions, criticisms, anything that will make me better and my student’s experience richer. Am quite serious about this.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
I understand the insult I perceived wasn’t your intent–thanks for clarifying. That was my real concern there.
(Politeness, too, is another way that we humans check our language. When not on my blog and at work I, not known for political smoothness, have been known to counsel folks on “effects-based conversation”. Sometimes the effect one wants when one speaks is not the effect one actually gets! Related to that, I would probably enjoy reading or researching a “how to whistleblow correctly” paper, since the “how to” is difficult but the folks in the position to do so usually don’t have those social skills in abundance.)
My personal guess, with no information to back this up so it’s pure speculation, is that any meeting between Fallon and Petraeus would be one where Fallon went to Iraq. The PAO who spoke is likely one of about a half dozen O-3/4s under a senior O-6 in Tampa (I guess I could see if the guy’s in Bahrain but am being lazy here). So the LCDR who responded either traveled with the COCOM, which didn’t happen the last couple of COCOMs I know of (the O-6 would go and even then that’s only a sometimes thing), or was sitting at a desk when the supposed event occurred. I doubt the LCDR knows more than what he got when he asked around the office, but he should know the general relationship between organizations. They seemed to be getting along well a couple of months ago, the last time I talked to anyone working with both commands.
There is a constant tension between the folks in the Puzzle Palace and the folks in the AOR. People in D.C., such as service chiefs who organize/man/train/equip the COCOMs, want more flexibility and the room to buy new gadgets ten years from now and spend as little as possible. COCOMs, being the guys what put people on the DMZ or fight the war or go on mission, want more of the stuff they have now, and more resources than the service chiefs want to give them. (I have stories…) I see the negotiations between JCS and CENTCOM in that light; JCS (and OSD) would like more folks home now as an entering argument, while MNF-I and CENTCOM want to be ready for anything. They’ll figure it out and I don’t see this as abnormal in the scheme of things even though I’ve seen it reported as “CONFLICT in the PENTAGON!!!” a few times. My bias, but until I see more the story seems to fit a pattern I’ve seen before and would attribute a difference in position based more on ‘where people sit’ than ‘who they are’ because of it.
Petraeus isn’t the guy working the AF-PK border. That’s an area where those what know ain’t talking and those who’re talking don’t know jack. Lots under the radar there. One guy in Khowst is reading this blog, and he reports the security is not too bad there, too, by the way. For open source I like Rantburg.com–many reports from the Urdu press.
I saw about three guys with questions of any substance during the hearings. The Warner question wasn’t looking for a Petraeus-level answer, either. It’s a shame the Kabuki was of such low quality.
B2–I’d be glad to have John teach my kids history. He’s one of those guys who will argue to argue–frame a line of logic such that both parties are able to change their minds–rather than just assert. His entering arguments are often so far from mine that I’ll hesitate to unpack them and criticize from first principles, but that’s recreational not work-related. We need more people who are able to teach someone how to think, and that’s pretty rare.
Almost as rare as a diversity of political opinion at, say, Duke.
September 17th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
John/Chap,
The story is a lie. Plain and simple. It simply doesn’t fit Fallon’s Modus Operendi. It ain’t worthy of all this CO2 being expelled.
Chap made that statement re Fallon based on real inside info I can corroborate from my dealings with the man. John chose to disregard those direct inputs and pick away around the edges and bring up all sorts of interesting angles. For the sake of argument? Or perhaps wishful thinking? No agenda at work here, right?
Sometimes you get direct intell and you must accept it. John didn’t.
Sort of like last week when ‘another “politically driven group” (begins with a “D”) attempted to discredit Gen Petraeus and call him a liar- without really calling him a liar to his face….A whole seperate Modus Operendi (sic, I’m sure), so to speak. Create a gray area, dazzle with nuance, foment doubt….
I’m sure John’s an outstanding history teacher. I wouldn’t dare question him about teaching methods or his knowledge of that “process”. I appreciate and am honored by his offer for me (turning red) to provide US History “gouge”.
However this statement is disheartening: “I have to say things all the time that I don’t believe.”
You know John. I never had to do that….professionally. No shiite.
b2
September 17th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
B2,
My agenda is the truth. Do I have preconceived notions? You betcha. Do I have values which, as opposed to facts, can’t be proven but nonetheless color my interpretations, my cosmology? Yep.
What direct intel? Both sides were operating from a position of rational extrapolation. There’s no tell-tale nor exculpatory video. We’ve got a non-denial denial, a WP story, a newsservice bit no-one ever heard of on one side and the non-denial denial, presentations of SOP and protocol, and several anecdotal “Fallon’s-not-like-that” data points on the other. There’s no demonstrable lie nor is there demonstrable proof of a slur uttered in frustration.
The Move-on ad is in the same boat as the protesters in the video Chap posted. The 9/11 victims were politicized to serve as a launching pad for the war in Iraq. General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker were politicized because the President has no significant credibility left regarding the war in Iraq. That places anti-war critics in a tough spot which was calculated by the Administration – to criticize the war is to criticize 9/11 victims’ memorial and a four-star general. It’s all become an ugly burlesque. And it’s all inevitable, given that the war is unpopular, long, and has no end in sight — history has certainly repeated itself on this score.
I’m glad you’ve never had to say what you didn’t believe. In my case it’s usually forbearing saying what I believe. I do so far more than most of my peers but I chose my battles carefully and when I do speak, it’s loudly and in a public forum so if there is retribution it will be clear to all what the genesis was.
“Wishful thinking?” Guilty. But I’ll put my intellectual honesty up against anyone’s, anytime. I’m determined to let the chips, the facts, fall where they will regardless of my wishful thinking and prejudices. As a long-time pathological liar, forever in recovery in a nation of people, many of whom lie to themselves and to each other, or, most charitably, stumble about in a somnambulist state, I expend a lot of energy and reflection to try to see things for what they are, constantly seeking to correct my delusions, my misperceptions, my lapses into lying. For the 598th time, I could hang in Kos or any of a myriad of internet-based echo chambers, in the comments sections and just spend my time reinforcing my prejudices.
I chose otherwise.
I hang out here for two reasons: the dominant thought process and world view is fairly different from my own and the proprietor is knowledgeable, coherent, and generous. I push my point not just because I have a particular ax to grind. I push it to both fine tune my perspective or be led to the conclusion to drop the ax altogether. I’ve done a lot of fine-tuning. But my grip on a basically pacifist, non-tribal, global, multi-cultural, Quaker/Buddhist perspective which holds brute authority, power, and excessive tribalism in some contempt, is intact. I know that makes your stomach turn. I think it makes your stomach turn that Chap provides the leeway and patience that he does. At the very least, you see it as a waste of time. There are god’s plenty of so-called leftists who believe it’s an abject waste of time to maintain any sort of dialogue with the pro-war crowd or anyone else who isn’t part of their hive. For me, that mentality results in the aforementioned burlesque. Thanks but no thanks; I’ll take another path because I’m determined to find a bridge my faith tells me is there.
Peace.
September 17th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Thanks for the kind words…not sure I live up to them, but it’s a worthy goal.
I know where you want to go on this phrase, but I’m going to cherry pick because I think it illustrates one key difference in mindset that colors much of our discussions.
versus
Yeah, I know, you’re going to the Godwin’s Law corollary with the second half of your sentence, but this is illustrative.
The one difference in mindset that I’m glad we don’t have [as much] is the “treat as war” versus “it’s a crime” mindset.
Oh, yeah, one more thing. You may have walked into the same kind of rhetorical trouble we did with the PAO dustup. There’s a chasm of difference between holding one’s tongue, or being polite but firm, and lying for professional reasons. The honor culture of the military emphasizes the negative implications of the latter, and the words you previously wrote I read with my military hat on as “I lie all the time for the convenience of my job”. That’s why B2’s dropping the ordnance. I decided not to address it, but there it is. What’s the Popper quote–’it is impossible to write in a manner such that one cannot be misunderstood”?
September 17th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
The 9/11 victims were politicized…
versus
The 9/11 victims were brutally killed in an act of war by a transnational enemy with state support.
I don’t see any contradiction. I am in total agreement with your characterization. I did not see the victims politicized when their deaths were the rationale for the Afghan incursion. I do see their deaths as ALSO being politicized when it came to Iraq.
Popper kicks ass, IMHO.
September 17th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
John,
I”m confused. Both of y’all are giving me a headache :-).
Does that long, ” full of feeling” diatribe mean you have accepted that the story about Fox is a lie? Probably a lie? Or you still don’t know?
I’m not dropping any ordnance. In my first entry I gently chastised you (John) for dismissing the “gouge” on Fox Fallon presented by Chap. In my second, I re-emphasized the logic of Chap’s personal input, visa vis my own Fallon observations, and then made a like argument you used on the recent Gen Petraeus testimony. Except mine pointed out the “Lefts” tactic of “don’t discount directly or confront, but rather, ignore, spin and re-invent”. None of them called Petraeus a liar but they sure try to make him seem like one to those who would listen to their doublespeak….You call it Burleque somehow tied to this “stupid” administration led by low IQ GW (as characterized daily by the left)..How can that be? Only the Left is clever? Rather, ain’t that just another convenient excuse for the Left’s failure to somehow make the American people think it’s a good thing to cut n’run?
See? No ad hominem in it John.
re “But my grip on a basically pacifist, non-tribal, global, multi-cultural, Quaker/Buddhist perspective which holds brute authority, power, and excessive tribalism in some contempt, is intact.”
You ain’t far off my own perspective John re injustice. I hold those things in contempt too. However I have a different view of how to eliminate them is all.
b2
September 18th, 2007 at 1:01 am
Speaking for myself, I’m saying we don’t know what was and wasn’t said. If you do, do not pass Go, do not collect $200; go straight to the top of the HUMINT pyramid as your brain has capabilities no one else possesses. Is Petraeus a chickenshit? I wouldn’t call anyone in a uniform a chickenshit. Is he giving testimony calculated to please the boss and simultaneously not tell a flat out lie? In my opinion yes — that’s how I see what I take to be his and Crocker’s caginess in formulating their responses.
Could Petraeus have asked Fallon and the President for further extending deployments or other sources of troops to maintain the surge levels? Technically, yes. Would that decision have culminated in some serious consequences? If the retired brass who keep saying the Army and Marines are on the verge of “breaking” are to be believed, then yes. Which is why, in my opinion, Petraeus gave the forked tongue answer — truthful but pregnant with spin.
The burlesque is the drama on the vid; the burlesque is a four star general and knowledgeable diplomat giving a string of cagey rather than direct answers to a Senate committee. The burlesque is a President claiming 36 nations of allies in Iraq, ignoring the original goal of the surge and moving the goal posts so far off the field the crowd has forgotten what the game was.
I give you a headache? Welcome to deVille’s classroom — making heads hurt since 1995, six years longer than the President has been making my head hurt.
September 18th, 2007 at 3:23 am
Okay, this is getting tedious. I am tired of this continual string of assertions counter to my own experience and viewpoint, added on to a post that was not about this. You can believe what you want to believe, as silly as it might be.
But stuff like this characterization of the mandated report to Congress wastes my time.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
From the Army Times:
So were the stories wholesale fabrications?
Sounds like aides were leaking some unsavory aspects of the making of the sausage…or consensus, rather than on just how awesome the consensus was.
Very interesting indeed. See you in six months.
September 18th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
re “So were the stories wholesale fabrications?”
Affirmative. Why?
So Stooges like Lantos could play politics with the military chain of command ultimately. Usually even the Dems don’t mess with the mil chain but the stakes are so high in their estimation that they went for it.
The stakes? Are they victory in the GWOT? Perhaps the liquidation of
re- “See you in six months.”
Are you going on an IA John? ;-)
b2
September 18th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
oops-
To finish:
“Perhaps the liquidation of OBL? No, of course not, only the upcoming 2008 elections….”
b2
September 18th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Six months is always when the turning point is in Iraq. It’ll be interesting to re-read Fallon’s words in March after the two nominees are chosen.
We see the 2008 elections viz. the war in different lights. I think 90% of the Dems are quite content to play kick the can until Dec. 2008. You see Dems messing with the chain of command. I see some sniping on the margins and that’s about it, nothing of any material consequence. As I said earlier, the only ones who can truly change the direction are Republicans.
IA? Essentially until Monday when I get this paper done.
September 19th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
A reflection on current times….
Damian, of Babbling Brooks and The Torch, as well as others of my acquaintance, sent me a link to the story in the New York Times about the murder charges brought against an SF Captain and Master Sergeant for an……