1 in 4 teen girls have an STD? Wow. Talk about picking up some "strange". LOL

I guess it's good, in a way, that I'm now so old that I feel like "Chester the Molester" whenever I drive around Florida State's campus and oogle the coeds.

John
I know that this is off subject, but what is going on with the USS John Rodgers? I haven't heard anything for quite a while.

Admiral Fallon has served forty one years on active duty. He can choose to retire and the appropriate response is "Thank you, sir."

Well and good, as far as it goes, Fred. But that's not how the story is playing out.

S'truth, were I Admiral Fallon, no one would convince me to come back absent an existential threat to the nation.

But he does represent a different approach to a CinC job than some of his peers, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

It's too bad that Other People's Agendas have been driving the story.

Blackfive has some further information on the CMD Fallon resignation. His insiders do not support the CinC conflict as the reason for his departure.

Dave

If a military expert like Admiral Fallon disagrees with the White House's approach to Iran, I would think that as the expert he should state his opinion. The problem with the White House, is that they have a problem with "listening, learning, and planning" from those who are professionals.

Policy isn't made just regarding whether we use military strikes and shaking the sabre doesn't necessarily portend war.

But, as I noted below, he had a multitude of differences between himself and others in the group and not just over Iran.

I would say that I also agree with John that the whole "Iran" issue isn't necessarily about Fallon so much as it is about somebody's publicist pressing the idea. I'll let you guess whose publicist that would be.

I knew I could count on Denizens to step in his own sh^t and "dress down" Admiral Fallon for speaking out UNDER his authority and oath.

Please do tell us Mr. Denizens. Since you are so bent on telling us that someone else agrees with you, perhaps you are aware then, that NOBODY agrees with you, NOT EVEN THE WSJ.

You must be one lonely, angry man to suddenly suggest,

"getting the tough command of Centcom is a requirement for the fourth star and anybody who has a box of cigars, some shiney brass and a uniform gets the chance,...

Your hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Cliff - "Mr Denizens" is Kat in this case. The "Denizens" nickname means that this post is open to all who have posting privileges here, and they sign their bits, as Ry, myself, and Kat did.

Moving along -

Discussions have multiple sides, and not all align.

But, Cliff - at least prior to your arrival, the discussion was on the topic of Admiral Fallon and the events surrounding. You appear to by trying to turn it into being about Kat.

That's not useful, as it causes the thread to jump the track.

Pick a position, defend it. Attack a position. But going personal simply derails the conversation, however strongly you may feel about the individual's opinion.

Stay on topic, please. There are multiple Denizens of Castle Argghhh! in this conversation, and not all are in agreement.

That's what I try to keep going here - discussion. Going personal does not advance that agenda.

Cliff, what is the attraction, here? I'd really like to know, 'cause your behavior in your visits to this blog strikes me as someone who wants to see how far he has to push someone else before the pushee has had enough and unmasks him.

P.S. Read a little more closely--"Denizens" is a plural, thus implying more than one person. Read even closer and you will notice hyphens at the end of each section of the post, each followed immediately by a name... and the last word is this post is a name--"Kat." A female name.

That's "Ms." Denizenne to you, sir. ;)

Thus proving my point, as I add the fifth comment to the thread that has nothing to do with the matter at hand, and all about the personal.

Feh.

LOL well..no one wants to talk about the points. everybody is waiting to hear the other shoe drop or get some more dirt.

And, I'd like to know what the problem is if a commander doesn't dig, understand or otherwise work towards the policy set out by the CinC, then he is not the person that should be in command.

We're not talking about Armageddon here, because the White House is not leaning on the big red button with Iran, but is certainly not wanting to play footsy with them either.

I say "McClellan" you say...

Re: Fallon. I think everyone is getting out way ahead here. Speculate if it amuses you and I know we all do from time to time, but I strongly disagree with the premise you're building on. If being against war with Iran bounces you, then the next two to go will be Mullen and Gates.

Have you read the Esquire article? I don't see Fox speaking against the Administration so much as I see Barnett (who surprises me with this) taking open ended statements and putting his own spin on them. There are several passages where Barnett quotes Fallon and then says "His eyes says...." or "His tone means....". What rubbish!

Plus Barnett drew conclusions as to what Bush, Cheney and Petreaus think. I like Barnett but he's Barnett, not Karnack.

My money says Fallon was not canned because he was some sort of lone voice in the wilderness. It's a romantic image that sells magazines and makes people like Cliff happy.

It's so simpleminded to say "Fallon spoke against Bush, Cheney & Co and now he's gone."

Well...I didn't say it had to do with Iran. In fact, my larger context below was that it was not about Iran and that he stepped down of his own accord because he disagreed with the entire package and may have felt that he was not doing any good there at Centcom as he was continuously losing the battle of "what to do in my AO" to either subordinates or superiors.

and, yes, I also said I believe that the Iran bruahaha is about publicity for Barnett (or someone else with a publicist), not the reality. It is much more than that, but could be as simple as "we agree to disagree" over just about everything.

Let me quote myself below:

Fallon was in charge of CentCom, but he wasn't the one making strategic decisions. Fallon wasn't shaping his area and kept running a-fowl of greater policy. He may have resigned in protest, a la Shinseki, however, it doesn't mean that Gates wasn't telling the truth and there was no direct pressure from the Pentagon or White House. It also doesn't mean that he was protesting a possible war with Iran so much as the situation in the whole command, including Iraq.

Basically, on one hand, I don't blame him. If you are going to get passed over to formulate strategy for the junior commanders in the field and the higher ups, you don't really have a reason to be there except get left holding the bag.

On the other hand, he may have laid that at his own feet because he was trying to shape strategy against the prevailing winds instead of working with it and getting some of the kudos. President Bush was simply not going to leave Iraq in a complete mess. End of story. the fact that most of these officers don't seem to be working from the same play book is why I made a comment about who and how someone gets selected for these commands.

while command situations may effect policy, they don't make it. They are supposed to be working towards it. I don't think half of these folks come in with an open mind. They already believe they know the ground truth in the area and that they have a plan they can plop down when they arrive. the other thing I get confused about is that this "new plan" looks like the old "pre-surge" plan with faster draw down dates.

Why would we keep doing that same bad dance?

The problem, I see, for any CentCom commander is that that office is at McDill, not Baghdad. Therefore, the general on the ground; be he Abizaid, Petraeus or whoever comes next is going to get the exposure, notoriety and influence over the debate that no general/admiral in the rear could hope to wield, unless that individual keeps a higher profile than Admiral Fallon did, and spends most of his time in the AOR.

I have the cigars, the uniform(s) and shiny brass! When do I get my 4th star?

Drat, have to get the 1st three first....

Where's a punk rocker to roll when you need one?

Oh well.

My guess is that the Democrats are going to be disappointed if they think that they can mine this for gold in congressional hearings.

I rather think that Steve Schippert over at NRO has it about right. Basically, he says that the "Admiral Iran Sanity" card that the left is going to try and play won't fly.

From what I can tell, among other things Adm Fallon had disagreements with Gen Petraeus over troop levels in Iraq. Fallon wanted to withdraw more troops faster. My money says Petraeus has it right.

What surprises me is how this played out, with the surprise resignation and all. Sec Gates strikes me as an impressive guy and so I'm disappointed that it ended in this way.

Tom - what would you have expected from Secretary Gates otherwise?

"Growing Combat Fatigue" - I think fatigue is a poorly chosen word for the issues. I hear a lot of stories via non Castle sources about PTSD in military people. Your country, among others, is failing to look after those people which is, IMO, a disgrace.

"One in four girls has STD" i didn't even click on link. Two obvious things spring up to prevent bothering. One is this is probably a study funded by a group that sells STD solutions. I have no time for such biased rubbish. Two is that they probably included anything vaguely representative of an STD. Not the biggies like the clap or HIV.

As for the gov it looks to me like the US is worse than Britain when it comes to sex scandals. In Aus we don't care and really frankly don't want to know who would blow such fugly people. Really. Please send the videos back. Focus on the law not the morality, politics is not a church.

With Fallon it all reminds me of a third hand account's opinion. It makes for good table talk but is probably far and away from reality.

As I read about this whole Fallon issue, I might just sound a little like John in just this next sentence. I believe this is the time to keep your powder dry and secure and keep your eyes on the horizon. My personal view stems from an ol addage. "A fool is a person who speaks much about that which they know very little." I just don't think we have good view of anything. As I see it, speculation is rampant. I believe as we learn more verifiable facts, if you will, the forensic evidence, you will be given the option of choice. No matter what choice you make, I figure, there will be anger issues. This will be true for all of us. You will begiven the choice to accept the forensic evidence or drink thte "kool-aid". My suggestion is to look and listen for the evidence.

Grumpy