Even More About the Goofball
03.17.2008 - 10:35 AMWhy was Admiral William “Fox” Fallon forced into retirement? Mark Perry, a director of Conflicts Forum, offers his take in Asia Times. He points like others have to Thomas Barnett’s Esquire profile, which he says “has to rank as one of the most embarrassing portraits of an American officer in US military history. Both for Barnett, as well as for Fallon.”
One problem is Barnett’s style. Perry describes it as being in “pseudo Tombstone style — a kind of vague signaling that this is just-between-us tough guys talk - Barnett presents a military commander who is constantly on the go, trailing exhausted aides who never rest (oh, what a man he is!): Fallon doesn’t get angry (he gets ‘pissed off’); he doesn’t have a father (he has an ‘old man’); he doesn’t spend time (he does a ‘stint’); he doesn’t walk (he ‘sidles’); and he doesn’t talk, ‘he speaks in measured koans’.”
But it is not such lather alone that is the problem. Writes Perry,
[he’s] boorish and, very often, it’s just plain wrong. Thus, Barnett: “If, in the dying light of the [George W] Bush administration, we go to war with Iran, it’ll all come down to one man. If we do not go to war with Iran, it’ll come down to the same man. He is that rarest of creatures in the Bush universe: the good cop on Iran, and a man of strategic brilliance. His name is William Fallon.”
Well, actually, yes — and no. The decision to go to war will come down to one man, but his name won’t be Fox Fallon, it will be George W. Bush. More accurately, the constitution of the United States places foreign policy in the hands of the president as the commander-in-chief and the decision for declaring war is in the hands of the U.S. Congress. Fallon’s role in all of this, as I am sure he must know, is to obey orders and to keep his mouth shut, a point that was undoubtedly made plain to him by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in the immediate aftermath of the publication of this article. And, we might imagine, Gates put his objections to the article in the following terms: “Fox, just what in the hell do you think you were doing talking to Thomas Barrett?”
If that’s the question Gates posed, it was the right one. Given that Barnett is a well-known goofball, why exactly did Admiral Fallon collaborate with him? Selecting this particular journalist to write a puff-job about himself suggests that Fallon was not merely insubordinate but something of a goofball himself.
| »Back to Connecting the Dots | »Back to Commentary |
March 17th, 2008 at 12:02 PM
I note that in an entire career spanning more than three decades, Admiral Fallon had only one tour in DC. That’s pretty unusual for a senior flag or general officer. For all military officers, DC tours do much to rub off rough edges and help us put ourselves in perspective. “Hot-runners” with flag potential are often hustled through DC tours to check blocks on the career list — and more power to them, I say. But learning who NOT to talk to, and how to avoid becoming a scalp on someone’s political belt, is something the DC tours are uniquely valuable for.
Life IS stupid inside the Beltway, and I can’t blame anyone who’d rather be out in the fleet or the field, where senior officers don’t have to run coffee and doughnuts. I don’t know that this was Fallon’s perspective, but it is unusual to so successfully escape time in the Pentagon, where we all get to do the “Theodore Roosevelt” exercise of comparing ourselves with the mighty juggernaut of Nature, and recognizing how small we are.
March 17th, 2008 at 12:03 PM
Was it not Andy Warhol who commented about everyone having 15 minutes of fame? Possibly the Admiral wishes to follow in the footsteps of General W. Clark? Over the past decade or so, there were two books I could not read completely, one is Barnett’s “The Pentagon’s New Map” while the other is Jeremy Rifkin’s “The European Dream”. On the other hand, I have read and fully appreciated the writings of Robert D. Kaplan. What bothers me is that it appears that many will agree or disagree on an issue, not based on its merits, rather on the basis of its position toward George W. Bush, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. We all seek to read what we agree with but reading and analyzing what we don’t agree with sharpens the mind. Some get to choose their 15 minutes, others have it thrust upon them (Spitzer). Finally, it would have been better for Fallon to retire first, then seek an outlet for his views. Or, am I a relic of the past?
March 17th, 2008 at 10:46 PM
Just goes to show not every career officer is immune to temptation. Decades of service do not equate, necessarily, to a loyal and humble character.
Fallon could have used one of the Roman slaves who accompanied the victorious emperor or general on the chariot during the ‘triumph’ parade, so that when thousands cheered the man, the slave could whisper in his ear, “remember, you are a mortal man. Remember, you are only human.”
Fallon believed his own press before the ink was dry.