<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Howlers on Fallon; Where CENTCOM Might Go</title>
	<atom:link href="http://registan.net/index.php/2008/03/13/howlers-on-fallon-where-centcom-might-go/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://registan.net/index.php/2008/03/13/howlers-on-fallon-where-centcom-might-go/</link>
	<description>All Central Asia, All The Time</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 20:24:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joshua Foust</title>
		<link>http://registan.net/index.php/2008/03/13/howlers-on-fallon-where-centcom-might-go/comment-page-1/#comment-376589</link>
		<dc:creator>Joshua Foust</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:24:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.registan.net/index.php/2008/03/13/howlers-on-fallon-where-centcom-might-go/#comment-376589</guid>
		<description>&quot;Admiral&quot;: I believe I made a similar point about Iran when in the first paragraph I said, &quot;in the end Fallon’s resignation can only be seen as the honorable action of a man whose many conflicts simply made his continued employment untenable.&quot; I didn&#039;t specifically address his comments on Iran, but, no matter how much I agree with them, his making them was inappropriate. Then again, resigning was also the right move: if, as a government official, you disagree with a policy, resigning is the appropriate action to take.

I wouldn&#039;t go so far as to say &quot;grossly negligent,&quot; however. At the time I had wondered privately if it was part of a &quot;good cop/bad cop&quot; routine, one Bush has deployed before (like Rumsfeld and Powell). Of course, using a uniformed officer for such a task is highly inappropriate as well.

But, as much as I like him, Fallon is better off outside the Bush administration.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Admiral&#8221;: I believe I made a similar point about Iran when in the first paragraph I said, &#8220;in the end Fallon’s resignation can only be seen as the honorable action of a man whose many conflicts simply made his continued employment untenable.&#8221; I didn&#8217;t specifically address his comments on Iran, but, no matter how much I agree with them, his making them was inappropriate. Then again, resigning was also the right move: if, as a government official, you disagree with a policy, resigning is the appropriate action to take.</p>
<p>I wouldn&#8217;t go so far as to say &#8220;grossly negligent,&#8221; however. At the time I had wondered privately if it was part of a &#8220;good cop/bad cop&#8221; routine, one Bush has deployed before (like Rumsfeld and Powell). Of course, using a uniformed officer for such a task is highly inappropriate as well.</p>
<p>But, as much as I like him, Fallon is better off outside the Bush administration.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Admiral</title>
		<link>http://registan.net/index.php/2008/03/13/howlers-on-fallon-where-centcom-might-go/comment-page-1/#comment-376585</link>
		<dc:creator>Admiral</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2008 04:18:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.registan.net/index.php/2008/03/13/howlers-on-fallon-where-centcom-might-go/#comment-376585</guid>
		<description>Admiral Fallon clearly made serious errors with his remarks about the military option and Iran. Perhaps you addressed this elsewhere on the blog, but I missed it. I would, in fact, distinguish his own insubordination from that of General Douglas MacArthur&#039;s, which, in addition to being far more rank, was more principled. 

MacArthur was unarguably a brilliant man. We could argue about other characteristics of his, to be sure, but he knew what he was doing with his insubordination. He knew that he was gambling his career on it. His gamble failed, and with it, the seeds of long-standing foreign policy nightmares in N. Korea and China were sown. 

Fallon has had an extraordinary career as well. He seems to be honorable enough, as well. I don&#039;t know enough to say whether he or Abizaid were truly any good at what they did. But it seems grossly negligent, considering that Iran may eventually be a threat, to contradict the administration&#039;s policy of keeping all options on the table. All parties will be better off without him there. 

Fallon will have an opportunity to talk openly soon enough.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Admiral Fallon clearly made serious errors with his remarks about the military option and Iran. Perhaps you addressed this elsewhere on the blog, but I missed it. I would, in fact, distinguish his own insubordination from that of General Douglas MacArthur&#8217;s, which, in addition to being far more rank, was more principled. </p>
<p>MacArthur was unarguably a brilliant man. We could argue about other characteristics of his, to be sure, but he knew what he was doing with his insubordination. He knew that he was gambling his career on it. His gamble failed, and with it, the seeds of long-standing foreign policy nightmares in N. Korea and China were sown. </p>
<p>Fallon has had an extraordinary career as well. He seems to be honorable enough, as well. I don&#8217;t know enough to say whether he or Abizaid were truly any good at what they did. But it seems grossly negligent, considering that Iran may eventually be a threat, to contradict the administration&#8217;s policy of keeping all options on the table. All parties will be better off without him there. </p>
<p>Fallon will have an opportunity to talk openly soon enough.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

