From the NYT:

"Adm. William J. Fallon, the commander of American forces in the Middle East whose outspoken public statements on Iran and other issues had seemed to put him at odds with the Bush administration, is retiring early, the Pentagon announced Tuesday.

Admiral Fallon had rankled senior officials of the Bush administration in recent months with comments that emphasized diplomacy over conflict in dealing with Iran, that endorsed further troop withdrawals from Iraq beyond those already under way and that suggested the United States had taken its eye off the military mission in Afghanistan.

A senior administration official said that, taken together, the comments 'left the perception he had a different foreign policy than the president.'"

There you have it GI. From the New York Times and a senior administration official: Fallon had policy differences with administration officials therefore he resigned.

Moreover, I have friends and acquaintences inside the Office of the Secretary of Defense who are well informed on the day-to-day comings and goings of the Pentagon's senior commanders. It was clear to them, as should be clear to you by now, that "Fox" Fallon wasn't a Bush team player. I've had conversations with these friends where they discussed the calls they would get from White House staff expressing frustrations at some of the things Fallon would say in National Security meetings.

As to the issue that because I don't serve in the military I shouldn't be commenting on military issues, well frankly it's fascist bullshit. Last time I checked US armed forces are under civilian control. So whether you like it or not, those not in uniform will comment and criticize as they see fit.

Futhermore, the general issues of Iraq, GWOT, or other foreign policy issues are not solely military matters. Is there a military component? Most assuredly. But it is but a mere aspect. Not the whole kit and kaboodle as you would like fancy.

Finally, let me ask you again: Yes, Al Qaeda has suffered a setback in the Middle East, a positive development to be sure. But how is it a "positive development" that they now have reconstituted in a politically volatile and unstable South Asian country?

Fallon obviously didn't agree with the President on every issue just like I have not agreed with all of the bosses I have had, however I don't air my disagreements in Esquire magazine. If Fallon didn't do the Esquire interview he would most likely still be in his old position today.

It is also interesting how you failed to address the fact that Fallon supports my position and not yours.

Also using your own logic about me not working in DC, since you don't serve in the military you obviously should not be commenting about military matters. Especially when you make comments that delivering a strategic defeat to Al Qaeda in the Middle East is not a positive development.

What doesn't stop to amaze me is the rank hypocrisy that's being displayed bloggers and commentators alike. When it's you guys who find something distasteful or irritating about Korea, you people dish out far worse bile and invective than my "haughty spirit and condescending tone".

I think I see what's going on here "In Seoul", when people like you want engage in "analysis" of Korea, you grant yourself liberal permission to say whatever you want, however you want. But when it's others who are critiquing or analyzing positions you're taking, the utmost courtesy, deference, and respect should be paid.

In other words, you can dish it but you can't take it.

Listen, when even a guy like Max Boot(no lefty mind you)is saying that Fallon was dismissed due to policy differences with other Bush administration officials, it should be clear that things weren't all well.

And on a final point concerning Fallon, I'd like to address this statements that you made:

"He clearly stepped down because his comments in the Esquire article were misunderstood as him being against the President which he clearly is not."

"I like Fallon and don’t have a problem with him but his mistake however was making comments that the media could twist to make it appear he is against the President…"

Sorry, GI, but this line of reasoning is hogwash. Maybe it's because you haven't ever worked in DC, but if a senior official makes comments that are construed by the media as being at odds with that of his superior, that senior official then doesn't go and resign his position to only give more credibility to such notions. On the contrary, GI, that official goes and makes strong clarifying statements that he supports his boss and puts and end to the media speculation and spin, if it be the case that he/she is sync with their superior. In the situation you describe, GI, resignation would be the stupidest thing possible.

But then again, GI, you are military and we all know about the oxymoron "military intelligence".

By the way GI, I also had to chuckle at this other idiotic statement of yours:

"If anything the war has discredited Al Qaeda in the Middle East due to their violent excesses in Iraq and now they have had to move the bulk of their operations out of the Middle East and into Pakistan which is yet another positive development you rather not mention."

I'm sorry, GI, but how is it any way a "positive development" that Al-Qaeda has now moved it's operations into Pakistan? Are you aware of the enomority of the violence that this being unleashed on your fellow troops in Afghanistan? Are you oblivious to the real problem of having a ruthless terrorist organization in a state with a nuclear aresenal? Are you unware of the real danger that exists of having an Al-Qaeda that has links with tribal militants, who in turn of have links with Pakistan's ISI for the United States and our allies in South Asia? If not, maybe you should try and get your hands on that memo.

HonestlyGI, when I here you make astoundingly stupid statements like this, I really start to wonder if a GI education bill is really doing its intended purpose for individuals like you.

Concerning the matter with Libya, the quote you provide does nothing to prove your point. If you actually read it yourself, GI, you'd realize it's an interview where Qaddafi is being his usual mealy mouthed self. Note that the passage states that Qaddafi says the Iraq war MAY have had an effect.

Truth of the matter is, the disarmament of Libya was a process that was occuring before the onset of the Iraq war. According to Martin Indyk of the Brookings Institute:

"…Libyan representatives offered to surrender WMD programmes more than four years ago, at the outset of secret negotiations with US officials. In May 1999, their offer was officially conveyed to the US government at the peak of the "12 years of diplomacy with Iraq" that Mr. Bush now disparages."

That's all for now GI. Look forward to hearing new shrill pronouncements from you in the future.

Invading Iraq has shown the threat of force is a bluff through and through? How does that work exactly? Did we not prove, finally, we were willing to back up threats (and UN resolutions) by use of force? Having bases in Iraq to stage from doesn't make military action more feasible?

On the hating us more issue — did you miss the tens of thousands who trained for jihad in Afghanistan throughout the 1990s? We are qualitatively more hated than before? Can you demonstrate how it is worse — how it is making us more vulnerable – either politically or security wise?

"First, if you want to cite the invasion of Iraq as the reason that Libya has given up its WMD programs and support for terror, then your again engaging in a very shallow logical reasoning. If, as you contend, Libya gave up all its nasty shenanigans solely due to the invasion of Iraq, then why didn’t other countries in the Middle East such as Syria or Iran follow suit? "

Is this Kushibora? —- if not — it is him in spirit…

Putting other people down, regularly, for being logically challenged – then coming up with an utter beatu like "so why hasn't Syria given up its weapons too?" — oh — and also the usually Kushibora line of attack like in "soletly due to"…

Will their strategy be proven right? It is to early to tell and could quite possibly fail. However, I clearly said that the decision to go to war is long from being determined to be a strategic success or not. Anyone who claims it to be a success or failure at this point are clearly political partisans like yourself.

The claims of increasing anti-Americanism in the Middle East is quite absurd when they were anti-American before the war even happened. Maybe you missed the celebrations in the streets after 9/11? If anything the war has discredited Al Qaeda in the Middle East due to their violent excesses in Iraq and now they have had to move the bulk of their operations out of the Middle East and into Pakistan which is yet another positive development you rather not mention.

Also if the Iranians did not take the threat of military action seriously then why did they stop their nuclear weapons development after the invasion of Iraq and reportedly shift it to Syria? They were clearly worried they were next. They obviously now are not as worried about a military strike since the release of the NIE but they clearly were then.

Also I never stated Gadhafi came clean because of the Iraq War I said it was a positive development that has occurred as part of the wider war on terror. The work to bring Libya back into the global mainstream has mostly been done by the fine work of British and French diplomats. However, Gadhafi has clearly stated that the war in Iraq played into his reasoning why he came clean:

TRIPOLI, Libya (CNN) — Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, in an exclusive interview with CNN, acknowledged Monday that the war in Iraq may have played a role in his decision to dismantle his country's weapons of mass destruction programs.

He also told CNN's Andrea Koppel that though his country has certain programs and machines, it has no chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear arms.

"We have not these weapons," he said, adding that the programs he is prepared to dismantle "would have been for peaceful purposes — but nevertheless we decided to get rid of them completely.

As far as the Cedar Revolution it was so significant that the Syrians and their Hezbollah allies have had to resort to assassinations to stop it only further discrediting both the Syrians and Hezbollah within Lebanon and the wider world.

As far as Columbia I know full well Clinton began Plan Columbia much to the consternation of the American left. Clinton should be applauded for this. Bush carried the plan even further by linking FARC to the wider war on terror, which only further antagonized the American left. The results of continuing to strongly support Columbia are becoming quite evident and it is a shame that the Democrats are willing to obstruct against measures to continue the success in Columbia.

Also once again you like to put words in my mouth I never said. This is a reoccurring them with you. For example I never said world wide terrorism is a big monolith, you did.

Also I like how you call me a “war hawk” which once again shows your level of discourse to name call anyone that disagrees with you. Just for the record I have never advocated a war with Iran when there are still clearly much better diplomatic and economic measures that have not been tried yet, not to mention how a bombing campaign would be extremely difficult considering much of Iran’s nuclear program is well buried in deep bunkers.

I have also openly advocated against a war with North Korea against people on the left that wanted to foolishly bomb them and have instead advocated for a much more reasonable policy.

Also I know my smack down of your idolization of Fallon was painful. All everyone has to do is read the CNN interview and read what Fallon says that completely discredits what you say:

Phillips: So when talk of the third war came out, a war with Iran, the president didn't say to you, "This is what I want to do," and did you stand up and say, "No, sir. Bad move"?

Fallon: It's probably not appropriate to try to characterize it in that way. Again, don't believe for a second that the president really wants to go to war with Iran. We have a lot of things going on, and there are many other ways to solve problems. I was very open and candid in my advice. I'm not shy. I will tell people, the leaders, what I think and offer my opinions on Iran and other things, and continue to do that.

Phillips: Do you think that cost you your job?

Fallon: No, I don't believe so at all. It's a confidence issue of do people really believe the chain of command is working for them or do we have doubts, and if the doubts focus attention away from what the priority issues ought to be, then we've got to make a change.

To further emphasize the point here are more comments from Fallon:

"There was a huge perception that I was publicly at odds with the president, which was not true," he said. "I had serious concerns that my subordinates – my Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines – had that perception.

"It put me in a difficult position. I felt very uncomfortable."

He clearly stepped down because his comments in the Esquire article were misunderstood as him being against the President which he clearly is not. Fallon actually makes very good points in the Military.com article such as this:

Even now, he defends his public statements on Iran that stress diplomacy over the use of force. "People tend to look at things in black and white – we're going to love Iran or attack Iran," he said. "That is a very simplistic way to approach a complex problem."

Which he is absolutely right. I like Fallon and don't have a problem with him but his mistake however was making comments that the media could twist to make it appear he is against the President, which he has once again clearly stated he isn’t.

So Gaetano by idolizing Fallon then that must mean you also support the current Iraq policy because Fallon has clearly said he supports it as well as General Petraeus. There is a reason why the left no longer mentions Fallon and this is it, I guess you didn't get the memo.

It is also fitting you ended your comment with yet another arrogant statement which appears to be what you excel at. I guess it only fitting you work for a Congress with a 9% approval rating last I checked.

Exhibit A:

"Early on after 9/11 they administration made the decision that the war on terror was going to be broad reaching and not just limited to Al Qaeda. The administration overthrew the Saddam Hussein regime to install a friendly government to send a message to the rest of the Middle East as part of the broader war on terror."

Yes, GI, they sure did send a message. By invading and removing Saddam, they irrevocably altered the balance of power that had existed in the Middle East and not for the better. Are usual steadfast allies the Egyptians, Jordanians, and the Saudis are now in the midst of being eclipsed by a Shia revival from Lebanon to Iran. Second, by invading Iraq, the Bush administration in effect has shackled the ability of the United States to make credible threats of the use of military force when diplomatically dealing with our enemies. They Syrian, Iranians, and North Koreans know full well that the military option is bluff through and through. Most importantly, the invasion of Iraq has only inflammed anti-American sentiments in the very region we were ostensibly out to "shock and awe" into fearful submission.

Exhibit B:

"You are quick to list what hasn’t gone right but dismiss things that have been positive such as Libya giving up terrorism and their WMD program. The Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, the decimation of Al Qaeda fighters in Iraq, the joint US-Filipino operations that has helped to crush Abu Sayef, the near collapse of FARC in Columbia to name a few more things that have gone well in regards to the wider war on terror launched by the Bush administration."

Where to begin with this one.

First, if you want to cite the invasion of Iraq as the reason that Libya has given up its WMD programs and support for terror, then your again engaging in a very shallow logical reasoning. If, as you contend, Libya gave up all its nasty shenanigans solely due to the invasion of Iraq, then why didn't other countries in the Middle East such as Syria or Iran follow suit? Or for that matter, why didn't East Asian third of Bush's "Axis of Evil"-North Korea-do so as well following the invasion? The truth of the matter is, is that in the Libyan case a combination of diplomatic tools and economic sanctions is what eventually got Qaddafi to turn.

Second, I've touched on it before but I'll reiterate for your much needed edification: Yes, I'm aware of the Cedar Revolution that occured in Lebanon. But your fail to acknowledge, GI, the events that have come after the Cedar Revolution. Simply put, it's not the Western leaning liberals who are in charge of the country but rather Hassan Nasrallah and Hezbollah.

Third, the issue concerning the Abu Sayef is in many ways a conflict that is very seperate from GWOT. If anything, what your dealing with in the Phillipines is a sepratist movement. Not some transnational, revolutionary nihlistic movement like Al-Qaeda. If fact, one of the big problems that war hawks such as yourself make when you talk about all these disparate Islamist movements from the Horn of Africa, to Indonesia, to Pakistan, to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is that you lump them all together as if they're all part of one big monolith. The fact is that they are not. And in a lot of instances certain groups vehemently hate other groups.

Fourth. Yes Al-Qaeda in Iraq has been significantly weakend but they have recouped in the Pakistani FATA and still have operational vitality.

Fifth. The near collapse of the FARC in Columbia preceeds the beginning of GWOT. In many ways, the routing of the FARC began with the introduction of Plan Columbia under Columbia president Andres Pastrana in the late 90's. Moreover, it was under the Bill Clinton administration that 1.3 billion in aid begin to pour into Columbia to fight its drug war.

Exhibit C:

Your attempt to spin the reasons for Fallons departure as CENTCOM commander is cute but nonetheless unconvincing. Don't you find it the least bit odd that he served only a year as CENTCOM commander and was uncermoniously let go? It's obvious that he had serious policy disagreements with the Bush adminstration. Even a dyed-in-the-wool neoconservative, Iraq War cheerleader such as Max Boot surmised as much.

Don't believe me? Go read it for yourself:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-boot12mar12,0,...

Anyways, that's all that I seem to have time for at the moment. I look forward to horsing around with you some other time. In the meantime, do make sure to take good care of that chip on your shoulder GI. After all, it's really all that you have going for.

If Gaetano is wondering why we went to Iraq in the first place it definitely shows the level of competence he has. Early on after 9/11 they administration made the decision that the war on terror was going to be broad reaching and not just limited to Al Qaeda. The administration overthrew the Saddam Hussein regime to install a friendly government to send a message to the rest of the Middle East as part of the broader war on terror. They used the WMD case to sell it because it was a “slam dunk” instead of stating their real intentions.

You are quick to list what hasn’t gone right but dismiss things that have been positive such as Libya giving up terrorism and their WMD program. The Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, the decimation of Al Qaeda fighters in Iraq, the joint US-Filipino operations that has helped to crush Abu Sayef, the near collapse of FARC in Columbia to name a few more things that have gone well in regards to the wider war on terror launched by the Bush administration.

Will Iraq ultimately become a strategic victory for the US? I don’t know and you don’t know either. Anyone claiming victory or defeat as this point right now are political partisans like yourself more interested in the next election then any strategic victory for the US. I recommend reading Douglas Feith’s book which lays out the facts on why the administration went to war, not that you care.

The left’s idolization of General Fallon continues to be amusing when his comments about General Petraeus were proven false not to mention these comments he made about President Bush and General Petraeus in this CNN interview I recommend everyone read:

Phillips: [Esquire magazine writer] Tom Barnett made it appear that you were the only man standing between the president and a war with Iran. Is that true?

Fallon: I don't believe for a second President Bush wants a war with Iran. The situation with Iran is very complex. People sometimes portray it or try to portray it in very simplistic terms — we're against Iran, we want to go to war with Iran, we want to be close to them. … The reality is in international politics that [there are] many aspects to many of these situations, and I believe in our relationship with Iran we need to be strong and firm and convey the principles on which this country stands and upon which our policies are based. At the same time demonstrate a willingness and openness to engage in dialogue because there are certainly things we can find in common.

Phillips: Hillary Clinton [and] Barack Obama talk about pulling troops out by next year. John McCain says, no, we've got to stay the course. What is the best course for Iraq right now?

Fallon: I believe the best course is to retain the high confidence we have in General Dave Petraeus and his team out there. Dave has done a magnificent job in leading our people in that country.

Again, this situation is quite complex — many angles. There's a very, very important military role here in providing stability and security in this country, but that's not going to be successful, as we know, without lots of other people playing a hand. The political side of things in Iraq has got to move forward. That appears to be improving. People have to have confidence in their futures. They want to have stability. They would like to be able to raise their families in peace. They would like to have a job. They would like to look to tomorrow as better than today.

It takes more than the military, but the military is essential to provide stability and security. The idea we would walk away from Iraq strikes me as not appropriate. We all want to bring our troops home. We want to have the majority of our people back and we want the war ended.

Given where we are today, the progress that they've made particularly in the last couple months, I think it's very, very heartening to see what's really happened here.

The right course of action is to continue to work with the Iraqis and let them take over the majority of the tasks for ensuring security for the country and have our people come out on a timetable that's appropriate to conditions on the ground.

Your “voice of reason” supports exactly what the US military is doing right now in Iraq. I wonder why the left's media outlets have not mentioned this? Better try next time.

Also your continued complaints about Kirkuk and other issues in Iraq are amusing considering you think an artificial timeline will solve them all instantaneously which is naïve to say the least. Kirkuk is a microcosm of Iraq with various actors with various agendas that has to be handled slowly, deliberately, and carefully just like many other issues in Iraq that will not be solved overnight.

Maliki understands this and for example is working on spending Iraqi reconstruction money slowly and deliberately to prevent corruption:

"Money is not a problem," al-Maliki told a recent gathering of tribal chiefs in the southern city of Basra, after government forces had defeated Shiite extremists there. "But we must put it in honest hands to spend."

If Maliki just started throwing money at the issues of Iraq like the US government did early on in the war it would just be wasted in corruption. However since Maliki is trying to wisely spend the nation’s oil wealth you complain he is not spending enough. Just like with every issue in Iraq political partisans like yourself will find something to complain about and refuse to acknowledge the hard work of those over there bringing about positive developments because you can’t see past the next election.