Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

Sean,
Good luck with the next "Tom around the web" post. Google News has 600 stories and counting from just the past week!

Your article is excellently written and bolstered my respect for Admiral Fallon and helped me (a junior officer) to better understand his innovative perspective of strategic leadership. Unfortunately the best qualities of your article according to a popular media substance critique (unique insider perspective, compelling arguments, spirit of resistance to the Bush Administration) was naturally published without regard to the increase in political pressure created on Fallon's position. Erosion of the delicate line to appease the White House and yet execute his vision culminated in persistent media attention to his apparent resistance to the White House that according to Senior White House Official "left the perception he had a different foreign policy than the president." Perception, according to my ROTC instructors, is reality.

In your analysis and praise of Admiral Fallon, the second and third order effects (and beyond) of the Esquire article sealed the fate on our military losing a great leader. Adm Fallon had immense influence to effect change from within our stalemated senior leadership compared to his peers who you found "few with the same capacity for strategic vision."

Your writings historically highlight the failures of American Generalship, but in the efforts to spotlight a savior we lost him. If his comments have been perceived as borderline disruptive in the eyes of the administration, yours and previous media crucial-report-it-as-you-found-it article politically broke the camel's back. It is a scenario such as this that solidifies status-quo adherence in our senior leader culture restricting the progress so many strive for.

Blame rests in the rules of the game, and we should take note of these secondary/tertiary effects. Terror groups are increasingly leveraging information warfare tactics to their favor…and we shoot our selves in the foot.

Capt Jonathan S, Afghanistan

C'mon, Tom--- I mean, Dr. Barnett--- as a grand strategist, you must have something to say about this, beyond the personal. It raises many questions, most of which have been raised before. Has this Administration politicized The Brass, as nakedly as they have the Dept. of Justice? ---among the more salient ones.

Petraeus and Franks being concrete examples, though the former has not as of yet done so much harm to our national security. Both ardent conservative activists...(and Franks, in my view, close to treason in his indifference to the mission of the poor bastards under his command. Not to mention the crooked fundraising "for the troops" that he sold his name for in retirement.)

We have come a long way from the tradition of political indifference/independence of the Officer Corps that remained American tradition through the 1960s. Now, the majority of field & flag officers identify themselves as not only Republican, but "Conservative Republican." Good for the Republican Party, perhaps, but good for the Republic?

It is easier to see now why practically every Flag rank officer in the military hated/hates Wesley Clark so much--- or easier to imagine, anyway.

He was hard on Serbia, but soft on Abortion, on Illegals, on Crime, on Blacks, on welfare cases. Good Officer, maybe, but not True Conservative material. (Well, these days even Goldwater's boy, McCain, isn't right enough for the movement.) Clark never adopted the conservative line on "social" or "values" issues, unlike most of our favored flag officers today. Fallon apparently blew it by not favoring W's "Hard Line" on Iran.

(NB, Dr. Barnett--- I am a zionist through and through, believing strongly in the idea that the Jewish people deserve to have a state, just like the French, German, Serbian and Khmer people do. I am also a centrist Democrat, aligned not so much to ideology as to pragmatic, equitable problem solving. But--- reality check--- war with Iran, now?? An insane choice, for both Israel and America... sorry, I digress.)

Fair enough to oppose Clark politically, as a candidate, but from the limited information available to me, it seems that DOMESTIC PARTISAN POLITICS for the modern day GOP are FAR more important than boring technocratic stuff about national defense ... even when it comes to making national security policy.

I am inclined to think that the situation (in particular, the disappearing line between Republican Party Policy and civil service) has gotten far worse in recent years. Please, Sir, tell me different. It would be nice to sleep well at night. It would also be nice to be "Proud to be an American", too.

Oh, and I liked the books. Good food for thought, and once or twice while drunk, I thought you might be the next Mahan.

Dear Mr Barnett:

1) Have you spoken with Admiral Fallon since his resignation?

2) In relation to the definition of strategy indicated in the Esquire article, do you believe that Admiral Fallon's resignation was a predictable or unpredictable response to the Esquire article?

3) Despite what Admiral Fallon has stated about the Esquire article, I respectfully ask: Do you believe the Esquire article had anything to do with Admiral Fallon's resignation? I ask this question because it seemed that the Esquire article made it clear that the differences between the Administration and the Admiral were not a secret. And, further, implied that these differences would have a certain strategic effect in Iran, and elsewhere, in the context of a 'good cop [Admiral], bad cop [Administration]' methodology.

Steven Trull

I've always felt an attack was unlikely but if it did happen , it would have been a useful indicator that Fallon would probably resign before an attack , as Tom suggested( rather than the fallout from the article).
Now thats gone.Or have we just received that indication?.

I finally read the Esquire piece yesterday via a link from the Drudge Report. It seemed, to me, to be a fair (and positive) description of a complicated man doing a complicated job. And the writing was really, really good.

It may have been frustrating for the administration to read the article, but they had their turn--an equally fair (and positive) treatment of Don Rumsfeld in "Old Man in a Hurry." That was just as good as the Fallon piece.

Jonathan,

I agree with your analysis. I would note, though, that the rules changed with this administration.

It's the secrecy by which decisions are made that has poisoned the well. If "outing" any opposition to the administration's line puts that person at risk, then is the journalist's choice simply to ignore the internal debate to spare the public such knowledge?

Cause if it is, then we're offering descriptions of our own government that historically are better leveled at authoritarian regimes, where America constantly needs to be careful shining a light on dissidents lest they fall under attack by authorities.

If we place our military leadership in that category, then this country is in a world of trouble.

The public's right to know of internal debates on matters as crucial as to whether or not we go to war with Iran is sacrosanct in my mind. Wars of choice have to be national choices, not just leadership choices.

Disclaimer: Read the books, read the blog daily, big believer in your "shrink the gap" and "soft kill" strategic thinking.

A follow up to your response to Jonathan:

In defending your decision to highlight Fallon's opposing views you ask whether it "is the journalist's choice simply to ignore the internal debate to spare the public such knowledge"?

Doesn't this highlight the extreme conflict between being both a "journalist" and "grand strategist"? You took a guy who bolsters and practices your "grand strategy" like no other in the current administration and wrote a piece on him (wearing your "journalist" hat) that hastened his dismissal and ultimate retirement, thus ensuring that he will have little to no future effect on "grand strategy". In hindsight, it appears that you chose to be a "journalist" over a "grand strategist".

Considering how much I agree with your strategic thinking, it pains me that it appears as though you allowed your Esquire gig to negatively impact the grand strategy. I'm wondering if this situation is causing you to reconsider your role with Esquire or the types of pieces you will put out in the future.

Thanks.

Jerry

Even though I know nothing, I suspect that the outing of Admiral Fallon, and BTW taking down a peg our well-regarded Thomas Barnett, is connected to other seemingly unrelated events.

Together with the Fallon event is the demolishing of Elliot Spitzer. Spitzer's big sin was trying to enforce the securities law, while the Feds slept on it.

The other event was the $200 billion dollar bailout of the hedge funds at al by the Federal Reserve. No one questions where the FED gets the Treasury bonds and bills to give to hedge funds and other reckless organizations. My guess is that the Treasury simply printed the paper.

All the media attention goes to the Spitzer take down, with some recognition to the Fallon fall, but no attention whatsoever goes to the wildly inflationary action of the Federal Reserve.

We live in difficult times.

After reading your (Dr. Barnett's) reply to Jonathan, I pulled out my Commission and sure enough it said (in part), "...and follow the orders and directions, from time to time, as may be given by the President of the United States of America...". The President is an elected official. Military Officers are not. While I regret Fallon's departure from the scene and fear its impact on the Middle East, a fear more the impact of Officers OPENLY questioning the authority of the President of the United States. Countries that have gone through a military take-over by Officers who thought their judgment was better than their Elected (or otherwise) leadership are my case in point.

Senior Officers may disagree with the President in private; however, those disagreements are best kept from the public stage or our Government would be totally ineffective in International Diplomacy. Of course, Senior Officers all know this. Fallon is a case in point of an honorable man paying the ultimate price when his disagreement was made public. Once the President, the elected Commander in Chief, decides on a course of action; the Military is bound by the Constitution of the United States to obey (Article 2, Section 2.) "Outing", in this case, might be another way of saying "leak." We all have come to accept that a “leak” is a rather undignified way of disagreeing with one’s leadership these days. One can only speculate if that’s what Fallon had in mind when he cooperated with the Esquire article. McArthur was relieved of his Command in 1951 for violating the constitutional principle that military commanders are subordinate to civilian leadership, and usurpation of the President's authority to make foreign policy.

The only honorable thing for an Officer to do when he disagrees with the President is to resign his commission. Note that those Officers who opt to retire instead of resign remain officers, are subject to recall to active duty and are bound by their Commission.

I guess the takeaway is (understatement follows), we need to be very careful who we elect President. Real people get hurt if we pick the wrong guy or gal.

ADM Fallon is no fool. He knew TPMB's writing style, he knew his personality. The heat from the administration may have been more than he expected...but he doesn't strike me as the kind of man who'd turn-tail at the first sign of rough seas.

Our military leaders DO have a rough time mounting the upper paygrades if they don't toe-the-line with the current administration, but ADM Fallon (aside from threats on his or his family's well-being) didn't have much to lose....he's an O10 with a guaranteed CEO/Director's job as several think-tanks/defense contracting agencies or (dare I dream?) a run at the Senate or cabinet post.

I anxiously await ADM Fallon's eventual explanation of his decision to vacate. "Hard-hitting" as TPMB's piece was...I'm thinking it wasn't the impetus it appears to be.

See video: Why Fallon's Resignation is Frightening Defense Secretary Robert Gates did not have to accept Admiral Fallon's resignation. "The military people think basically that Admiral Fallon was PUSHED OUT" - Mark Thompson Time Magazine National Security Correspondent
Fallon is described as "the one person in the military or Pentagon standing between the White House and war with Iran."

Excellent article, Tom. If I have any criticisms, it would be that your generous sprinkling of your not so covert disdain for the current administration throughout the article at times detracts from your excellent "tell it like it is" characterization of a very interesting military leader.

At the risk of being summarily dismissed from this blog, I would think you might want to resist the urge to take shots at the Bush Administration and stick more closely to the story: my humble opinion is it would have made this article much more powerful than it is (and at the least, might have taken away just one more reason for the administration boys to place the final nail in the admiral's coffin lid).

Standing by for the verbal blasts, and still a huge believer in the strategic visions of the "PNM" and the "Blueprint!"

After years of decline due to US weakness in facing Iran the President is hell bent on restoring regional confidence in American power. Fallon's departure signals coming US military action against the terror masters of Tehran. If the mullahs are still in power after Election Day expect Bush to strike and strike hard.

Reader Rosen's comments are factually inaccurate. Yes, most flag officers are Republicans. I think that has more to do with a reaction to Mr. Clinton than anything else. But they're not necessarily social conservatives; some are, some aren't. A fair amount are mildly conservative pragmatists. You might be interested to take a look at Donald Rumsfeld's record as a congressman and White House staffer. You'll find he wasn't particularly conservative on domestic issues himself.

As for General Clark, it wasn't his politics that made him unpopular with other generals. Most of his contemporaries didn't know his party; I don't know that he even had one for most of his career. Fairly or not, he wasn't perceived as a "soldiers' leader" or as one of the guys with other senior leaders; some contemporaries may have been suspicious of his intellectual nature. It was more than party politics at work.

As for Dr. Barnett, I didn't understand the perceived need for the reference to "doughy neocons". It was a rather heated turn of phrase. There are indeed people who see some things from the neoconservative perspective who did indeed serve in the military, and could hardly be fairly described in such a manner.

With Wes Clark closely associated with HRC and Petraeus closer to McCain's vision, Fallon seams a good fit for a potential Obama cabinet post. Maybe State Dept.

My concern: Tom: Do you expect to lose some access to the military, to the market, and/or to candor based on these turn of events?

Admiral Fallon's resignation was bad for the military, bad for morale, bad for our strategic position, and bad for America.

I wonder how much more damage will be done to the military and our military leadership before this administration leaves office.

I think there are two seperate issues here:
1) Substance of Adm. Fallon's comments, up to and including his strategic vision, views on possible use of force vs. Iran, etc. Reasonable people can, and should, disagree about those. Reasonable people can, and should, disagree with some or all of what the Administration is doing. However...
2) Does Adm. Fallon make national/strategic policy, or does he implement it? I think, under our going-on-three century system of civilian control, the latter. He can, and should, provide his advice on national/strategic policy to the JCS, SecDef, and President. Once they decide on the policy, his job is to say "Yes Sir," and figure out the best way to implement that policy. He is certainly free to disagree--how many serviing officers agree with every order they are given--but when the President/Administration decides on policy, it is an order, to him no less than to the newest Seaman.
If anyone in the military finds themself unwilling or unable to carry out a lawful order for reasons of conscience, or simple disagreement with that order because they think it is "bad" policy in the sense it won't accomplish stated goals, or because they think the policy is just incorrect, their recourse is NOT to publically disagree. He might be 4 stars, but making national/strategic policy is above his pay grade.
And make no mistake, his comments to Al Jazeera and to Tom, and to others, is a public repudiation of the policy set by the civilian leadership. It is immaterial whether that policy is good or bad, correct or incorrect. So long as it is legal, his repudiation is the same as refusing a lawful order. Lincoln and Truman and FDR (over basin the Fleet at Pearl) faced the same issue, and dealt with it. At the end of the day, I think Adm. Fallon realized he had stepped over the line.
Some of this may have to do with the elevation of the Comb. CINCs. But, for all their new power, and their "new" role in the chain of command, they are still serving officers. They may make military strategy, but only to carry out the policy set by the (or any) Administration. They don't have to like that policy, they may disagree, but as long as they wear the uniform they must carry it out.

Fallon's job wasn't to set policy? It isn't my job to 'set policy' either, but- as a civilian- I am not asked to make sacrifices every time I call the President an idiot. I am asked to obey those policies the President and Congress sets: refusing to pay taxes, to submit to a called draft or otherwise violating the laws and regulations put in place to implement policy gets me fined or thrown in jail. So how come I can get away with speaking my mind in public, but Fallon cannot?

William says it is because repudiation is the same as disobedience, but WHY is it the same? Had he not resigned, he would still be required to carry out a direct order to attack Iran; his only alternatives AT THAT POINT would be Court Martial or resignation. Even assuming that public disagreement by him represented a threat to the likelihood of the mission's success, it's not necessarily the worst sabotage he could commit-- he could just as easily have kept his mouth shut and employed bureaucratic tactics and deliberate inefficiencies to undermine the operation.

Granted, I'm a life-long civilian. But it seems to me that- if I were President- I'd rather have an Admiral who disagrees with me in public, but carries out direct orders to the best of his abilities than one who agrees with me, but cannot (or will not) get the job done when ordered. Choosing the reverse seems more like a Presidential ego trip than maintaining military discipline. What am I missing?

What you're missing Michael is the "unity of command" issue. Uniformed personnel can argue to high heaven with the Administration in private, but can't repudiate the President in public. We have civilian control of the military in this country.

I served in the military under President Clinton. It's a good thing for him that this policy existed, because there was precious little respect for President Clinton personally among military officers. Plenty thought him utterly unfit to be Commander-in-Chief, but never said a word. A few crossed him publicly, and most of them rightfully paid for it. The one instance where he was crossed without consequence was General Powell on the gays-in-the-military issue. At that time, Powell had so much more credibility than Clinton, there wasn't much Clinton could do.