Centcomm Commander Abruptly Resigns

[I'm Cleo!]

Steph,

No, "Authorizations to Use Military Force" are "Declarations of War." As a matter of constitutional law, Congress doesn't need to write on top of the bill "Declaration of War" -- an AUMF will suffice.

The President would be able to order bombing in very limited circumstances, such as self-defense, or even pre-emptive (though not preventive) self-defense. Or to protect nationals abroad. But he couldn't start a war.

Patroklos,

Hold on. I said this:

Bush cannot start a war with Iran without Congressional authorization,

which you said was

absolutely, horribly false,

and then state that

He only needs Congress to 1.) official declare war.

It seems we agree. He needs Congress to declare war. What's going on here?

And what's this about:

No, [AUMFs are not constitutional "Declarations of War"], by any stretch of the imagination.

Are you arguing that the Iraq War was illegal as a matter of American constitutional law? Even I don't think that's the case. AUMFs are Declarations of War. It's been that way for a while. As I said, if they aren't, then the Iraq War was illegal as a matter of constitutional law.

Edit:

Ask yourself it the President could order a retalitory nuclear strike without Congressional permission. And extreme case, but obviously the answer is yes.

Umm . . . then that's not "starting" a war, is it?

Cleo

 

[Patroklos]

Patroklos, you sound very naieve, and you arent. you are being dishonest. Read between the lines, come on man.

I sound like I am a military officer who has intimate knowledge of how these things work, being questioned by people who have already disregared all reality in pretending Bush/Admin want war with Iran and a vested personal interest in wanting Fallon to actually be a dissenter.

"Read between the lines" = The facts don't say what I want, so I will pretend there are others do though I will not produce them for examination.

If the source is a guy going out the door, you have to be skeptical of what he is saying. It's all theatre at that point.

While what you say here is true it is mitigated almost entirely by the fact that 1.) Fallon is retiring anyway by his request and if that was supposed to be some anti-Admin act it would be perfectly appropriate and legal for him to say so and 2.) all of the quotes and statments bolded by FriendlyFire, while ment to show discord, don't do so unless you are a tin foil hat wearing member of Code Pink.

 

[RedRalph]

Gelion, much as I loathe US foreign policy, its generally rational and in their self-interest, starting WW3 (there is no way in hell thye could guarantee Russia wouldnt retaliate, its practically 100% certain in a nuclear war with Russia the US would be destroyed, as would Russia) would be the end of the US. not going to happen.

 

[JollyRoger]

While what you say here is true it is mitigated almost entirely by the fact that 1.) Fallon is retiring anyway by his request and if that was supposed to be some anti-Admin act it would be perfectly appropriate and legal for him to say so and.

That gets back to credibility of a person on the way out. Rumsfeld and Gonzales allegedly left on their own accord. Same for the U.S. Attorneys that got fired if you listened to them on the day of resignation.

2.) all of the quotes and statments bolded by FriendlyFire, while ment to Wow, nhow discord, don't do so unless you are a tin foil hat wearing member of Code Pink.

How cute. We now we have straw women all adorned in pink. You do not have to wear a tin foil on your head to be skeptical of the word of a high level official resigning. It does take rose colored glasses to unskeptically see their words as the truth.

 

[Patroklos]

It seems we agree. He needs Congress to declare war. What's going on here?

Steph said war, but we both know he was talking about simply attacking Iran. I guess you could have genuinly thought he ment "declaration of war" but his later comments suggest he didn't.

Are you arguing that the Iraq War was illegal as a matter of American constitutional law? Even I don't think that's the case. AUMFs are Declarations of War. It's been that way for a while. As I said, if they aren't, then the Iraq War was illegal as a matter of constitutional law.

No, since military action does not require a declaration of war. As far as I am concerned Iraq is not an officail war since there is no declaration of it, it is a bone of contention with me that people can't seem to follow this simplest of procedures. That being said, I understand that for all intents and purposes it is a war even if not officially so.

Note, the Quasi-French war is called just that because it was recognized that it was officially something else, even though for all intents and purposes it is a war.

 

[Steph]

No, "Authorizations to Use Military Force" are "Declarations of War."

They can't. Wiki says otherwise, and wiki is always right.

 

[Steph]

Steph said war, but we both know he was talking about simply attacking Iran. I guess you could have genuinly thought he ment "declaration of war" but his later comments suggest he didn't.

To be precise, I was speaking about Bush own decision for an unilateral pre emptive strike (not a real war), but that could escalate into a real war (even without a formal declaration), depending on Iran's reaction.

In other word, can Bush make things completly messy just before leaving the office? When is the time limit after which he cannot escalate the conflict with Iran and turn it into a de facto war?

 

[Gelion]

Gelion, much as I loathe US foreign policy, its generally rational and in their self-interest, starting WW3 (there is no way in hell thye could guarantee Russia wouldnt retaliate, its practically 100% certain in a nuclear war with Russia the US would be destroyed, as would Russia) would be the end of the US. not going to happen.

Obviously there are no idiots that want to suicide themselves. However, simply, due to fast depletion of resources, deterioration of the system of international law, growing ecological problems, in future, if technology and capabilities permit, a war to take out an enemy without retaliation would seem like a blessing because of the fruits of war. I am not saying that people want to destroy themselves. I am saying that US is doing everything they can to develop their forces in such a way that that they are able to take out ALL Russian (or Chinese) nuclear missiles in a matter of minutes so no retaliation from Russia/ or China is possible. With NATO bases growing closer to Russia every day, with US global military coordination center growing, with missile shields and tracking stations being build, how hard can it be to create a striking force that would ensure what I described?
Even at a cost of 3, 4 or 5 major US cities being nuked from retaliation, in a world of few resources, such a war is profitable! I say that because the system americans are developing is designed to ensure 95-99% efficiency in destroying enemy misslies.
Here's how it works:
US strikes Russian known nuclear silos, HQs, commnication, radar and command centers. Current US forces disposition allow missiles to strike their first targets in 5-10 minutes. 1000's of missiles guided by GPS, supported by aviation.
Russian President panics. Is it a provocation? Are your reports correct? Are we under attack? Are you sure? From all directions?
It would take some time to take a decision to strike back. By that time most of silos are destroyed.
Remaining missiles (say 10-15 percent) lift off. They are immediately tracked from radars (including one in Czech republic), space satellites, US mobile tracking systems and stationary ones on US soil. US fighters, ground interceptors are launched. 10's maybe 100of hunters per missile, with 3 lays of defence: US strike forces, outer shield (Hawais, Poland etc), inner shield (US soil). Say 10 missiles make it through. What would they hit? NORAD? NY? some missile site in the desert? It is to no importance because even with a few impacts the war is one and the enemy won't be able to strike again, while you retain your missiles and country.

 

[Patroklos]

That gets back to credibility of a person on the way out. Rumsfeld and Gonzales allegedly left on their own accord. Same for the U.S. Attorneys that got fired if you listened to them on the day of resignation.

Except those were civilian appointees who owed their positions entirely to the whim of the President and possibly had bright future carreers in politics. Fallon would have held a high level command (and did before CENTCOM) based on a career spanning 40 years of democrats and repubilcans no matter what his views. He was already a four star and had 41 years in, he didn't have a career left to ruin. There is absolutely nothing to keep him from saying what he wants nor anything to keep him from forcing the President to fire him if he really did have a heated ideological rift with Bush.

How cute. We now we have straw women all adorned in pink. You do not have to wear a tin foil on your head to be skeptical of the word of a high level official resigning. It does take rose colored glasses to unskeptically see their words as the truth.

The strawman is your own, the tin foil hat comment was not to describe the people who question the word of people resigning, but people that despite all evidence to the contrary continue to maintain that the Admin wants or even consideres a military attack on Iran likely.

In other word, can Bush make things completly messy just before leaving the office? When is the time limit after which he cannot escalate the conflict with Iran and turn it into a de facto war?

Bush can order an air strike on an Iranian reactor up to the moment McCain is sworn in. Of course if he cuts it too close McCain can just cancel it

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Patroklos,

So you're working with a different definition of "war." So what's the purpose of the Declare War Clause, then? Is it an instruction that Congress should declare something a war when the President orders military action?

If so, that's crazy, and obviously the opposite of what the Framers intended. There are few things where one can say there's fairly clear agreement among the Framers, but one is that the President cannot start wars. Only Congress may do so, in direct contrast to the English constitution, where the King could start wars without Parliament's consent and drag the people into conflicts for his own personal reasons. I mean, there are Federalist Papers on this very topic, assuring the people that the President cannot declare war by himself.

Cleo

 

[RedRalph]

Gelion, look what Spet 11th did to the Us economy. That was two buildings. If ten nuclear warheads fell on even half decent targets in the US its economy would be destroyed, even if two major cities got hit. In any case, with the amount of MIRVS, SLBMs Russia has, I dont think even the most optimistic US general would expect only ten nukes ot hit the US in an all out war with russia. Its just not going to happen, nuclear war between the US and Russia would mean the end of both countries, theres just no way they would do it. the US would be so devestated after such a war, if it even still existed, it would be completely dependent on the rest of the world.

 

[Gelion]

Gelion, look what Spet 11th did to the Us economy. That was two buildings. If ten nuclear warheads fell on even half decent targets in the US its economy would be destroyed, even if two major cities got hit. In any case, with the amount of MIRVS, SLBMs Russia has, I dont think even the most optimistic US general would expect only ten nukes ot hit the US in an all out war with russia. Its just not going to happen, nuclear war between the US and Russia would mean the end of both countries, theres just no way they would do it. the US would be so devestated after such a war, if it even still existed, it would be completely dependent on the rest of the world.

Few Russian submarines make it out of the ports as for MIRVs they can also be tracked (plus in Joint Vision 2020 plan they are destroyed in the stage where they gain orbit - one target per missile)
If what I say doesn't happen, I will be one happy ****er. I guess we just have to wait and see.

 

[JollyRoger]

Except those were civilian appointees who owed their positions entirely to the whim of the President. Fallon would have held a high level command (and did before CENTCOM) based on a career spanning 40 years of democrats and repubilcans no matter what his views. He was already a four star and had 41 years in, he didn't have a career left to ruin. There is absolutely nothing to keep him from saying what he wants nor anything to keep him from forcing the President to fire him if he really did have a heated ideological rift with Bush.

41 years in and a resignation over perceptions caused by a bs story? It just doen't mesh. He actually feeds the perception of your tin-foil hat crowd by resigning. His replacement will now be burdened with the misperceptions because his abrupt resignation gives them more heft they they would have if he had stayed on.

The strawman is your own, the tin foil hat comment was not to describe the people who question the word of people resigning, but people that despite all evidence to the contrary continue to maintain that the Admin wants or even consideres a military attack on Iraq likely.

I assume your talking about Iran here. It doesn't take a tinfoil hat to speculate that Bush might be itching to attack Iran. Just listen to the ramblings of that Bolton guy that he recess appointed to the UN. Bush most likely won't scratch the itch for a number of reasons.

 

[RedRalph]

It wont happen. Rest assured.

 

[Patroklos]

41 years in and a resignation over perceptions caused by a bs story? It just doen't mesh.

It makes perfect sense as far as unity of command is concerned. In a place as important and volatile as the Arabian Gulf there can't be any question of dissonance in the chain of command. You yourself have been easily herded into a perception of a rift by a mere Espuire article. That article is "fact" as far as millions of mindless news junkies are concerned, and since it is a sensational story it will become the "fact" for mainstream media as well. That means it will become the "fact" for a good portion of the populations of CENTCOM and its leaders who Fallon deals with directly every day as well. That sort of thing, just as Fallon himself has said, can not stand.

He actually feeds the perception of your tin-foil hat crowd by resigning.

Luckly he is professional enough and serious enough to care about the consequences of what the perception of him are right now rather than the inconsequential consequences of what the perception about him will be when he isn't there any more.

His replacement will now be burdened with the misperceptions because his abrupt resignation gives them more heft they would have if he had stayed on.

Why would the personal perceptions of Fallon follow the next totally different person? If anything what the tin foil hats will say is that now that the righteous and heroic Fallon is gone (they can call military people that when it suits their purposes) he will obviously be replaced by a hack. Of course before this situation gave the conspiracy theorists red meat they said the same thing about Fallon, shock.

I assume your talking about Iran here. It doesn't take a tinfoil hat to speculate that Bush might be itching to attack Iran. Just listen to the ramblings of that Bolton guy that he recess appointed to the UN. Bush most likely won't scratch the itch for a number of reasons.

Yes, it does. There has been nothing that Bush and company has said about Iran that is any different in substance than what Truman/Eisenhower/Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon/Ford/Carter/Reagan said about the USSR. Were all of them itching for a war with them? No. It is the old tired line were everything this Admin says being cut/rearranged/removed from context/divorced from reality/ballooned to pretend it is anything but par for the course.

Nothing Fallon has said is anything substantially different than what dozens of other Admin types have said or Bush himself on many occasions.

All that having been said, why don’t you provide a good reason why Fallon would ride harmlessly into the sunset if he really does have an enormous rift with the president so large it requires his resignation due to conscience?

 

[JollyRoger]

All that having been said, why don’t you provide a good reason why Fallon would ride harmlessly into the sunset if he really does have an enormous rift with the president so large it requires his resignation due to conscience?

That's what 41-year guys do. At least on resignation day.

 

[Patroklos]

That's what 41-year guys do. At least on resignation day.

I already pointed out the difference between your civilian examples with political asperations and Fallon with no future but sitting in his boat catching stripper while collecting his fat government pension no matter what happened.

Also, in your two examples they were not odds with the president, why would the speak out against him at all no matter what the circumstances?

Again, if Fallon was so at odds with the Bush administration, was so sure attacking Iran was not only going to be a disaster but emminent, and so convinced of both he ended his command/career himself in response, why would he fade into the sunset?

 

[JollyRoger]

I already pointed out the difference between your civilian examples with political asperations and Fallon with no future but sitting in his boat catching stripper while collecting his fat government pension no matter what happened.

Also, in your two examples they were not odds with the president, why would the speak out against him at all no matter what the circumstances?

Again, if Fallon was so at odds with the Bush administration, was so sure attacking Iran was not only going to be a disaster but emminent, and so convinced of both he ended his command/career himself in response, why would he fade into the sunset?

I think we are talking past each other here. I think the truth falls somewhere between his happily taking his pension on an extended fishing trip and the way you have characterized the article. He likely had some disagreements with the adminastration and the article gave the administration just enough reason to tell him to go out and resign. Being the loyal 41 year guy, that's what he did.

 

[brennan]

It makes perfect sense as far as unity of command is concerned. In a place as important and volatile as the Arabian Gulf there can't be any question of dissonance in the chain of command.

What tosh. Unity of command means everyone agreeing to use the same strategy, not everyone agreeing that strategy is the correct one.

 

[Patroklos]

What tosh. Unity of command means everyone agreeing to use the same strategy, not everyone agreeing that strategy is the correct one.

No, unity of command means ageeing on the strategy. The whole point is not to have people grudgingly or half heartedly pursuing a course, which is inevitably the case if you don't not only not agree with it (not so bad) but openly oppose it (according to Esquire). That thinking becomes infectious, and it spreads.