is it true that General Fallon, Petraeus' boss, called him a good little lap dog?

Question

So it looks like Move on.org was correct.

When will republicans apologize to Moveon.org?

Answer 1

Yes it's true, and yes they do need to apologize but never will.

Answer 2

Short answer is yes General Fallon considers General Petraeus to be a sycophant (A servile self-seeker who attempts to win favor by flattering influential people)

In January, President Bush replaced Abizaid and Casey, who were “surge” skeptics, with Adm. William Fallon and Gen. David Petraeus.

Thinking want I do about the president I don't know how General Fallon got the job and I really don't know why those spineless democRATs didn't call him to testify.

It is pretty much common knowledge that things are not going well in Iraq or Afganistan.

Those of you who are patriotic ( I'm not , I've allready served in the military in 'The All American ' , AA , Alcoholics Anonymous , specifically Apha company 3rd of 325 The 13th battalion ) why don't you volunteer.

The military has been shy of recruitment goals for quite some time now and bonuses might be rather large (20-30k) if you are willing to take a combat mos and leave for Iraq soon.

Why don't you people put your life on the line for your neo-con neo-nazi self rightous beliefs.

If you believe some of the right wing talk show people you are safer over there than you are here in parts of the USA
No thanks to the bullies with a badge on , the thugs in uniform, the criminals with the full backing of the courts commonly referred to as the police

Answer 3

When will you stop showcasing a level of ignorance and stupidity that is unparalleled on the internet?

Nobody in the military from the lowest private to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff owe an apology to you, moveon.org or any of the other trash that likes to post prevaricative nonsense that is totally devoid of fact. Maybe you should apologize to humanity for wasting oxygen.

In the future, you should confine your military commentary to a area you understand. Perhaps Captain Crunch is a subject you would have some familiarity with. So far, all I see quoted is unnamed sources for these acquisitions. Perhaps a name to go with them would provide an element of credibility that seems to be lacking.

Edit for wyldfyr:

Your cut and paste is meaningless since it doesn't name a source. Without names, that article is so much flatulent garrulity and provides no supporting evidence. The fact is that you're quoting nothing more than a rumor. Using the standards of journalism employed by the groups you quote, a statement from a Pentagon janitor would be declared as a "Pentagon source" in one of the stories. I don't find that surprising given 99% of the bashing by liberals is based on rumor and innuendo. Liberals generally live down to my expectations and you're no exception. I'd be ashamed to post that in support of this question.

I love the 911 CT bunch quoting some Pentagon administrative secretary declaring that "the air defense systems on the Pentagon roof were not activated when the plane crashed" to support their wacky contentions. That is an example of the sources used by both the fringe and liberals in trying to make their point. Pretty much adds up to a sham.

Answer 4

Wow, I didn't think it was possible to not know that General Petraeus's boss is an Admiral, not a General.

Answer 5

Apologize to a newspaper that thinks our military is a bunch of rapists and baby killers.... unlikely. I knew one day you people would go over that line, it is one thing to dislike a war, but to think that out military is corrupt.... how very terrible.

Answer 6

You don't get the military and never will.

Moveon.org is a radical group of socialist traitors and that are funded by a convicted international felon.

They don't deserve an apology they deserve deportations papers and Soros need to be in jail for his crimes.

Answer 7

Maybe the General needs to reconsider risking his life for the Likes of you, sir!

Answer 8

Finally, an honest assessment from the military!

Answer 9

WASHINGTON, Sep 12 (IPS) - In sharp contrast to the lionisation of Gen. David Petraeus by members of the U.S. Congress during his testimony this week, Petraeus's superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.

Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be "an ***-kissing little chickenshit" and added, "I hate people like that", the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.

That extraordinarily contentious start of Fallon's mission to Baghdad led to more meetings marked by acute tension between the two commanders. Fallon went on develop his own alternative to Petraeus's recommendation for continued high levels of U.S. troops in Iraq during the summer.

The enmity between the two commanders became public knowledge when the Washington Post reported Sep. 9 on intense conflict within the administration over Iraq. The story quoted a senior official as saying that referring to "bad relations" between them is "the understatement of the century".

Fallon's derision toward Petraeus reflected both the CENTCOM commander's personal distaste for Petraeus's style of operating and their fundamental policy differences over Iraq, according to the sources.

The policy context of Fallon's extraordinarily abrasive treatment of his subordinate was Petraeus's agreement in February to serve as front man for the George W. Bush administration's effort to sell its policy of increasing U.S. troop strength in Iraq to Congress.

In a highly unusual political role for an officer who had not yet taken command of a war, Petraeus was installed in the office of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, in early February just before the Senate debated Bush's troop increase. According to a report in The Washington Post Feb. 7, senators were then approached on the floor and invited to go McConnell's office to hear Petraeus make the case for the surge policy.

Fallon was strongly opposed to Petraeus's role as pitch man for the surge policy in Iraq adopted by Bush in December as putting his own interests ahead of a sound military posture in the Middle East and Southwest Asia -- the area for which Fallon's CENTCOM is responsible.

The CENTCOM commander believed the United States should be withdrawing troops from Iraq urgently, largely because he saw greater dangers elsewhere in the region. "He is very focused on Pakistan," said a source familiar with Fallon's thinking, "and trying to maintain a difficult status quo with Iran."

By the time Fallon took command of CENTCOM in March, Pakistan had become the main safe haven for Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda to plan and carry out its worldwide operations, as well as being an extremely unstable state with both nuclear weapons and the world's largest population of Islamic extremists.

Plans for continued high troop levels in Iraq would leave no troops available for other contingencies in the region.

Fallon was reported by the New York Times to have been determined to achieve results "as soon as possible". The notion of a long war, in contrast, seemed to connote an extended conflict in which Iraq was but a chapter.

Fallon also expressed great scepticism about the basic assumption underlying the surge strategy, which was that it could pave the way for political reconciliation in Iraq. In the lead story Sep. 9, The Washington Post quoted a "senior administration official" as saying that Fallon had been "saying from Day One, 'This isn't working.' "

One of Fallon's first moves upon taking command of CENTCOM was to order his subordinates to avoid the term "long war" -- a phrase Bush and Secretary of Defence Robert M. Gates had used to describe the fight against terrorism.

Fallon was signaling his unhappiness with the policy of U.S. occupation of Iraq for an indeterminate period. Military sources explained that Fallon was concerned that the concept of a long war would alienate Middle East publics by suggesting that U.S. troops would remain in the region indefinitely.

During the summer, according to the Post Sep. 9 report, Fallon began to develop his own plans for redefine the U.S. mission in Iraq, including a plan for withdrawal of three-quarters of the U.S. troop strength by the end of 2009.

The conflict between Fallon and Petraeus over Iraq came to a head in early September. According to the Post story, Fallon expressed views on Iraq that were sharply at odds with those of Petraeus in a three-way conversation with Bush on Iraq the previous weekend. Petraeus argued for keeping as many troops in Iraq for as long as possible to cement any security progress, but Fallon argued that a strategic withdrawal from Iraq was necessary to have sufficient forces to deal with other potential threats in the region.

Fallon's presentation to Bush of the case against Petraeus's recommendation for keeping troop levels in Iraq at the highest possible level just before Petraeus was to go public with his recommendations was another sign that Petraeus's role as chief spokesperson for the surge policy has created a deep rift between him and the nation's highest military leaders. Bush presumably would not have chosen to invite an opponent of the surge policy to make such a presentation without lobbying by the top brass.

Fallon had a "visceral distaste" for what he regarded as Petraeus's sycophantic behaviour in general, which had deeper institutional roots, according to a military source familiar with his thinking.

Fallon is a veteran of 35 years in the Navy, operating in an institutional culture in which an officer is expected to make enemies in the process of advancement. "If you are Navy captain and don't have two or three enemies, you're not doing your job," says the source.

Fallon acquired a reputation for a willingness to stand up to powerful figures during his tenure as commander in chief of the Pacific Command from February 2005 to March 2007. He pushed hard for a conciliatory line toward and China, which put him in conflict with senior military and civilian officials with a vested interest in pointing to China as a future rival and threat.

He demonstrated his independence from the White House when he refused in February to go along with a proposal to send a third naval carrier task force to the Persian Gulf, as reported by IPS in May. Fallon questioned the military necessity for the move, which would have signaled to Iran a readiness to go to war. Fallon also privately vowed that there would be no war against Iran on his watch, implying that he would quit rather than accept such a policy.

A crucial element of Petraeus's path of advancement in the Army, on the other hand, was through serving as an aide to senior generals. He was assistant executive officer to the Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Carl Vuono, and later executive assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Henry Shelton. His experience taught him that cultivating senior officers is the key to success.

The contrasting styles of the two men converged with their conflict over Iraq to produce one of the most intense clashes between U.S. military leaders in recent history.