The Political Inquirer

Mackubin Owens’ latest piece on Fallon over at The Weekly Standard is as shallow of an assessment of Fallon as can be. Owens argues that Fallon joins the ranks of Douglas MacArthur and George McClellan in “disagreeing” with the way the policy should be made.

By contradicting the president in public, Fallon clearly exceeded his authority. Had he not chosen to step down, the president would have been obliged to fire him, not least because of the serious threat to balanced civil-military relations that his actions–like McClellan’s before him–constituted.

No, Owens, you are wrong. If the president orders you to do something clearly detrimental to the country, whether because it is bad military strategy or because the policy would hurt the nation in some other way, it becomes your moral duty to present your problems with the policy to the president.

Of course, being a neoconservative bent on believing authoritarian orders are a gift from God, Owens believes Eisenhower’s dismissal of MacArthur to eliminate opposition to the Korean war strategy and McClellan’s disagreement with Lincoln (leading to his removal) were glorious activities. The fact of the matter is, Lincoln and Eisenhower were both warmongers.

I have little doubt that Owens would favor the Iran war if it were to take place. Silencing the critics of such a war is absolutely necessary to the state’s war machine and its public propaganda.

(Photo: China Daily)