Posted by
Reeson on Thursday, March 13, 2008 1:00:00 PM
According to a statement posted on her Senate web site yesterday, Hillary Clinton is asking the Senate Armed Services Committee to conduct hearings into the resignation of Admiral William Fallon, who has been serving as the commanding officer of U.S. Central Command for just more than a year. The problem with her statement, and with her letter to Senator Levin, is that Mrs. Clinton is implying there should be limits on the President’s authority as Commander-in-Chief, limits I doubt she would impose on herself if she were to win the White House in November.
Expressing her concern over Admiral Fallon’s resignation, Senator Clinton said in her letter to committee chair Carl Levin of Michigan, “As you know, Admiral Fallon was a voice of reason in an administration which has used inflammatory rhetoric with respect to Iran, and I am deeply concerned by indications that Admiral Fallon’s decision to resign may not have been his own.” She goes on to say, “I believe it is in the interest of both our military and the policy making process for flag officers to be able to express their professional, unfiltered advice to civilian leaders.”
I want to make a couple of important points here. First, Admiral Fallon could express his “voice of reason” as often as he wanted, to other military officers, to defense officials, and to the President, in private. In military circles, dissent is not only tolerated, it is encouraged, but in private. For a senior military officer to disagree with the Commander-in-Chief, in public, is simply unacceptable. To imply that Admiral Fallon should be allowed to openly air personal views that are in contradiction to the President’s policy is to imply support for insubordination and subversion. In the military, debate precedes a decision, with differing viewpoints argued and rebutted. But once a decision is made by the commander, or in this case once policy is decided on by the Commander-in-Chief (to keep all options open regarding Iran), it is the duty and responsibility of the uniformed officer to carry out that decision or policy. If he or she cannot do that for moral ethical reasons, it is the responsibility of the officer to resign.
Second, Senator Clinton said she was concerned that the decision to resign may not have been made by Admiral Fallon. So what? If Admiral Fallon was contradicting the policy of the President, and failed to resign on his own, it is perfectly reasonable, and legal, that he would be forced out of his position. After all, Admiral Fallon, like all military officers, serves at the pleasure of the President of the United States. He is appointed by the President and can be relieved of his duties by the President. Why is this a point of contention for Senator Clinton?
To allow a serving senior officer, responsible for U.S. military operations in the most volatile region in the world, to publicly disagree with or contradict stated U.S. policy as expressed by the Commander-in-Chief is to undermine the basic principle of civilian control of our military. I seriously doubt that Senator Clinton would stand for such expressions of disagreement or contradiction by a sitting flag officer if she were to hold the title of Commander-in-Chief.