"Second, the right officer to field that question is the commander of U.S. Central Command, who has responsibility for Iraq, Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf, and all South Asia. That commander, until recently, was Adm. William Fallon. He was canned last month after publicly calling for just such a shift of troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. If McCain is keen to defer to top military officers, would he—unlike President Bush—have followed Fallon's advice? If not, why not?"

Why was Fallon better? What was his background in counterinsurgency? Has he ever fought in a ground conflict? He was fired for maintaining an incompatible position with his commander. In the military you follow ordrs or leave. What you do NOT do is undermine your chain of command.

Ranger 82 is that [82] a measure of your IQ ? Fallon resigned because he is an honest man let me offer you a quote from history about the time the US became a nation "His majesty made you a major because he believed that you would know when not to obey his orders."- Prince Frederick Charles "

That quote applies to tactics. National policy is SOLELY the responsibility of the king, as Charles knew and you well know. Not a good argument at all.

"No one knows his (Napoleon's) intentions, and it is our duty to obey him." Marshal of France Berthier to Marshal Ney

Can we be sure of your last paragraph quote, Ranger 82?

Napolean is said to have kept a corporal in his tent during briefings of his marshals. Upon finishing, he supposedly would ask the corporal, "do you understand what my intentions are?"

As brilliant of a planner and a man of detail Louis Berthier was, he was afterall, a rear area paper shuffler. Ah, but Ney, there was a fighter!

Just having more fun with you : - )

It would seem an odd quote to make up. My second great interest after the Roman Army was Napoleon and in particular the Imperial Guard. I vouch for the accuracy of the quote. It was in a letter that Berthier wrote to Ney. Apparently Napoleon told him to write it as a warning to Ney.

Ranger82, Fallon was not "better" but Fallon was the Commander of CENTCOM and as such, he has the authority to make decisions or recommendations about the Central Command region. Petraeus is in charge of the Multi-national force in Iraq.

It's a chain of command or authority issue. It is simply not Gen. Petraeus' authority to determine the movement of forces around CENTCOM.

If Ranger means you were an Army Ranger, surely you understand that. When one appoints a person to be in the chain of command you don't skip echelon to find out what another general suggests no matter how able that general. Perhaps McCain wants to make Petraeus CENTCOM commander.

If Gen. Fallon, or any CENTCOM commander does not have the necessary qualifications to make recommendations about the deployment of troops in his or her command, then they shouldn't have been placed in that position to begin with. If Fallon wasn't qualified then that speaks to Bush's incompetence.

I'm sorry Ranger 82, I meant my first paragraph as a literary trope.

I'm aware of the "literal" sense you lent the quote to us in the Fray. I mean after all, after Mad Magazine and Popular Mechanics, this is as close to the Infantry Journal or the Naval Review we're getting : - >

"It is not histories I am writing, but lives; and in the most glorious deeds there is not always an indication of virtue or vice, indeed a small thing like a phrase or a jest often make a revelation of a character than battles where thousands die."

Have you read Plutarch?

You have been to East Africa obviously. I spent a year running around there in the early 80s. Tell me why you picked the nic, btw, I think its spelled mzungu...

Actually one reason Fallon got the CENTCOM job in the first place is because he got credit for the successful counter-insurgency in the Phillipeans when he was PACOM cdr. I'm not saying he deserved the credit, just that he did have experience counter-insurgency before taking command of CENTCOM.

Read the article again and this time leave your emotions out of it and simply go for comprehension. McCain is a dumbass. He doesn't know what he is talking about. Fallon's abiltity to fight a counterinsurgency has nothing to do with it.

Did MacArthur need to go? Was Truman wrong? Doesn't matter. Truman was the President.

I hate having to do this but....

Fallon - or more precisely, whoever replaces Fallon as CENTCOM commander - would be the person in command of the troops that would be redistributed to Afganistan. Petereaus does not have that authority.

McCain deomonstrated that he does not have the basic knowledge of the organization of the Military Chain of Command - one of the things he is supposedly most qualified to do.

In short, McCain does not understand the job of Commander in Chief and should not be considered for the post.

Obama undedrstands NOTHING about the military but is better qualified? I see.

After all this back and forth where you either ignored the obvious flaws in your comments or failed to understand what you were getting wrong, you now lash out at Obama? What the hell does that have to do with the lack of competence on the part of McCain? Hello?

If you represent contemporary military logic (personally, I don't buy this Ranger BS, but I will play along) it is no wonder that we have everything so upside down in the Middle East right now.

Jeez.

"If you represent contemporary military logic..."

Thankfully, no. Not entirely, anyway. There is a large minority of us who have either stopped drinking the kool-aid or never started in the first place. The general rule in my particular community seems to be that the closer you are to the flagpole, the more brainwashed you're likely to be. Presumably, this rule holds throughout the military. I've known people who share his opinions, but since my entire career has been spent overseas, they have been few.

Rest assured, there are at least some of us who are looking forward to the return of a measure of sanity to government. But as retention statistics might indicate, many of those people aren't hanging around for it.