Can't Fault Admiral Fallon

So Admiral William Fallon, who was ostensibly the guy in charge of U.S. operations in the Middle East, quit.

Can you blame him? I can't. If I were stuck in a situation where nobody will tell me exactly why I'm in the Middle East with tens of thousands of troops or what exactly I'm supposed to be accomplishing, I'd quit, too, and Admiral Fallon's copious retirement package makes it a no-brainer.

The truth of the matter is, because nobody in the U.S. -- neither decision makers nor general public -- will come to grips with the reality of what's going on in the Middle East long enough to think about what we really want to accomplish over there, and because of it, a general-in-command is just helpless. If you don't know what you want to get done, chances are strong it just ain't going to get done.

He cited the "embarrassing situation and public perception of differences between my views and administration policy" as the reason for retiring.

I guess you're going to be told that Fallon doesn't think U.S. soldiers should be in Iraq, but I doubt it. Fallon's an admiral. Much more likely Fallon's frustrated by his being mere middle management, carrying out the whims of the Pentagon and trying to operate by rules that prevent him from waging an effective war.

The situation in Iraq is ugly, and remains ugly. It's war against an enemy that's smart enough to hit-and-run against a much more powerful foe; it's the same thing we got our butts kicked so badly with in Vietnam, just in the desert instead of the jungle. Now, as then, we're not getting anything done because:

1. We don't really know what we want to do, and
2. We're trying to fight nice. It doesn't work.

Fallon's trying to conduct a war on behalf of people who are afraid to admit it's a war and trying to pretend it's not. Faced with that reality, I'd quit and go enjoy myself on the beaches of Kokomo, too.