Flashermac Posted March 13, 2008 Report Share Posted March 13, 2008 Around 30 years ago, some genius government official decided all Thai teachers and lecturers should wear the civil service uniform at least two days a week. The Farangs asked ... "Everybody?" The university told us, "Guess so. You too." I dutifully had a brown uniform made, and I was looking forward to showing off my combat ribbons - instead of the goofy things Thais wear. (Seen the white one with the red cross? That means a Thai gave blood - once!) I wore my uniform one time and Thais said it looked cool. Then somebody with better sense decided maybe it wasn't such a good idea for Farangs to be in uniform. That was that. I eventually gave my uniform to a Thai colleague who had to have it cut down considerably. Cost me a bit to have it made too. p.s. May have had something do to with the fact that for pay purposes our equivalent rank was the same as the governor of a province. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogueyam Posted March 13, 2008 Report Share Posted March 13, 2008 Just in case some folks are interested, here's a good analysis (by an excellent military historian) of the subject of this thread, Fallon's resignation: The Fall of Admiral George B. McFallon By contradicting the president in public, Admiral Fallon exceeded his authority--and was right to step down. by Mackubin Thomas Owens The Weekly Standard 03/12/2008 An excerpt: It is thus undeniable that as commander of CENTCOM, Fallon acted in a way that exceeded his authority. The tenor of Fallon's public pronouncements was in stark contrast to that of statements made by other high-ranking military officers who, while they have no desire to provoke a war with Iran while the U.S. military is heavily engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, have not taken it upon themselves to constrain American foreign policy to the extent that Fallon has. Indeed, had Fallon not stepped down, the president would have been perfectly justified in firing him, as Abraham Lincoln fired Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan, as Franklin Roosevelt fired Rear Admiral James O. Richardson, and Harry Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur. Let us be clear. The problem wasn't that Fallon was merely "pushing back" within the administration against a policy he didn't like. The problem was that a uniformed officer was actively working to undermine that policy after the decision had been made--and that he was also speaking out against the policy publicly while being charged with executing it. The playing field is not level for commanders speaking in public. They have a responsibility to support the missions they've been given, not to publicly evaluate the wisdom of the policy because, among other things, such a public evaluation undermines the confidence of their subordinates as they go into battle. This is unacceptable. http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/867mreuu.asp?pg=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh_Hoy Posted March 14, 2008 Report Share Posted March 14, 2008 Your'e exactly right. As I mentioned in a private conversation on the board, I equate this type of thing to a football team. The quarterback calls the play. Sometimes he calls it, sometimes it's sent in from the sideline (head coach/offensive coordinator). Not every guy in the huddle might agree that it's the best play in the book. But they damned well do their best to make it work. Not every guy is gonna be able to run the pass pattern they prefer or gonna be able to run the ball according to their individual whims. And if the QB or any other player on the squad mouths-off to the press, he could easily find himself sitting on the bench or turning in his gear. (I'm just guessing that somebody had a "heart-to-heart"with him previously and he didn't take heed.) HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted March 14, 2008 Report Share Posted March 14, 2008 Or he simply felt so strongly about it that he was willing to say what he did and then call it quits. He'd gone about as far in the Navy as he was going to go anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh_Hoy Posted March 14, 2008 Report Share Posted March 14, 2008 No duh, he was as far as he was gonna go in the Navy. Would've shown more "courage" if it came from a 45 year old Captain. But he should have waited til after he jumped ship. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted March 14, 2008 Report Share Posted March 14, 2008 I respect this way more. It's easy to say things after you retire. It takes stones and commitment to put yourself on the line and say things when they matter. Regards, SD -- sure he didn't really "resign" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted March 14, 2008 Report Share Posted March 14, 2008 He resigned from his position as commander of CENTCOM, since he knew he'd be fired if he didn't. He put in for retirement, since he had more than enough years in uniform to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh_Hoy Posted March 14, 2008 Report Share Posted March 14, 2008 Takes stones, yes. But to the possible detriment of the guys still playing. If he has "stones", why doesn't he just say he was given the option to be fired or retired? (So far, he's claimed the opposite.) HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.