This question of undermining: you know, I think people have a much finer tuned sense of what is undermining and what is questioning. While others may use the fact that someone questions something or someone else as fodder to spin, the fact is, good leaders AND good followers ask questions. We’re asked to watch our neighbors, our kids’ teachers and other parents etc. for suspicious behavior. So the notion that we should be doing that but not raise questions in the contexts described in your comments is inconsistent.

IMO.

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[. ... Commanders] 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.

[... T]hose who see Fallon as a hero for “pushing back” against George Bush should realize that someday a President Barack Obama might have to deal with a future combatant commander who is publicly undermining his policies, as Fallon was undermining those of President Bush.

(BTW, the author of the extract in post #2 was Frank J. Gaffney.)

From the last paragraph:

The question is: Will rank insubordination on a scale arguably not seen in a military commander since MacArthur faded away nearly six decades ago be rewarded by still higher office? Will Democratic politicians, so anxious to demean George Bush’s presidency and seek partisan advantage by pandering to the American people’s penchant for ignoring, rather than confronting emerging threats, resist the temptation to embrace Fox Fallon[, possibly as a vice presidential candidate]?