When it comes to using military force to further U.S. foreign policy, the Bush administration has heard from some of the most experienced and intelligent military sources on the matter.

The problem is that this administration increasingly seems unwilling to tolerate views other than its own.

And so it goes with Adm. William "Fox" Fallon, the widely respected top U.S. commander in the Middle East. He abruptly announced his retirement this week, a year into his assignment.

It's no secret that Fallon's departure was prompted by perceived differences with the Bush administration's policy on Iraq and Iran.

Fallon supported a deeper drawdown in troops in Iraq. He also swam against the White House tide in rightly warning that not enough attention was being paid to the military mission in Afghanistan. And — in what appeared to be the final straw — he stood for more diplomacy amid saber-rattling rhetoric in dealing with Iran.

For his part, Fallon said he does not believe there have been differences on the objectives of our Middle East policy. But he acknowledged that "recent press reports suggesting a disconnect between my views and the president's policy objectives have become a distraction at a critical time and hamper efforts" in the region.

One doesn't have to look far to see that dissension does not play well in the Bush administration. In 2003, Gen. Eric Shinseki, then Army chief of staff, challenged Bush's strategy, saying it drastically underestimated the number of troops required in Iraq. He was rebuked by top administration officials, marginalized and pushed into retirement. Shinseki was right, and our strategy shifted accordingly.

As U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka rightly noted: "It is not only necessary, but mandatory that these military experts who have spent years in the field serving our country have the ability to express their concerns without fear of censure or reprisal."

So far, the Bush administration has failed to understand that crucial point.