• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Trouble Brewing: CENTCOM Commander Resigns Over Differences With Bush Over Iran

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
141
116
This shouldn't be news to anyone. The Bush administration, from day one, has been on a mission to surround itself with 'yes men'. We've seen the DOJ manned with people who sacrifice careers to fall on their sword for Bush (Gonzo). Federal judges fired because they're unfriendly to the White House agenda. Military leader after leader burned out and replaced as a result of Bush's excursions in the Middle East.

And now this. Was the resignation forced, voluntary, or both? Maybe Fallon realized the Bush administration was going to make a colossal fuck-up with Iran, and he wanted to get out of dodge before being handed WWIII on a silver platter? Or maybe Bush shit-canned him for being the lone voice of reason among a sea of war-mongering chickenhawks?

Text

By JENNIFER PARKER, MARTHA RADDATZ, JONATHAN KARL and LUIS MARTINEZ
March 11, 2008

Admiral William Fallon, the top U.S. military commander for the Middle East, hasresigned, citing a magazine article in which appeared to criticize President George W. Bush's policy toward Iran.

In a statement released by U.S. Central Command, Fallon cited the a recent Esquire magazine article which suggested differences between his views and Administration policies concerning Iran.

"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 CENTCOM region," Fallon said in a written statement.

"And although I don't believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command Area of Responsibility, the simple perception that there is makes it difficult for me to effectively serve America's interests there." Fallon's statement read. "I have therefore concluded that it would be best to step aside and allow the Secretary and our military leaders to move beyond this distraction& and focus on the achievement of our strategic objectives in the region. I have submitted my request to retire to the Secretary of Defense."

In a recent interview with Esquire magazine, fallon is described as being the only man standing between the President and war with Iran.

"If, in the dying light of the Bush administration, we go to war with Iran, it'll all come down to one man. If we do not go to war with Iran, it'll come down to the same man. He is that rarest of creatures in the Bush universe: the good cop on Iran, and a man of strategic brilliance. His name is William Fallon," reads the magazine article.


In announcing Fallon's resignation Tuesday, Defense Secretary Gates said it was "a cumulative kind of thing. It isn't the result of any one article or any one issue."

When asked if today announcement might be interpreted as a move closer toward military action against Iran, Gates said, "that's ridiculous, just ridiculous ... the notion that this portends anything in change of Iran policy is to quote myself ridiculous."

Gates said Tuesday that Fallon had asked him for permission to retire and Gates agreed. Gates said it was "the right thing to do."

Gates said it was "ridiculous" that Fallon's departure signals the United States is planning to go to war with Iran. The Defense Secretary also said there was a "misperception" that Fallon disagrees with the administration's approach to Iran.

In the article, Fallon is quoted as saying Bush administration rhetoric against Iran is "not helpful."

The article reads: "So while Admiral Fallon's boss, President George W. Bush, regularly trash-talks his way to World War III and his administration casually casts Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as this century's Hitler (a crown it has awarded once before, to deadly effect), it's left to Fallon -- and apparently Fallon alone -- to argue that, as he told Al Jazeera last fall: 'This constant drumbeat of conflict . . . is not helpful and not useful. I expect that there will be no war, and that is what we ought to be working for. We ought to try to do our utmost to create different conditions.'"

The President Tuesday issued a written statement wishing Fallon the best.

Fallon is in Baghdad, making the rounds to speak to all of his commanders.

ABC News' Martha Raddatz spoke to Fallon Tuesday as he was waiting to go in and see General David Petraeus, the U.S. Commander in Iraq.

Fallon told ABC News that he sensed that the Esquire article angered members of the administration.

A senior administration official met with Gates as soon as the article came out and was very worried about the reaction from the White House at that time.

Fallon told Raddatz he is grateful for the way Gates handled his resignation.

Fallon, who has had a 41-year career in the Nav, took the Central Command post on March 16, 2007, succeeding Army Gen. John Abizaid, who retired. Fallon previously served as commander of U.S. Pacific Command.

Gates said that until a permanent replacement is nominated and confirmed by the Senate, Fallon's place will be taken by his top deputy, Army Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,330
789
126
If you are a high ranking military official who was appointed by the President. It is probably best not to publically make comments like that. Its frowned upon in the military.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,576
431
126
The U.S. is not going to war with Iran. It's a complete impossibility. The buildup needed would be obvious and well publicized, and between Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo and other places, the troop levels for the campaign simply don't exist.

That said, Admiral Fallon probably did resign for exactly the reasons he stated: "This constant drumbeat of conflict . . . is not helpful and not useful. I expect that there will be no war, and that is what we ought to be working for. We ought to try to do our utmost to create different conditions." Contrary to popular opinion, the military does in fact get heavily engaged in diplomacy. He's probably sick and tired of trying to shore up relations in the CENTCOM AOR with the crap that the Bush administration constantly and very likely unilaterally spews. Hopefully this will send a message to the Pentagon and WH.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
A single man is what is holding us back eh? Now that he is out of the way why havent we gone in?

What hyperbole.
 

maddogchen

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2004
8,905
2
76
Originally posted by: Genx87
A single man is what is holding us back eh? Now that he is out of the way why havent we gone in?

What hyperbole.
cuz he hasn't cleared out his office yet! We wouldn't dare go in while he still has stuff in his building. He's that powerful, its scary
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: maddogchen
Originally posted by: Genx87
A single man is what is holding us back eh? Now that he is out of the way why havent we gone in?

What hyperbole.
cuz he hasn't cleared out his office yet! We wouldn't dare go in while he still has stuff in his building. He's that powerful, its scary
It's quite simple, really... Adm Fallon knows the secret for mind bullets.

yep. :confused:
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,995
774
126
Originally posted by: Nebor
Cool. Iran has had it coming for a while. :thumbsup:
It's like some of you neo-cons WANT to destroy the US military and US economy.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat
Originally posted by: Nebor
Cool. Iran has had it coming for a while. :thumbsup:
I guess you volunteer to lead the first attack wave then, right?
There'll be no invasion of Iran. Just an extensive bombing campaign to ensure they can't develop nuclear weapons.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
no way in hell can they con the american public into another bullshit war
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
Originally posted by: halik
no way in hell can they con the american public into another bullshit war
Which is why we may wake up some morning to the news GWB&co. is bombing Iran.
Halik is right, if GWB asks, he will be told hell no, so he will do it without asking if he
does bomb Iran.

Its really sad to see Fallon going, he was strong enough to really slow GWB and the even nuttier Cheney down. I hope his successor can hold the fort for another 11 months which will allow the backward Bush watches to tick to zero.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,302
14,509
136
From Nebor-

There'll be no invasion of Iran. Just an extensive bombing campaign to ensure they can't develop nuclear weapons.
So, uhh, how long should we keep it up? And what happens when we stop? What happens in neighboring Afghanistan and Iraq, and in the Persian Gulf?

Or does any of that matter in the minds of true zealots and rabid Israeli fanbois?

As I've said many times, warmongers need to look past the end of that wood they're sportin', see that what they advocate wrt Iran has incalculable consequences, with the obvious ones being completely undesirable...

If anything, attaking the Iranians will insure that they will develop nukes in the long run- we'd be giving them ample reason.
 

glugglug

Diamond Member
Jun 9, 2002
5,340
1
0
Between the war in Iran and the war in Venezuela that we're about to start, maybe we can get gas up to $10/gallon by November!
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat
Originally posted by: Nebor
Cool. Iran has had it coming for a while. :thumbsup:
I guess you volunteer to lead the first attack wave then, right?
There'll be no invasion of Iran. Just an extensive bombing campaign to ensure they can't develop nuclear weapons.
Then you can lead the first plane, since you are so gung-ho, OK?

If you think it's such a great idea, then you should volunteer.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,234
699
126
Originally posted by: Pepsei
damn it, why can't we attack china instead? they're using up all our oil.
:laugh:

We use 5 times as much as China while having about 1/5th the amount of people!
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: glugglug
Between the war in Iran and the war in Venezuela that we're about to start, maybe we can get gas up to $10/gallon by November!
whoa, wtf!? How the hell can you pin the recent actions of Venezuela on the U.S.?! and wtf makes you think that WE are about to "start a war" there?!

Second, should the rest of the world (US, EU, OAS, UN, etc) simply ignore Chavez's direct support of a known and declared narco-terrorist group that spends its time kidnapping, raping, murdering, and smuggling drugs and people all over the Western Hemisphere?!? that's just A-OK by you? We should all just look the other way?!
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Fallon got 'Shinseki-ed'.

No big surprise. So did Abizaid.

You don't cross The Cheney White House.

Resistance is Futile.
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
10,970
242
106
Originally posted by: yllus
The U.S. is not going to war with Iran. It's a complete impossibility. The buildup needed would be obvious and well publicized, and between Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo and other places, the troop levels for the campaign simply don't exist.

That said, Admiral Fallon probably did resign for exactly the reasons he stated: "This constant drumbeat of conflict . . . is not helpful and not useful. I expect that there will be no war, and that is what we ought to be working for. We ought to try to do our utmost to create different conditions." Contrary to popular opinion, the military does in fact get heavily engaged in diplomacy. He's probably sick and tired of trying to shore up relations in the CENTCOM AOR with the crap that the Bush administration constantly and very likely unilaterally spews. Hopefully this will send a message to the Pentagon and WH.
Which countries border Iran on the East and West?
Which countries are most of the US troops in?

If a war was to start with Iran, I think the US is currently well positioned. Though of course we don't have the troops to cover everything.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
5
0
Once again the thread title shows a total disregard for what is actually in the thread.

Thread sub-title: Barrier Preventing Iran War Removed

What is in the article quoted by the OP: When asked if today announcement might be interpreted as a move closer toward military action against Iran, Gates said, "that's ridiculous, just ridiculous ... the notion that this portends anything in change of Iran policy is to quote myself ridiculous."

Gates said Tuesday that Fallon had asked him for permission to retire and Gates agreed. Gates said it was "the right thing to do."

Gates said it was "ridiculous" that Fallon's departure signals the United States is planning to go to war with Iran. The Defense Secretary also said there was a "misperception" that Fallon disagrees with the administration's approach to Iran.
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
Originally posted by: Wreckem
If you are a high ranking military official who was appointed by the President. It is probably best not to publically make comments like that. Its frowned upon in the military.
Infinitely more important to do what's right. Always.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: Pepsei
damn it, why can't we attack china instead? they're using up all our oil.
:laugh:

We use 5 times as much as China while having about 1/5th the amount of people!
And we have 21 times the per capita GDP. Sounds like we are more efficient with our oil.
 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,044
62
91
Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat
Originally posted by: Nebor
Cool. Iran has had it coming for a while. :thumbsup:
I guess you volunteer to lead the first attack wave then, right?
No chance that we will invade Iran, it's just not possible with current troop rotation. But if we somehow did, I'd volunteer.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY