Admiral William Fallon's resignation

RolandTD20Kdrummer

One step closer to Iran I suppose.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud3IhC-0mq0

my2hands

yup...


the choice in this election is EXTREMELY FUCKING IMPORTANT...

my2hands

An Admiral Takes on the White House
By Gareth Porter
Inter Press Service

Tuesday 11 March 2008

Washington - A new article on CENTCOM commander Adm. William Fallon confirms that his public statements last fall ruling out war against Iran last fall were not coordinated with the White House and landed him in trouble more than once with President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

In an admiring article on Fallon in Esquire, former Pentagon official Thomas P.M. Barnett writes that Fallon angered the White House by "brazenly challenging" Bush on his aggressive threat of war against Tehran. Barnett also cites "well-placed observers" as saying Bush may soon replace Fallon with a "more pliable" commander.

Barnett's account, which quotes conversations with Fallon during the CENTCOM commander's trips to the Middle East, shows that Fallon privately justified his statements contradicting the Bush policy of keeping the "option" of an unprovoked attack on Iran "on the table" as necessary to calm the fears of Egypt and other friendly Arab regimes of a US-Iran war.

Barnett recalls that when Fallon was in Cairo in November, the lead story in that day's edition of the English-language daily Egyptian Gazette carried the headline "US Rules Out Strike against Iran" over a picture of Fallon meeting with President Hosni Mubarak.

That story, published Nov. 19 and not picked up by any US news media, reported that Fallon had "ruled out a possible strike against Iran and said Washington was mulling nonmilitary options instead."

Later that day, according to Barnett, Fallon told him during a coffee break in a military meeting, "I'm in hot water again," and then confirmed that his problems were directly with the White House.

That was the second time in less than a week and the third time in seven weeks that Fallon had publicly declared that there would be no war against Iran. In an interview with Al-Jazeera television in September, which Fallon himself had requested, according to a source at Al-Jazeera, he had said, "This constant drum beat of conflict is what strikes me which is not helpful and not useful."

And only a week before the trip to Egypt, in an interview with Financial Times, Fallon had said, a military strike was not "in the offing," adding, "Another war is just not where we want to go."

These statements represented an extraordinary exercise of power by a combat commander, because it contradicted a central feature of the Bush-Cheney strategy on Iran. High-ranking Bush administration officials had been routinely repeating the administration's line that no option had been taken "off the table" since early 2005.

At an Oct. 17 news conference, Bush said he had "told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

Fallon's public statements explicitly ruling out an attack on Iran thus undermined the Bush administration's threat against Iran.

The willingness of the top commander in the Middle East to take the military option "off the table" was in part a reflection of the determination of uniformed military leaders to prevent what they regarded as a disastrous course.

The new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, who replaced Gen. Peter Pace in June, was even more candid about his opposition to the use of force against Iran than Pace had been, according to a Congressional staffer who had participated in private meetings with both. Pace declared publicly in late October, "We have to be mindful of the risks that would [be spawned] by engaging in a third conflict" in the region.

Mullen added, however, that military options "cannot be taken off the table."

But Fallon, as the commander responsible for the entire Middle East, was concerned about more than the consequences of actually exercising the military option. He was prompted to enunciate a "no-war" line on Iran by the panicky reactions of Arab states to what they thought were indications of the warlike intentions of Bush administration.

In the latter half of 2007 friendly Arab regimes were upset by the possibility of a US-Iran war, which they feared would destabilize the entire region. Fallon is quoted as telling Barnett, "t's all anyone wants to talk about right now. People here hear what I'm saying and understand. I don't want to get them too spun up."

Fallon told Barnett that his ruling out of military action against Iran was necessary to calm the very regimes the Bush administration was hoping to enlist to support its anti-Iran line. "Washington interprets this as all aimed at them," Fallon said in Cairo, according to Barnett. "Instead, it's aimed at governments and media in this region. I'm not talking about the White House."

Fallon was arguing, in effect, that it makes no sense to make the possibility of an unprovoked attack part of your declaratory policy if merely induces confusion and panic among friendly governments without influencing the target of the threat.

Barnett quotes Fallon as complaining that "they" - meaning White House officials - were asking him, "Why are you even meeting with Mubarak?" But Fallon strongly defended the diplomatic role he was playing in relations with Mubarak and other Middle Eastern leaders. "This is my center of gravity," Fallon told him. "This is my job."

Fallon's sensitivity to the political-diplomatic consequences of a declaratory policy that explicitly keeps open the threat of an aggressive war as a potential option set him apart not only from the White House but from the consensus among national security specialists in both parties. In early 2007, all three of the top three Democratic contenders for the presidential nomination publicly declared their support for keeping "all options on the table."

Fallon is not the first CENTCOM commander to rein in aggressive White House policy toward the Middle East. In late 1997, according to Dana Priest's book, The Mission, the Bill Clinton White House wanted CENTCOM commander Gen. Anthony Zinni to order his pilots to provoke a military confrontation with Iraq in the no-fly zone by deliberately drawing fire from Iraqi planes.

The request for such a provocation was conveyed to Zinni by the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Ralston. But Zinni, who believed that it could lead to an unwanted war with Iraq, insisted that a formal request from the White House would have to be sent, and the plan was dropped.

The unhappiness of the Bush administration with Fallon's role as well as the unflattering picture of administration policy revealed by the article was evident Thursday from the failure of either the White House or the Pentagon to issue the usual reassuring statements in response to the article.

The White House declined to comment, although, according to the Washington Post's Thomas Ricks, the article "was being discussed there." The Pentagon spokesman, Geoff Morrell, said Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates "has read the profile on Admiral Fallon but chooses not to comment on it or other press accounts."

---

Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. The paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam," was published in 2006.

---

Go to Original

Top US Commander in Mideast to Retire Early
By Thom Shanker and David Stout
The New York Times

Tuesday 11 March 2008

Washington - Adm. William J. Fallon, the top American commander in the Middle East whose views on Iran and other issues have seemed to put him at odds with the Bush administration, is retiring early, the Pentagon said Tuesday afternoon.

The retirement of Admiral Fallon, 63, who only a year ago became the first Navy man to be named the commander of the United States Central Command, was announced by his civilian boss, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who said that he accepted the admiral's request to retire "with reluctance and regret."

Despite the warm words, there was no question that the admiral's premature departure stemmed from policy differences with the administration, and with Gen. David H. Petraeus, the American commander in Iraq.

Mr. Gates acknowledged as much when he said that Admiral Fallon, in asking permission on Tuesday morning to retire, had expressed concerns that the controversy over his views were becoming "a distraction." But the secretary labeled as "ridiculous" any speculation that the admiral's retirement portends a more bellicose American approach toward Iran.

Admiral Fallon had rankled senior officials of the Bush administration with outspoken comments on such issues as dealing with Iran and on setting the pace of troop reductions from Iraq - even though his comments were well within the range of views expressed by Mr. Gates.

Officials said the last straw, however, came in an article in Esquire magazine by Thomas P. M. Barnett, a respected military analyst, that profiled Admiral Fallon under the headline, "The Man Between War and Peace." The article highlighted comments Admiral Fallon made to the Arab television station Al Jazeera last fall, in which he said that a "constant drumbeat of conflict" from Washington that was directed at Iran and Iraq was "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."

Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, was asked at a news briefing on Monday to comment on the controversy. Mr. Morrell said Mr. Gates and the admiral maintained a good working relationship, but that, like all military commanders, Admiral Fallon served at the pleasure of the president.

Mr. Gates said on Tuesday that Army Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey would take Admiral Fallon's place until a permanent replacement is nominated and confirmed by the Senate.

The Esquire article quotes Admiral Fallon as urging a "combination of strength and willingness to engage."

Readers of the Esquire article who are among the admiral's boosters said they did not believe on reading that piece that Admiral Fallon himself had made comments that could be viewed as insubordinate to the president.

But the cast of the lengthy piece put the admiral at odds with the White House.

"If, in the dying light of the Bush administration, we go to war with Iran, it'll all come down to one man," the article begins. "If we do not go to war with Iran, it'll come down to the same man."

Both Mr. Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, have maintained an unwavering public line that disagreements with Iran should be resolved diplomatically, and that any military option remained only the last resort.

"I think that the secretary has made clear and I think Admiral Fallon has made clear that the first priority of this administration is to deal with our problems with Iran in a diplomatic fashion," Mr. Morrell said Monday. "That is our first hope. That is our first effort. However, we have all made clear, time and time again, that nothing, no avenue is off the table."

When Admiral Fallon was nominated in January of 2007 to be commander of American military forces across a region where they are engaged in two ground wars, it struck many analysts as odd. When he was confirmed for the post, he replaced Gen. John Abizaid as the top officer of Central Command.

At the time, a range of senior Pentagon civilians and military officers said Mr. Gates had recommended that Admiral Fallon move from his post as commander of American forces in the Pacific to bring a new strategic view - as well as maritime experience - to the Middle East.

The admiral began service through a commission from the Navy's Reserve Officer Training Program, as opposed to the more prestigious Naval Academy. He later graduated from the Naval War College and the National War College, and earned a master's degree in international studies from Old Dominion University.

Although known for being tough on his subordinates, Admiral Fallon also developed a reputation for nuanced diplomatic negotiations with friendly nations - and some with whom the United States has more prickly ties. Earlier in his career, when he was the American military commander in the Pacific, he annoyed conservatives by taking what they considered an overly conciliatory stance toward China.