General Fallon resigns as Mideast military chief over, opposition to Bush Iran policy Options

[Snuffysmith]

General Fallon resigns as Mideast military chief over opposition to Bush Iran policy Fallon was the subject of an article published last week in Esquire magazine that portrayed him as opposed to President Bush's Iran policy. It described Fallon as a lone voice against taking military action to stop the Iranian nuclear program.

[Magmak1]

Why does this come as no surprise?! First strike, indeed...

[rla]

Why does this come as no surprise?! First strike, indeed...

Indeed. Welcome back Magmak1.

[Snuffysmith]

Fallon Resigns As Mideast Military Chief
By ROBERT BURNS – 5 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Navy admiral in charge of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan announced Tuesday that he is resigning over press reports portraying him as opposed to President Bush's Iran policy.

Adm. William J. Fallon, one of the most experienced officers in the U.S. military, said the reports were wrong but had become a distraction hampering his efforts in the Middle East. Fallon's area of responsibility includes Iran and stretches from Central Asia across the Middle East to the Horn of Africa.

"I don't believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command area of responsibility," Fallon said, and he regretted "the simple perception that there is." He was in Iraq when he made the statement.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates told a Pentagon news conference that he accepted Fallon's request to resign and retire from the Navy, agreeing that the Iran issue had become a distraction. But Gates said repeatedly that he believed talk of Fallon opposing Bush on Iran was mistaken.

"I don't think that there really were differences at all," Gates said, adding that Fallon was not pressured to leave.

"He told me that, quote, 'The current embarrassing situation, public perception of differences between my views and administration policy, and the distraction this causes from the mission make this the right thing to do,' unquote," Gates told reporters.

Fallon was the subject of an article published last week in Esquire magazine that portrayed him as at odds with a president eager to go to war with Iran. Titled "The Man Between War and Peace," it described Fallon as a lone voice against taking military action to stop the Iranian nuclear program.

Gates said he did not think it was that article alone that prompted Fallon to quit. Rather, Gates thought it was "a cumulative kind of thing" that he and Fallon had failed to put "behind us."

It is highly unusual for a senior commander to resign in wartime. Fallon took the post on March 16, 2007, succeeding Army Gen. John Abizaid, who retired after nearly four years in the job. Fallon was part of a new team of senior officials, including Gates, chosen by Bush to implement a revised Iraq war policy.

Fallon's departure, effective March 31, is unlikely to have an immediate effect on conducting the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. His top deputy at Central Command, Army Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, will take his place until a permanent successor is nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

Gen. David Petraeus, who runs the Iraq war from Baghdad but is technically subordinate to Fallon, was known to have differences with Fallon over the timing and pace of drawing down U.S. troops from Iraq. Fallon has favored a faster pullback.

Petraeus issued a statement lauding Fallon's service. "Over the past year, he and I worked closely together as we charted a new course in Iraq and, more recently, developed a shared view on recommendations for the future," Petraeus said.

Petraeus might be considered a candidate to succeed Fallon, although Gates said recently that Bush had made it clear to him that he wanted to keep Petraeus in Iraq until late this year. Petraeus is likely to get a second four-star assignment, and some believe it might be as the top U.S. commander in Europe.

Some Democrats in Congress, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, seized on Fallon's resignation to assert that it reflected an effort by the Bush administration to stifle dissenting opinion.

"I am concerned that the resignation of Admiral William J. Fallon, commander of all U.S. forces in the Middle East and a military leader with more than three decades of command experience, is yet another example that independence and the frank, open airing of experts' views are not welcomed in this administration," Reid said.

Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said the White House played no role in Fallon's move.

"People should not misconstrue this as the price to be paid for speaking out within the Pentagon," Morrell said. "This is not indicative of a hostile environment toward free thinking. This is indicative of what sadly became a perception problem that dogged Admiral Fallon — this perception that he was in a different place than the president and the administration when it came to Iran."

President Bush praised Fallon in a statement. "During his tenure at Centcom, Admiral Fallon's job has been to help ensure that America's military forces are ready to meet the threats of an often-troubled region of the world, and he deserves considerable credit for progress that has been made there, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan," Bush said.

Gates dismissed as "ridiculous" any notion that Fallon's departure signals the United States is planning to go to war with Iran. Pressed on that point, he said, "As I say, the notion that this decision portends anything in terms of a change in Iran policy is, to quote myself, ridiculous."

Morrell said it was too early to speculate on a successor to Fallon, who was a surprise choice for the job when Gates selected him on Jan. 5, 2007, calling him a great strategic thinker and innovator. The post had never before been held by a Navy admiral.

Dempsey could be elevated to Central Command chief, although he already has been selected to head U.S. Army Europe. Another possible candidates for the Central Command post — considered one of the most important in the U.S. military — is Army Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who had just been named to a top post on the Joint Chiefs of Staff and who had been commander of U.S. special operations forces in Iraq.

Another possibility is Army Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, who serves as Gates' senior military assistant and is a former senior commander in Iraq.

Fallon, 63, a veteran of the Vietnam War and a former vice chief of naval operations, has had a 41-year Navy career. He received his commission through the Navy ROTC program at Villanova University in 1967. Before taking the Central Command job he was commander of U.S. Pacific Command.

[Snuffysmith]

Wouldn't he make an interesting VP for Obama?

[Snuffysmith]

Defense Chief Says Fallon's Leaving Is Not Precursor To War With Iran

By Associated Press

Admiral William Fallon's resignation as U.S. military commander in the Middle East follows an article in Esquire magazine describing him as a lone voice against taking military action against Iran over its nuclear program. Continue

[Snuffysmith]

The Nelson Report on the Fallon Firing

Here is The Nelson Report's take on CENTCOM Commander William Fallon's resignation dismissal:

The Nelson Report - 12 March 2008 FALLON FIRED...insubordination, not Iran war risk

FALLON...the speed with which Adm. Fallon's "retirement" was announced by DOD Secretary Gates tells you the real story: this came right from the White House.

That's the view of observers on Capitol Hill and in the defense community, following today's stunning announcement from Baghdad.

If you want to know why, the answer comes in the form of the question on many lips when the news broke..."did he speak out against war with Iran because he fears the President may actually order an attack this year?"

The pending mission to the Middle East next week by Vice President Cheney, the presumed "Darth Vader" of most of the "Iran war" conspiracy theories, only added fuel to the firestorm of questions about why Fallon shot his mouth in Esquire Magazine.

As we said in the Summary, the answer is "no, Fallon didn't fear that Bush was about to go to war with Iran".

And sources close to senior Administration decision-makers reinforce this conclusion, one saying "there is absolutely no chance of war with Iran, so far as the US is concerned."

(What Israel might at some point do, it was conceded, could be another matter...)

Still, basically, if the above interpretation of Bush's real intentions is the case, Fallon was fired for hubris which amounted to insubordination, Congressional and other sources feel.

It is both understandable and justifiable, given the chain of command and civilian control ethos of the US military.

Any administration, and not just Bush and Gates, would rapidly conclude that they could not tolerate having their hand-picked commander for Iraq and Afghanistan seeming to take on responsibility for deciding whether to go to war with Iran (or any other country), in an interview which appeared last week in Esquire Magazine.

Interestingly, in this time of instant world-wide communication, it took a few days for the Esquire piece to reach critical mass attention. Some observers feel it wasn't until Egyptian press picked it up and made a big deal that it reached the Bush/Gates level, after which "something had to be done".

I concur with Chris Nelson's assessment.

-- Steve Clemons

[Snuffysmith]

Admiral William "Fox" Fallon -- CentCom Commander -- has been fired for insubordination, for not stewarding his own views about war and peace privately and in a way that did not embarrass his commander in chief.

By numerous accounts, President Bush was absolutely enraged by an Esquire article -- since amended noting Fallon's demise -- that posited that Admiral Fallon was not on the same page as President Bush and that he was the single military man standing between war and peace.

Rumors are running rampant now in the aftermath of Fallon's resignation today that Bush called a war room gathering on Saturday this past weekend -- and launched plans to hatch a strike of some sort on Iran this spring. Internet bulletin boards, listserves, and chatter among many on the left and the right are hyperventilating (and some excited) about the prospects of a hot conflict with Iran.

My sources in the intelligence arena, in various command staff operations, near Defense Secretary Gates, and even in the White House tell me that nothing structural has changed in America's stance towards Iran. The US is still engaged in an effort to get Iran to the negotiating table if it stops its nuclear enrichment activities. It is continuing to apply UN sanctions pressure via unanimous consent of the UN Security Council to bring Iran into compliance with international obligations. And as Bush, Gates and others have said -- other options can be on the table.

But the diplomatic course is still dominant and preferred -- and there has been no decision to launch a war despite the opportunistic bravado that will no doubt soon be uttered by Vice President Cheney, John Bolton, Richard Perle and others who have long pined for a conflict with Iran's mullahs.

But the pieces are not there to support a full conflict with Iran, or even a near term military strike. That is not where Bush is headed -- but he felt he needed to remove someone who was undermining his authority and direction.

As one source told me shortly ago, "if there was a real chance we were flipping into war mode, there would be six Fallons commenting -- and six fired."

This source said "Fallon's real mistake was going public with what was common banter among many of the senior military officials about America's engagement in the Middle East and with Iran. His views are not atypical -- no matter what the Esquire article asserts -- but he made the mistake of being publicly vain and indulgent about his own take on this."

From my reading of the situation, Bush had to fire Fallon for his comments. I admire Fallon's sense of America's strategic situation -- but the sad thing about this incident is that the combined efforts of Gates, Rice, Hayden, McConnell and others to bring a new direction to America's national security course had worked. Bush had bought in. Fallon had to brag about it -- and that was a mistake.

-- Steve Clemons

[Snuffysmith]

<h2 class="title">CentCom Chief Admiral Fallon Resigns </h2> Secretary Robert Gates has announced that Centcom commander Adm. William Fallon has submitted his resignation. Fallon was subject of a recent Esquire article, which stated that the admiral could be “relieved of his command before his time is up next spring,” in favor of a commander more amenable to war with Iran.

According to Gates, Fallon resigned because the fall-out from the article. Gates said Fallon told him: “The current embarrassing situation, public perception of differences between my views and administration policy, and the distraction this causes from the mission make this the right thing to do.” Gates said he approved Fallon’s request to retire with “reluctance and regret.” Watch it:

var flvfallonresign32024020216 = new SWFObject('/wp-content/plugins/flvplayer.swf?file=http://video.thinkprogress.org/2008/03/fallonresign.320.240.flv&autoStart=false', 'em-flvfallonresign32024020216', '320', '260', '6', '#ffffff'); flvfallonresign32024020216.addParam('quality', 'high'); flvfallonresign32024020216.addParam('wmode', 'transparent'); flvfallonresign32024020216.write('flvfallonresign32024020216'); Last week, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino downplayed Fallon’s possible retirement, decrying “rumor mills that don’t turn out to be true.”

Fallon opposed the “surge” in Iraq and has consistently battled the Bush administration to avoid a confrontation with Iran, calling officials’ warmongering rhetoric “not helpful.” He rejected the praise in the Esquire piece, calling it “poison pen stuff.”

A reporter noted to Gates there was a “line in that Esquire story that said basically if Fallon gets fired, it means we’re going to war with Iran. Can you just address that?” Gates responded, “Well that’s just ridiculous.”

UPDATE: Sources at the Pentagon said that Fallon was worried the White House would “perceive the magazine piece as a challenge to the president’s authority, and insisted that couldn’t be further from the truth.”

UPDATE II: Last year, Fallon vowed that an attack on Iran “will not happen on my watch.”

UPDATE III: TPM has Fallon’s statement here. The Agonist also has more.

UPDATE IV: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has issued this statement:

I am concerned that the resignation of Admiral William J. Fallon, commander of all U.S. forces in the Middle East and a military leader with more than three decades of command experience, is yet another example that independence and the frank, open airing of experts’ views are not welcomed in this Administration.

UPDATE V: Spencer Ackerman writes:

Gates said in a press conference just now that no one should think the move reflects any substantive change in policy. That sure won’t be how Teheran sees it. The Iranians will consider Fallon’s resignation to indicate that the bombing begins in the next five minutes.

UPDATE VI: The National Security Network compiles examples of Fallon’s dissenting views from the Bush administration.

[Snuffysmith]

• 
  Listen to the Top Brass
  
  Don’t Make Them Quit Early
  The abrupt retirement of top U.S. commander in the Middle East speaks volumes about wrong-headed White House policy, writes Lawrence Korb.

[Snuffysmith]

Fox' Fallon Fired
And we're f*cked… by Justin Raimondo "If, in the dying light of the Bush administration, we go to war with Iran," says the March Esquire, "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." The piece describes this top military figure as the last obstacle to the Bush administration's persistent push for war with Iran: "It's left to" him and him "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].'"

That was Adm. William "Fox" Fallon speaking, top U.S. commander in the Middle East, last of the Vietnam vets in the high command, and, yes, the very same Adm. Fallon who has just submitted his resignation as head of Central Command. What makes this particularly ominous is that, according to former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst Patrick Lang, Fallon told him, upon taking over at Centcom, that war with Iran "isn't going to happen on my watch." Lang asked him how he thought he could stop it: "'I have options, you know,' Fallon responded, which Lang interpreted as implying Fallon would step down rather than follow orders he considers mistaken."

Do I really need to draw you a picture to get you to imagine what's coming next? This is as clear a signal as any that the Bush administration intends to go out with a bang – one that will shake not only the Middle East but this country to its very foundations.

In a statement, Fallon hinted at the reason for his resignation:

"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. 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."

What "efforts" is he hampering but the effort to drag us into another war?

Fallon has long been a thorn in the administration's side: while in Egypt, on a tour of his Centcom command, he assured President Hosni Mubarak that there would be no attack on Iran, which leaked to the Egyptian media. Washington was livid. "I'm in hot water, again," he confided to Thomas P.M. Barnett, the Esquire journalist who accompanied him on his trip.

He's been in hot water with administration hawks – including the president, wildest hawk of them all – before. Last fall, he was quoted by Pentagon insiders as calling Gen. David Petraeus an "ass-kissing little chickensh*t" for telling the president what he wanted to hear on Iraq and the "surge." Long an advocate of engagement with China as well as Iran, Fallon has been relentlessly attacked by the neocons as "soft and accommodating." After Fallon began reaching out to the Chinese, the response was delayed but vehement – and telling – when it came:

"It was only after the Pentagon and Congress started realizing that their favorite 'programs of record' (i.e., weapons systems and major vehicle platforms) were threatened by such talks that the sh*t hit the fan. 'I blew my stack,' Fallon says. 'I told Rumsfeld, Just look at this sh*t. I go up to the Hill and I get three or four guys grabbing me and jerking me out of the aisle, all because somebody came up and told them that the sky was going to cave in.'"

The military-industrial-neocon complex, as it were, has been working overtime to get him out of the way of their war plans, and this week they finally succeeded. Not that Fallon is all that surprised, I'll bet. Speaking freely to Barnett, he telegraphed his resignation:

"Sitting in his Tampa headquarters office last fall, I asked Fallon if he considered the Centcom assignment to be the same career-capping job that it'd been for his predecessors. He just laughed and said, 'Career capping? How about career detonating?'"

It's a detonation that will reverberate throughout the Middle East, prefiguring the mega-explosion to come. One can hardly imagine a clearer indication that the White House has made the decision to go to war with Iran . It's just a matter of when and how the administration can provoke an incident.

That's why U.S. warships are patrolling the Lebanese coast; and why our warships are playing hide-and-go-seek with Iranian gunboats in the Gulf. It's the reason the Israel lobby has been beating the tom-toms for war, and the reason the anti-Fallon, Petraeus, has been so vocal about the Iranian roots of our Iraqi problem. With Fallon out of the way, the road to war – a regional conflagration that will make the invasion of Iraq seem like a holiday picnic – is cleared. Get ready for World War III.

Responding to the spectacle of a failing presidential candidate offering the front-runner the second spot on the ticket, Barack Obama didn't confine himself to mocking Hillary's presumptuousness; he also attacked her judgment and specifically her foreign policy. He coupled a dig at her vote to approve the conquest of Iraq with her support for the Lobby's resolution, championed by Joe Lieberman, to target Iran's Republican Guard as a "terrorist group," which he characterized as "saber-rattling." The Lieberman resolution was clearly meant to give legal cover to the Bush administration if and when they order U.S. troops in Iraq to cross the border into Iran in hot pursuit of "terrorists," i.e., the Iranian military.

We know, when push comes to shove, where Hillary stands on this. Obama's stance is less clear. We know he won't rule out military action against Iran, as he told the Chicago Tribune, yet his recent pronouncements – "I won't be browbeaten into launching a war that was not necessary," he said of the Clinton 3-in-the-morning attack ad – indicate opposition to the War Party's Iran project. If Obama is smart, he'll launch a preemptive strike against the idea of going to war with the Iranians – before the president acts.

The antiwar movement had better get off its big, fat butt. If ever there was a time to step up to the plate, it is now. The firing of Fallon – clearly he was pressured to step down – raises the stakes considerably: it means the odds are we'll be at war just as the presidential campaign season reaches a dramatic crescendo on the Democratic side of the ledger, and at the moment Republican candidates for Congress begin to campaign in earnest. The antiwar movement can have an effect on the course of events, and, God willing, head Bush off at the pass, but only if we hit key pressure points on the body politic – Congress, and Obama-for-President headquarters.

Don't bother with Hillary. She's hopeless on this issue and all other foreign policy questions. She votes, talks, and acts in concert with the Lobby, and we can count on her for one thing and one thing only: using this crisis to catapult herself and her circle into power.

As for Obama – he is with us, instinctively, but he may shy away from taking a more definitive stand on account of bad advisers, and, perhaps, a fear of going out on a rather creaky and insubstantial political limb. The Lobby, after all, is not inclined to support him, and will go all out against him if he gets in its way. Obama needs to know that if he stands up to the War Party, the people are with him.

After calling your congressional representatives and asking them what they intend to do to stop this madness, call Obama's Senate office. Be polite, be clear, and be brief. Let them know how you feel about the prospect of war with Iran, and tell them it's time for Obama to speak out loud and clear: (202) 224-2854.

~ Justin Raimondo

[Snuffysmith]

Dissenting Views Made Fallon's Fall Inevitable
by Gareth Porter Adm. William Fallon's request to quit his position as head of the U.S. Central Command (Centcom) and to retire from the military was apparently the result of a George W. Bush administration decision to pressure him to resign.

Announcing the resignation, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said he believed it was "the right thing to do," thus indicating the administration wanted it.

On Monday, Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell, asked whether Gates still had full confidence in Fallon, would only say that Fallon "still enjoys a working – a good working relationship with the secretary of defense," and then added, "Admiral Fallon serves at the pleasure of the president."

The resignation came a few days after the publication of an Esquire magazine article profiling Fallon in which he was described as being "in hot water" with the White House and justified public comments departing from the Bush administration's policy toward Iran. The publicity that followed the article accelerated the pressure on Fallon to resign.

But Fallon almost certainly knew that he would be fired when he agreed to cooperate with the Esquire magazine profile in late 2006.

On Tuesday, Fallon issued a statement saying, "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."

The resignation brings to an end a year, during which time Fallon clashed with the White House over policy toward Iran and with Gen. David Petraeus and the White House over whether Iraq should continue to be given priority over Afghanistan and Pakistan in U.S. policy.

Fallon's greatest concern appears to have been preventing war with Iran. He was one of a group of senior military officers, apparently including most of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who were alarmed in late 2006 and early 2007 by indications that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were contemplating a possible attack on Iran.

Gates chose Fallon to replace Gen. John P. Abizaid as Centcom chief shortly after a Dec. 13, 2006, meeting between Bush and the Joint Chiefs at which Bush reportedly asked their views on a possible strike against Iran.

Col. W. Patrick Lang, a former intelligence officer on the Middle East for the Defense Intelligence Agency, told the Washington Post last week that Fallon had said privately at the time of his confirmation that an attack on Iran "isn't going to happen on my watch." When asked how he could avoid such a conflict, Fallon reportedly responded, "I have options, you know." Lang said he interpreted that comment as implying Fallon would step down rather than follow orders to carry out such an attack.

As IPS reported last May, Fallon was also quoted as saying privately at that time, "There are several of us trying to put the crazies back in the box." That was an apparent reference to the opposition by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to an aggressive war against Iran.

Even before assuming his new post at Centcom, Fallon expressed strong opposition in mid-February to a proposal for sending a third U.S. aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf, to overlap with two other carriers, according to knowledgeable sources. The addition of a third carrier was to part of a broader strategy then being discussed at the Pentagon to intimidate Iran by making a series of military moves suggesting preparations for a military strike.

The plan for a third carrier task force in the Gulf was dropped after Fallon made his views known.

Fallon reportedly made his opposition to a strike against Iran known to the White House early on in his tenure, and his role as Centcom commander would have made it very difficult for the Bush administration to carry out a strike against Iran, because he controlled all ground, air, and naval military access to the region.

But Fallon's role in regional diplomacy proved to be an even greater source of friction with the White House than his position on military policy toward Iran. Personal relations with military and political leaders in the Middle East had already become nearly as important as military planning under Fallon's predecessors at Centcom.

Fallon clearly relished his diplomatic role and did not hesitate to express views on diplomacy that were at odds with those of the administration. Last summer, as Dick Cheney was maneuvering within the administration to shift U.S. policy toward an attack on bases in Iran allegedly connected to anti-U.S. Shi'ite forces in Iraq, Fallon declared in an interview, "We have to figure out a way to come to an arrangement" with Iran.

When Sunni Arab regimes in the Middle East became alarmed about the possibility of a U.S. war with Iran, Fallon made statements on three occasions in September and November ruling out a U.S. attack on Iran. Those statements contradicted the Bush administration's policy of keeping the military option "on the table" and soured relations with the White House.

Fallon also antagonized administration officials by pushing for a faster exit from Iraq than the White House and Gen. Petraeus wanted. Fallon had a highly publicized personal and policy clash with Petraeus, for whom he reportedly expressed a visceral dislike. Sources familiar with reports of his meetings with Petraeus in Baghdad last March told IPS last spring that he called him an "ass-kissing little chickens**t" in their first meeting.

Fallon later denied that he had used such language, suggesting to Esquire that the sources of the report were probably army officers who were indulging in inter-service rivalry with the Navy. In fact, however, the sources of the report were supporters of Fallon.

Fallon's quarrel with Petraeus was also related to the latter's insistence on keeping U.S. troops in Iraq, even while the NATO position in Afghanistan was growing more tenuous. Fallon was strongly committed to a strategy that gave priority to Afghanistan and Pakistan as the central security challenges to the United States in the Middle East and Asia.

Fallon made his distaste for a long war in Iraq very clear from the beginning. He ordered subordinates to stop using the term "long war," which had been favored by the Bush administration. He was reported to be concerned that the concept would alienate people across the Middle East by suggesting a U.S. intention to maintain troops indefinitely in Muslim countries.

Fallon's policy positions made him unpopular among neoconservative supporters of the administration. One neoconservative pundit, military specialist Max Boot, criticized Fallon last November for his public comment ruling out a strike against Iran and then suggested in January that Petraeus should replace the "unimpressive" Fallon at Centcom.

Fallon was playing a complex political game at Centcom by crossing the White House on the two most politically sensitive issues in Middle East policy. As a veteran bureaucratic infighter, he knew that he was politically vulnerable. Nevertheless, he chose late last year not to lower his profile but to raise it by cooperating fully with the Esquire article.

IPS has learned that Fallon agreed to sit for celebrity photographer Peter Yang at Centcom headquarters in Tampa Dec. 26 for the Esquire spread, despite the near-certainty that it exacerbate his relations with White House. That may have been a signal that he already knew that he would not be able to continue to play the game much longer and was ready to bring his stormy tenure at Centcom to an end.

[Snuffysmith]

Fallon Oversaw Iraq, Afghan Wars

[Snuffysmith]

Transcript: Gates News Briefing About Fallon Resignation

White House Statement on Fallon Resignation

Fallon Biographical Information

[Snuffysmith]

Adm. Fallon Steps Down - New York Post editorial

Fallon Didn't Get It - Max Boot, Los Angeles Times

Fallon: The Man Between War and Peace - Thomas Barnett, Esquire

[Snuffysmith]

Bill and Kathy Christison
Fallon and Gates -- At Least One Cheer

[Snuffysmith]

Disagreements by Top Military Brass regarding Bush-Cheney War Plans
by Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, March 12, 2008


Adm. William Fallon was forced to resign as head of U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) over disagreements pertaining to the administration's Iran war plans.

Defense Secretary Gates said that Adm. William J. Fallon "had asked for permission to retire" and that Gates had agreed. The fact of the matter is that Admiral Fallon was fired by Defense Secretary Gates. His resignation is effective March 31st.

"Fallon was the subject of an article published last week in Esquire magazine that portrayed him as opposed to President Bush’s Iran policy. It described Fallon as a lone voice against taking military action to stop the Iranian nuclear program."

The article highlighted statements by Admiral Fallon made in a TV interview with the Al Jazeera TV network last Fall, in which he said that:

[a] “constant drumbeat of conflict [from Washington directed at Iran 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.”

In an official statement, Admiral Fallon acknowledged that “recent press reports suggesting a disconnect between my views and the president’s policy objectives have become a distraction" in his endeavors as head of CENTCOM

CENTCOM is a key regional command in the eventuality of a US sponsored attack on Iran from the Middle East war theater. The adminstration would not be able to wage a major theater war withouth the unbending support of the head of CENTCOM.

Fallon is not a lone voice. Many senior and junior officers support Fallon's position.

This resignation confirms widespread opposition within the US military command to a war with Iran. It also reflects the inability of the administration to acquire the support of the Military High Command despite shuffles and reshuffles in high level military appointments since the departure of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. .

Ironically, Admiral Fallon was an unbending supporter of the Bush-Cheney clique. Secretary Gates had appointed Admiral. William J. Fallon, as Commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) barely a year ago in March 2007, following the dismissal of Gen. John P. Abizaid, who was pushed into retirement, following apparent disagreements with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.

While Abizaid recognized both the failures and the weaknesses of the US military in Iraq, Admiral Fallon at the time of his March 2007 appointment was closely aligned with Vice President Dick Cheney's Iran war plans. He was also firmly committed to the "Global War on Terrorism" (GWOT).

Fallon's appointment last year also coincided with the replacement of Peter Pace as Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and his replacement by Admiral Mullen.

General Pace had indicated his disagreement with the Administration regarding both Iraq and the proposed attacks on Iran.

General Peter Pace's term as Chairman of the JCS ended in September 2007. Defense Secretary Gates' chosen successor as Chairman of the JCS was Admiral Michael Mullen, formerly U.S. Chief of Naval Operations.

Mullen's discourse is in marked contrast to that of General Peter Pace. Mullen, who was in charge of coordinating 2006-2007 naval war games off the Iranian coastline, has expressed an unbending commitment to "waging" and "winning asymmetric wars", while also "protecting the United States":

In June 2007, Secretary of Defense Gates appointed the Commander of USSTRATCOM, General Cartwright to the position of Vice-Chairman of the JCS. Together with the appointment of Admiral Mullen, who took over from Peter Pace in October, these two new appointments imply a significant overhaul in the power structure of the JCS

[Snuffysmith]

Warriors welcome resignation
By Sara Carter
Current and former military officials welcomed the resignation of Navy Adm. William J. Fallon, the top U.S. military commander in the Middle East, saying he failed to prevent foreign fighters and munitions from entering Iraq.

[Snuffysmith]

The Fall of Admiral George B. McFallon
Just posted on THE WEEKLY STANDARD Online is <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/867mreuu.asp?pg=1">an article by Mackubin Thomas Owens about Admiral William "Fox" Fallon and his recent resignation. Owens explains that Fallon's resignation was largely due to a recent Esquire article about Fallon's very public disagreements with the Bush administration over foreign policy. Owens writes:

While reasonable people can disagree over the wisdom of the Bush administration's policy regarding Iraq, the really troubling aspect of this article is that it reveals the extent to which a combatant commander had taken it on himself to develop and disseminate policy independently of the president. This flies in the face of the American practice of civil-military relations, going back to the American Revolution.

He continues that it is

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.

Read the whole thing at THE WEEKLY STANDARD Online.

Some of The Blog's friends had similar things to say about Fallon. One foreign affairs expert remarked, "That's very thoughtful of Fox Fallon to spare President McCain the necessity of firing him." And what's next for Fallon? Another scholar speculates, "Just think...we now will have the round of Fallon on every talk show possible. He'll make Wes Clark appear shy and retiring is my guess."

Posted by Samantha Sault at 03:45 PM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Weblogs/TWSFP/TWSFPView.asp

[Snuffysmith]

White House Downplays Rift With Fallon: Admiral In Charge Of U.S. Mideast Command Resigned Amid Alleged Disagreements On Iran