Centcomm Commander Abruptly Resigns

FriendlyFire

Codex WMDicanious
Joined
Jan 4, 2002
Messages
21,761
Location
Sydney
Fallon Resigns As Mideast Military Chief

"The top U.S. military commander for the Middle East resigned Tuesday amid speculation about a rift over U.S. policy in Iran," the AP reports.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that Adm. William J. Fallon had asked for permission to retire and that Gates agreed. Gates said the decision, effective March 31, was entirely Fallon's and that Gates believed it was "the right thing to do."

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.

Fallon, who is traveling in Iraq, issued a statement through his U.S. headquarters in Tampa, Fla.

"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.

"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 added.

Gates described as "ridiculous" any notion that Fallon's departure signals the United States is planning to go to war with Iran. And he said "there is a misperception" that Fallon disagrees with the administration's approach to Iran.

"I don't think there were differences at all," Gates added.

As ThinkProgress notes, Fallon opposed the "surge" in Iraq and has consistently battled the Bush administration to avoid a confrontation with Iran, calling officials' saber-rattling "not helpful." Privately, he vowed that an attack on Iran "will not happen on my watch."

A blockbuster Esquire article published last week predicted that Fallon would be removed to make way for a general who was more "pliable" to 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, although all of his friends call him "Fox," which was his fighter-pilot call sign decades ago. [...]

Just as Fallon took over Centcom last spring, the White House was putting itself on a war footing with Iran. Almost instantly, Fallon began to calmly push back against what he saw as an ill-advised action. Over the course of 2007, Fallon's statements in the press grew increasingly dismissive of the possibility of war, creating serious friction with the White House.

Last December, when the National Intelligence Estimate downgraded the immediate nuclear threat from Iran, it seemed as if Fallon's caution was justified. But still, well-placed observers now say that it will come as no surprise if Fallon is relieved of his command before his time is up next spring, maybe as early as this summer, in favor of a commander the White House considers to be more pliable. If that were to happen, it may well mean that the president and vice-president intend to take military action against Iran before the end of this year and don't want a commander standing in their way.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) quickly released a 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."

More from AP:

Fallon has had a 41-year Navy career. He 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.

President Bush issued a statement saying that Fallon "has served our Nation with great distinction for forty years. He is an outstanding sailor -- and he made history as the first naval officer to serve as commander of Central 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.

The secretary called Fallon a very able military strategist and said his advice will be missed at the Pentagon.

"I think this is a cumulative kind of thing," said Gates, speaking of the circumstances leading up to Fallon's decision. "It isn't the result of any one article or any one issue."

"As I say, the notion that this decision portends anything in terms of change in Iran policy is, to quote myself, 'ridiculous,' " he said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/11/fallon-resigns-as-mideast_n_90998.html

Wow that was fast.
Still if it is the US president going against the advice of both intelligence and military (again) lets hope it turns out well cause an alpha strike against Iran will have reprecussion.

EDIT: happy now
 
Well, I do believe that a General's job is to plan for war at all times. Dream it. Think about it on the toilet. His job is to be prepared for anything, and that includes war.

These Generals with feelings of social responsiblity should have taken on other roles in life.

~Chris
 
Somehow, I appauld :clap: his decision. Were already entangled in two wars as it is. No need to have another one.
 
CivGeneral said:
Somehow, I appauld :clap: his decision. Were already entangled in two wars as it is. No need to have another one.
I'm not sure if you read it right; Fallon was rigidly opposed to invading Iran. Without him at the helm, it's entirely possible Bush will be able to start an offensive before leaving office.

...And we were in the home stretch, dammit!
 
Support our troops.
 
Admirals are not Generals. And I highly doubt this guy was the only voice against military action on Iran.
 
It depends on who they name in his place. Here's an article from last week about the controversy, before the announcement.

Seriously, if they attack Iran, just charge 'em with Aggression and send 'em to The Hague. Do not pass "Go," do not collect $200.

Cleo
 
Admirals are not Generals. And I highly doubt this guy was the only voice against military action on Iran.

Oops...your right. I guess I should skim slower!

Anyways though, my thoughts stand. It is fine and dandy to be against something, and if one feels the need to be vocal, than resigning is the right thing to do.

But Admirals, like Generals and Commanders and the rest, ought to always be prepared. Beating the war drums is pyschological preparation.

~Chris
 
Well, I do believe that a General's job is to plan for war at all times. Dream it. Think about it on the toilet. His job is to be prepared for anything, and that includes war.

These Generals with feelings of social responsiblity should have taken on other roles in life.

~Chris

maybe he did. and he is very good at it... maybe he forseen something that most US generals couldnt like USA losing a war...

Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq doesnt turn out so well as planned isnt it ?
 
Guys, keep in mind that his whole "he was the last one opposing war with Iran!!"
thing is based on a single article in a paper. I'd like to recommend everyone here take a gram of sodium chloride with their Esquire.

It depends on who they name in his place. Here's an article from last week about the controversy, before the announcement.

Seriously, if they attack Iran, just charge 'em with Aggression and send 'em to The Hague. Do not pass "Go," do not collect $200.

Cleo
You want 'em, you're gonna have to come take them.
 
Well, I do believe that a General's job is to plan for war at all times. Dream it. Think about it on the toilet. His job is to be prepared for anything, and that includes war.

These Generals with feelings of social responsiblity should have taken on other roles in life.

~Chris

You assume that he was not doing just this.

Yamamoto thought attacking the US was a bad idea, but he did it to the best of his ability.
 
there's no room for machismo in foreign relations.
This is America. There's always room for macho-whatever. ;)

Realistically, short of evidence that President Bush is genociding people at his Crawford Ranch, he'll never face any trial for war crimes or the like. The sooner people drop that schtick, the sooner we can move onto something worth talking about.
 
Don't be jumping to conclusions quite so fast, folks.

Fallon resigns as chief of U.S. forces in Middle East (CNN version)

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Adm. William Fallon has resigned as chief of U.S. forces in the Middle East and Central Asia after more than a year in the post, citing what he called an INACCURATE perception that he is at odds with the Bush administration over Iran.

The article FriendlyFire posted isn't anywhere near as clear on what Fallon is actually saying. But this part comes close:

"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 added.


What is Fallon actually saying, people?
 
What is Fallon actually saying people?

LMAO :lol:


Still, the gruff, outspoken CENTCOM commander has his detractors. "How many times can [Fallon] get away with these kinds of remarks," before he's forced out the door, asked one senior Pentagon official. The reason may be that on Iran, Gates and many senior military officials happen to agree with Fallon.

Gates has said publicly and privately that under current conditions he's opposed to war with Iran. Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen is also against it. In fact, almost every senior military officer we've talked to is against launching military strikes against Iran, because as one senior official told us, "then what do you do?"

While the U.S. military does have the usual contingency plans for robust airstrikes against Iranian nuclear and military targets, it's the "aftermath, stupid." It’s the potential military response from Iran in the region and repercussions in global oil markets that are incalculable.
 
Question to Americans. Until when can Bush start a war with Iran?

Could he start one let say in October, just before the general election?

Could he start one in December, after the general election but before the new president official take office?

For instance, if Obama wins in November, could Bush start bombing Iran, and said "You wanted to pull out of Iraq? Now you have 3 wars going, good luck Democrats!"

Note : I'm not saying Bush is a crazy idiot who want to start a war just before leaving to force the hand of his successor, but I want to know what is "technically" possible.
 
The Iraq War illustrates that certain US politicians learned nothing from the Vietnam War.

A war with Iran will illustrate that the same politicians learned nothing from the Iraq War and the Iraq/Iran War in the 80's.

- expect oilprices to skyrocket with millions of households in the US to get in serious economical trouble as a result.

- expect Iran to use any known method known to man and available to them to dispose of US soldiers and civilians.

- expect the US to be politically totally isolated in such a war - there will be no 'coalition of the willing'.

- expect a lot of Muslim nations to side with Iran.

- expect Russia and China to side with Iran and equip Iranian forces with weaponry and aid in intelligence gathering and tactic/strategic doctrins.

- expect Al-Quada to become stronger than ever and enlisting more future terrorists than Bin Laden could ever dream off.

The US public should very alarmed by Bush and his staff even suggesting that the US should start yet another war in the Middle East, all for nothing. Does the US President have a Constitutional right to declare war without approval by the Senate?
 
Wow that was fast.
Still if it is the US president going against the advice of both intelligence and military (again) lets hope it turns out well cause an alpha strike against Iran will have reprecussion.

EDIT: happy now

My prognosis:
Iran - 2008-2010
Russia - 2012-2014

I hope to God I am wrong, but facts speak for themselves.
 
Back
Top Bottom