Centcomm Commander Abruptly Resigns

[Tee Kay]

I don't think Bush is foolish enough to start a war with Iran now.

Then again, he personally have little to lose.

 

[BasketCase]

LMAO

Laughing right back atcha.

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.

I've also got a news article, mister. Says the exact opposite of what yours claims he says.

 

[Tee Kay]

Which just goes to show you can never trust a news article.

 

[BasketCase]

Exactly.

Which one?

 

[Tee Kay]

All of them.

Here is another news report on the topic. Whether you want to trust it or not, the choice is yours.

US commander of Middle East forces steps down

*
* Email
* Print
* Normal font
* Large font

March 12, 2008 - 8:24PM
Advertisement

The commander of US forces in the Middle East, Admiral William Fallon, is stepping down because reports that he differed with President George W. Bush over Iran had become "a distraction."

Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced Tuesday that he had accepted Fallon's resignation "with reluctance and regret," saying there was a "misperception" that the admiral was at odds with the administration over Iran.

In a statement, Bush praised the admiral for his more than 40 years of service but made no mention of an article in Esquire magazine that prompted Fallon to step down.

Fallon "served this country with honor, determination and commitment," Bush said.

But the sudden departure of the head of the US Central Command drew an avalanche of criticism from top Democrats who suggested that he had been forced out because of his candor.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called it "yet another example that independence and the frank, open airing of experts' views are not welcomed in this administration."

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in a statement described Fallon as a "voice of reason in an administration which has used inflammatory rhetoric against Iran," and urged the Bush administration to pursue diplomacy with Tehran instead of conflict.

"Admiral Fallon's resignation should not be used as an excuse to ratchet up tensions with Iran," the New York senator said.

Gates said there were no significant differences between Fallon's views on Iran, which has defied global calls to rein in its suspect nuclear program, and those of the administration.

Asked about Esquire's contention that Fallon's removal would signal the United States was preparing to go to war with Iran, Gates said: "Well, that's just ridiculous."

In an admiring profile of the admiral, Esquire writer Thomas Barnett portrayed Fallon as "The Man Between War and Peace," crediting him with calming tensions with Iran last year while bucking a White House move toward war.

"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," said the article.

"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."

Fallon also drew media attention in November when Bush was stepping up his rhetoric against Iran, publicly warning in an interview with the Financial Times that the drumbeat of press speculation about US military options was not helpful.

In his statement, Fallon said: "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," he said.

Moments later, Gates told a hastily convened news conference at the Pentagon: "I have approved Admiral Fallon's request to retire with reluctance and regret."

He said Fallon made the decision to step down "entirely on his own."

"I believe it was the right thing to do even though I do not believe there are significant differences between his views and the administration's views," he said.

Army Lieutenant General Martin Dempsey, Fallon's number two at the US Central Command, was named to replace the admiral on an acting basis when he leaves at the end of the month.

Fallon's departure comes just as the Pentagon was preparing to make recommendations on the pace and scope of a US troop drawdown from Iraq. He was supposed to give an assessment from his perch as the regional commander.

Gates said the Central Command evaluation will be completed before Fallon leaves his post, "so it will represent his views."

A former fighter pilot during the Vietnam War, Fallon came to the Central Command after serving as commander of US forces in the Pacific, where he focused on improving military relations with China.

His reputation as a strategic thinker who was also adept at diplomacy made him Gates's choice to lead the US military in an area where it was embroiled in two conflicts and faced a growing challenge from Iran.

© 2008 AFP

 

[RedRalph]

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

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

thye will never, ever attack Russia. thye generally only go to war if they think they are guaranteed of winning.

 

[Gelion]

thye will never, ever attack Russia. thye generally only go to war if they think they are guaranteed of winning.

Which may happen as technology and military systems quantity develop

 

[Gooblah]

Bush can technically ask Congress for war at any time (Congress is the only body of government with the ability to declare war), but since its controlled by the opposition, the odds are low it would pass. I don't think any of the candidates are dumb enough to try war on Iran, so hopefully nothing like that will occur.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Steph,

Legally, Bush cannot start a war with Iran without Congressional authorization, whatever time it is. But "legally," there's a lot of things he can't do that he's doing right now. So who knows?

He's the commander in chief of the armed forces until the next inauguration day, January 20, 2009. So in theory he can order the military to attack Iran up until then, though it would bring up all sorts of questions regarding whether the military has a duty to follow obviously illegal orders, here, to start a war without a Congressional declaration of war. "I was following orders" isn't a defense, so I don't think the duty exists, but I'm not a military lawyer.

Cleo

 

[Patroklos]

Notice the most important part of the OP, the one that unsuprisingly FriendlyFire failed to bold

"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,"

So, believe the actual words of a respected four star himself, or believe the worlds of a half cocked wannabe Cronkite sensationalist attempting to get headlines? I am not sure why this choice seems so hard for some of you.

In any case, Fallon's remarks on Iran have always been consistant with the administration. Despite the hysterics of the usual suspects here not once has anyone one in the administration said they WANT war with Iran, that it was even likely, and in fact it is the official stated position that they DON'T want war with Iran.

Jesus, get over yourselves...

Legally, Bush cannot start a war with Iran without Congressional authorization

So absolutely, horribly, false. I expect better from you.

 

[JollyRoger]

Laughing right back atcha.


I've also got a news article, mister. Says the exact opposite of what yours claims he says.

So you believe the Admiral when he says he is resigning merely because of "inaccurate perceptions" that he is at odds with Bush?

I thought you had been around the block enough to not to take a person on the way out at their word. Especially when their reason makes no sense at all. Why would inaccurate perceptions that 99% of the general public wasn't even aware of chase an Admiral out of his job?

 

[Steph]

Steph,

Legally, Bush cannot start a war with Iran without Congressional authorization, whatever time it is. But "legally," there's a lot of things he can't do that he's doing right now. So who knows?

He's the commander in chief of the armed forces until the next inauguration day, January 20, 2009. So in theory he can order the military to attack Iran up until then, though it would bring up all sorts of questions regarding whether the military has a duty to follow obviously illegal orders, here, to start a war without a Congressional declaration of war. "I was following orders" isn't a defense, so I don't think the duty exists, but I'm not a military lawyer.

Cleo

Perhaps congress will not officially start a war, but if I recall, congress did not declare war on Iraq either. It was just an attack decided by Bush. When was the last time the USA declared officially war? June 1942, on Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary.

So if he decides to bomb Iranian facilities, without a declaration of war, and it escalates in a full war, even if not officially a war... The situation on the ground is still war.

What would happen then? How easily the next president can pull out?
If Bush starts a conflict to force the hand of the next president, what can be done?

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Patroklos,

So absolutely, horribly, false. I expect better from you.

Okay, make your case.

I'll start:

The Congress shall have the power . . . To declare war.

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8

Cleo

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Steph,

That's not true. Congress did authorize the Iraq War, with the 2002 Authorization to Use Military Force (the 21st Century name for the Constitution's "Declaration of War"). The last time America declared war was, well . . . 2002. And before that, there was the November 2001 AUMF authorizing the use of force in response to 9/11.

Legally, the next President could pull the troops out on Inauguration Day if he or she wanted (logistically, it's obviously impossible). There's no treaty obligation as of yet.

Cleo

 

[Elrohir]

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 President is the Commander in Chief. He can order military operations without the approval of Congress, but Congress must authorize any war.

You forget that Congress actually did vote to authorize the Iraq War. (And that included tons of Democrats, as well) And practically speaking, Congress has to authorize the budget, so it's nearly impossible to have a long term military commitment without Congress giving you the bundles of cash you need to do it.

Anyway, short of Ahmadinejad doing something ********, I don't expect we'll be going to war with Iran while Bush is President.

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

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

Russia? Not unless we get magic force fields that make nukes stop working. They've still got a couple thousand, so we won't be messing with them anytime soon. You're hopelessly off.

 

[Steph]

In 2002, it was not a declaration of war, it was "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002".

Granted, it was authorized by congress, but it was not a formal declaration of war.

Now, can the US president order bombing without this previous Authorization of the congress?

I'm asking because on that topic, the French president is one of the most powerful head of state in democracies, as he can order a military intervention anywhere, immediately, without getting an authorization first

 

[Patroklos]

I thought you had been around the block enough to not to take a person on the way out at their word.

It makes perfect sense, you simply don't exist in a world where unity of command is an absolute requirement and thus can't understand. Think of the hundreds of staff postitions at CENTCOM that are always going to have to be wondering whether the orders they are recieving are not in line with the wishes of the president and thus illegal. Or the various political leaders Fallon negotiates with (and area commanders are very much government representatives) who have no idea if what Fallon is telling them is exactly what the US government actually wants/means/supports.

What we have seen here is the worst case of character assasination I ever seen. It is unfortunetly not suprising that the normals prefer to latch onto sensationalist journalism DIRECTLY CONTRADICTING THE SOURCES.

Okay, make your case.

The president can authorize offensive/defensive military operations as he sees fit. He only needs Congress to 1.) official declare war and 2.) pay for it since the regular operational budget of the military will dry up fast these days.

That's not true. Congress did authorize the Iraq War, with the 2002 Authorization to Use Military Force (the 21st Century name for the Constitution's "Declaration of War").

No, it is not, by any stretch of the imagination.

Now, can the US president order bombing without this previous Authorization of the congress?

Ask yourself it the President could order a retalitory nuclear strike without Congressional permission. And extreme case, but obviously the answer is yes.

 

[RedRalph]

Patroklos, you sound very naieve, and you arent. you are being dishonest. Read between the lines, come on man.

 

[JollyRoger]

It makes perfect sense, you simply don't exist in a world where unity of command is an absolute requirement and thus can't understand. Think of the hundreds of staff postitions at CENTCOM that are always going to have to be wondering whether the orders they are recieving are not in line with the wishes of the president and thus illegal. Or the various political leaders Fallon negotiates with (and area commanders are very much government representatives) who have no idea if what Fallon is telling them is exactly what the US government actually wants/means/supports.

What we have seen here is the worst case of character assasination I ever seen. It is unfortunetly not suprising that the normals prefer to latch onto sensationalist journalism DIRECTLY CONTRADICTING THE SOURCES.

If the source is a guy going out the door, you have to be skeptical of what he is saying. It's all theatre at that point.

 

[Gelion]

Russia? Not unless we get magic force fields that make nukes stop working. They've still got a couple thousand, so we won't be messing with them anytime soon. You're hopelessly off.

The whole point of my worry is the creation of that very "magical system" as you call it consisting of:
- large airforce, army and navy interconnected through GSP-run online HQs
(for manning and controlling the first-strike non-nuclear and tactical nuclear attack)
- creation of anit-missile bases and radars around the world
(that would block retaliatory strike by Russia or China)
- expansion of NATO and buildup of NATO bases (within minutes striking distance from Moscow or other important Russian military centers)
- militarization of space initiated by no other country but the United States (that would protect US real-time GPS based operations conduct, for reference see http://www.dtic.mil/jv2010/jv2010.pdf)
- US taking a more aggressive stance in world politics, delcaring wars, creating diplomatic and legal pretexts to strike against anyone at moments notice (War on Terror, statement that declares all of Space to be American territory)
All of this creates a perfect opportunity for a relatively safe, real-time limited nuclear or non-nuclear strike on Russia, China or any other nation. This strike option (properly implemented around 2010/2012/2014) would allow the US to carry out a preliminary strike that would eliminate their enemy's nuclear capabilities within minutes using a system that would coordinate plans in real time. This is me is scary.