Quantcast
 
 
 
Lucy Pemoni / AP
Fallon resigned following an article in Esquire magazine detailing his differences with President Bush
THE MILITARY

Exit Strategy

Adm. Fallon's split with Bush on Iran sinks his own ship

 
Sponsored by
 

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

Separate multiple addresses with commas

 

The surprise is not that Adm. William (Fox) Fallon has resigned as commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East (CINCCENT). The surprise is that he's lasted as long as he has.

In a way it's a backhanded compliment to Fallon's abilities. Defense Secretary Robert Gates had for months defended him against the increasing irritation of the White House over Fallon's interventions on policy, especially his public statements about Iran. One senior military officer in the Pentagon, who declined to be identified talking about sensitive personnel matters, said, "Gates saved Fallon's ass last year, but he didn't even try this time. Fallon was just way out of line."

The immediate cause of Fallon's resignation is a profile of him in the latest issue of Esquire magazine titled "The Man Between War and Peace." Author Thomas Barnett sets up Fallon as the man standing against what it asserts is the Bush administration's determination to go to war with Iran. The tone of the article alone might have been enough to sink Fallon. One example: "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 … 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'."

Barnett asks, "How does Fallon get away with so brazenly challenging his commander in chief? The answer is that he might not get away with it for much longer … the President may have had enough."

Indeed. Barnett's comments might have been dismissed as journalistic hyperventilating but for the fact that it was clear the author, in preparing the piece, had had intimate access to Fallon—travelling with him in the region toward the end of last year and evidently talking to him on multiple occasions. So when Barnett writes that "he's standing up to the commander in chief, who he thinks is contemplating a strategically unsound war," the sentence has an authoritative ring.

When word of the article's impending publication surfaced last week, the senior official says, there were "contacts" between the White House and the Pentagon over Fallon's remarks. This source declined to specify whether Secretary Gates had spoken with President Bush. Gates, in announcing Fallon's resignation, certainly suggested he had. When asked point blank whether he'd consulted with Bush, Gates zigzagged: "I had … The President has made clear all along that these matters are to be handled strictly within the Department of Defense …" The reality is that Gates didn't need White House prodding to grasp that Fallon had to go. And Fallon—after an initial claim that the article misquoted him—apparently came to the same conclusion.

Since last fall Fallon has been publicly campaigning against any notion of a war with Iran. In September he offered Al Jazeera a sit-down interview during which he made the comments that Barnett quotes. In November, on a visit to Cairo, Fallon allowed it to be reported that in his meeting with President Hosni Mubarak he had "ruled out a possible strike against Iran and said Washington was mulling nonmilitary options instead." (On the eve of that trip to the region, Fallon had told the Financial Times, "Another war is just not where we want to go.") In announcing his resignation he acknowledged that he and the president were not on the same page. "Recent press reports suggesting a disconnect between my views and the President's policy objectives have become a distraction," he said in a prepared statement. Accepting Fallon's resignation, Gates said, "I believe it was the right thing to do." The perception of a policy gulf between Fallon and the civilian leadership had reached the point where it could no longer be ignored. "You know," Gates said, "part of the problem here is … that we have tried between us to put this misperception behind us over a period of months and, frankly, just have not been successful in doing so." The defense secretary later added, "I think this is a cumulative kind of thing"—a very Gatesian way of not quite saying "because Admiral Fallon just won't leave the subject alone." But that's the truth.

 
Discuss
Member Comments
  • Posted By: JohnGaltlaketahoe @ 03/28/2008 1:05:40 PM

    Comment: The neocon controlled Bush Administration staged the 9/11 attacks in order to justify the imperial conquest of American military power into the oil soaked Middle East.

    Only the oil remains. No weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. No mobile biological weapons labs were found in Iraq. Iraq did not seek to acquire yellowcake uranium. The aluminum tubes were not suitable for nuclear use. The lead hijacker in the events of 9/11 did not meet with Iraqi intelligence. Iraq did not provide chemical weapons training to Al-Qaeda. There was no relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Hussein nor Iraq was involved in the events of September 11, 2001. Only the oil remains. The anti-trust violations of this State Department and Executive Branch are massive.

    This war on terror has nothing to do with Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda was created and sponsored by the CIA during the 1970's Afghanistan war all the way up to the 1990 and the begining of the first Gulf War. Al-Qaeda involvement in the events of 9/11 has a sponsor.

    Dick Cheney's private and secretly held meetings described as his ENERGY TASK FORCE are swimming in anti-trust violations regarding the soaring price of oil which is not related to market conditions,,,, rather...related to the mechanisms of the US STATE DEPARTMENT AND THIS EXECUTIVE BRANCH waging illegal international aggression for the confiscation and hostile takeover of IRAQI NATURAL RESOURCES.

  • Posted By: JohnGaltlaketahoe @ 03/26/2008 9:16:59 PM

    Comment: No weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. No mobile biological weapons labs were found. Iraq did not seek to acquire yellowcake uranium. The aluminum tubes were not sultable for nuclear weapons. The lead hi-jacker in the events of 9/11 did not meet with Iraqi intelligence. Iraq did not provide chemical weapons training to Al-Qaeda. There was no relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Hussein nor Iraq was involved in the events of 9/11.

    One million Iraqi citizens have died. 2 million have been displaced. Four thousand US soldiers have died. 100,000 have been wounded physically and mentally.

    Only the oil remains. The conflicts of interest inherent in this Bush Administration are currently confiscating the natural resources of Iraq.

    Should this entire Executive Branch he hung? Should there simply be another election and a new President to continue this nightmare? Only the American electorate can decide what treason and insurrection against the American electorate means.

    But make no mistake....this Bush Administration used lies and innuendo to place the US military into Iraq.

  • Posted By: Karenn1 @ 03/21/2008 7:51:56 PM

    Comment: you do not speak thr truth in this admin. Iran will be attack before the year is out,and that is that. What a sorry mess it will be. More paper to make more money will be needed.

Sponsored by
 
 
 
The Peek
 
 
SPORTS

Speedo's new and controversial high-tech LZR suit is helping swimmers smash dozens of records. How the company plans to capitalize on Olympic gold.

Sponsored by
 
 
 
 
AFRICA

These are among the ruling party's weapons against opposition voters. Still, the population clearly didn't cooperate in Friday's vote.

Sponsored by
 
 
 
loadingLoading Menu