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

 

Email To A Friend

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

Separate multiple addresses with commas

SPONSORED BY
 

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.

Label

Newsweek Top Stories
Al Gore's Climate-Change Evolution
Al Gore's Climate-Change Evolution

Using emotion to convince people to change.

Heaven Can Wait
Heaven Can Wait

A new book promises proof of eternal life.

The World's Biggest Foods
The World's Biggest Foods

Monster edibles from around America.

Discuss

Sponsored by

Member Comments

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

    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.

  • Posted By: RobS @ 03/21/2008 1:28:43 PM

    We need to confront directly the notion our government may operate according to its own will outside of the boarders of the USA. It is a barbarous and lawless condition where murder and theft may be committed on a gigantic scale, so long as it occurs outside of the boundaries of our land. I would encourage a new amendment to the constitution making very clear the binding nature of our Constitution upon our government acting in any capacity, whether in foreign jurisdictions or domestically. Unjust foreign policies that result in the destruction of innocent life and property must be considered as carefully as any life-endangering matter is here at home. They must themselves submit to the law, if they want to claim the authority of the law. If not, what else could they be called, except barbarians and murderers?

  • Posted By: david-fahey @ 03/21/2008 12:13:24 PM

    maybe adm. fallon believed the prez when he says he listens to commanders and give them what they want. maybe this is sec. gates way of passive agressive policy management of iraq/iran policy(he is a bush1 guy who's policies were savaged by his son). so when the adm. (who is in charge of overall strategy)tells the prez in private and channels many times i am sure, that his political goals are compromising military goals he believed he would be listened to, and will give the adm. what he needs, less saber rattling. gen. P has the ear of the bushies because his tactics are their last best hope. and the bushies are fighting a war with tactics not 'stateegery'. the mil.sucesses cannot stand if the bushie political side is not working and even hurting sucess. that IT is the reason for failures in iraq. also adm. fallon may be following the tradition of the officier corps(or those looking for more stars)of realizing a looser and getting away from it . or maybe he is a patriot who does not want to send the u.s. into a war w/o the manpower(draft) and industrial planning/base in place to suceed. saluting and shutting up is a proud military tradition, except during the clinton prez when some brass and congress reps loudly proclaimed that clinton was not C-i-C and would not follow him. and openly questioned policy with troops in the field and council cut-in -run. i guess what i am saying is i think getzel left a ? off his post.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse

My Take

Customize the NEWSWEEK homepage
to feature your favorite columnists.

Customize Now