- 1
- 2
Exit Strategy
Fallon is far from the only senior military officer to have serious doubts about the wisdom of U.S. strikes against Iran. Adm. Michael Mullen, during the Senate hearing on his nomination as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, voiced similar doubts. But Pentagon dictates require the addition of a phrase something like "of course, no options are off the table." Say that, and you're safely within the bounds of the administration's declared policy on Iran. Fallon's mistake was that he didn't use that caveat.
Some of Fallon's friends suspect he may have written the script just the way he wanted. Defense analyst and commentator Harlan Ullman, himself a former naval officer and a longtime friend and admirer of Fallon's, says, "I suspect he'd had enough. He knew where this administration is heading. He knew he was right to oppose it. So what do you do? At a certain point you have to get out."
Does Fallon's departure signal that the administration is in fact contemplating imminent war with Iran? Gates dismissed the idea outright. "The notion that this decision portends anything in terms of a change in Iran policy is … ridiculous."
Ironically, Fallon's most severe differences with the administration have been been over not Iran but Iraq. Fallon believes Iraq is absorbing too much of the U.S. military—resulting in a dangerous neglect of Afghanistan, in his view. His stance on Iraq tracks that of moderate Democrats who believe only a clear sense of limits on U.S. troop commitments will spur Iraqi politicians to pull together and get the hard work of rebuilding their nation done. So, in internal administration discussions, Fallon has opposed the "surge" and, over the past few weeks, called for a much faster drawdown of U.S. troops from Iraq than the commander there, Gen. David Petraeus, wanted. Formally, Fallon was Petraeus's boss. In reality Petraeus had a hotline to Washington. And on the question of the scale and pace of any drawdown this spring, President Bush heard out both commanders and then decided to back Petraeus.
Fallon's departure—he leaves on March 31—will scarcely be a quiet one. Inevitably, the Democrats will call him to testify on Capitol Hill. As a retired officer, Fallon—so long as he doesn't blab about classified material—will be free to say what he wants. But as an active-duty four-star, Fallon forgot the fundamental rule: the military can argue as vigorously as it likes while policy is being made, but once the civilian leadership has laid down a policy, the role of the commander is to salute and carry it out. Or, as Fallon has belatedly done, resign.
© 2008
- 1
- 2
Loading Menu
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.