Exit Strategy

Newsweek Web Exclusive

Email To A Friend

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

SPONSORED BY

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.

« Prev Page

Member Comments

- Reply
- Report Abuse
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.
- Reply
- Report Abuse
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?
- Reply
- Report Abuse
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.