Admiral Fallon, head of US Central Command - ie Iraq and Afghanistan has resigned.
Why?
PS: WaPo has some interesting statements by the people involved:
"...I don't believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command area of responsibility..."Fallon added
- hmm, so can we read this to mean there are difference about the means by which the objectives are to be achieved?
"Gates described as "ridiculous" any notion that Fallon's departure signals the United States is planning to go to war with Iran. And he said "there is a misperception" that Fallon disagrees with the administration's approach to Iran."
- hmm, so... where is the negative? Ridiculous and misperception about disagreement is not a literal denial of there being actual disagreement. Were one inclined to legalistic parsing.
Bush's statement on Fallon is also interesting.
"As I say, the notion that this decision portends anything in terms of change in Iran policy is, to quote myself, 'ridiculous,' " [said Gates]
- hmm, so... the policy is still the same despite Fallon's departure.
Which is not inconsistent with Fallon resigning because of the policy.
I suppose we will find out the hard way, as always.
Fallon is being replaced by Gen Dempsey
- Dempsey was up for a 4ht star and promotion of US Army Europe, sounds like he is taking over CENTCOM immediately instead.
Dempsey was 1st armoured commander during the invasion, then head of Iraqi training after Petraeus. Two years in Saudi as their National Guard advisor.
Dempsey testimony to Congress summer 2007
Interesting interview with Dempsey during Najaf fighting and the chase for al-Sadr
Unplanned resignation, I gather.
Fallon has only been head of CENTCOM for a year, normally a two year tour.
Rumours recently that the admin wanted him out.
Fallon, among other things, was rumoured to have insisted there'd be no war with Iran on his watch... he cited the Esquire article in his resignation statement.
Of course that could have been dealt with by a firm comment from the administration that the article was a load of rubbish and that they had every confidence in Fallon.
PPS: Froomkin is good, as always
"...Defense Secretary Gates refused to take Fallon's calls, making it clear he had to go."
OMG! So Fox is, like, totally, not BFF anymore!
It is rather disturbing to hear that the Pentagon is now also run like a junior High School girl clique...
- Log in to post comments
This statement could be factually true and still not be incompatible with war in Iran.
I don't claim to understand the military mind. But I don't see any outcome of an Iran attack this year which would not be disastrous for the US--that's why threatening to start such a war would be "ridiculous". Fallon understood this, and that is (at least part of) the reason he was opposed to the attack. He may well have agreed with Bush/Cheney that Iran should not be allowed to acquire nukes, but recognized that we don't have a practical military means to bring about that result.
The Iranians are not stupid. They know that the Bush Administration's verbal assurances about not planning to start a war with Iran are, as Goldwyn put it, not worth the paper they're printed on.
Fallons stance was a direct liability to the administration.
Fallons stance was one of "don't threaten if you can't follow on" - if America cant fight Iran, don't threaten to do so, it'll really weaken America publically if the Iranians call their bluff, which in some ways, they have been.
At this stage, Cheney is using Bush's reputation of being mad enough to actually invade to negotiate a settlement of some kind. Leaving Fallon in place undermined this stance. Whatever Cheney/Bush is really planning, Fallon couldn't remain.
"factually true" is the sort of thing this administration's public pronouncement have historically shown no concern for whatsoever.
Wonder whether this is why Dick went to Saudi Arabia today...
I don't believe Cheney and Bush are using a Kissinger/Nixon "madman" ploy.
For one thing it didn't work then, as Cheney must know, for another neither of them have the subtlety of Kissinger.
This is worrying. I gather Fallon packs his desk on the 31st of March.
3 week notice is rather short for a theater commander...
The post-Cheney meeting communique from the Saudis ought to be worth a read.
Cheney saying "I'm the sane one, but I can't restrain my friend much longer" is not the most credible posture.
Now if Bush were to meet Ahmedinejad and have Cheney shoot a random American diplomat in the face every few hours we'd soon see progress on the nuclear issue.