Reply With Quote
Yeah, the Neocons had no plans to attack Iran
over a magazine article?
US Middle East Commander to Retire
By Al Pessin
Pentagon
11 March 2008
The senior U.S. military officer responsible managing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and U.S. military engagement throughout the Middle East, Central Asia and East Africa, has decided to retire this month after a magazine article said he opposed administration policy toward Iran. VOA's Al Pessin reports from the Pentagon.
Adm. William Fallon testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, 4 Mar 2008
Admiral William Fallon informed Defense Secretary Robert Gates Tuesday he wants to retire because of press reports that, in the admiral's words, are "suggesting a disconnect" between his views and the president's policy. An article published in Esquire magazine this week portrays Admiral Fallon, head of U.S. Central Command, as standing against many people in the Bush administration who, it says, want to go to war with Iran.
In a statement issued Tuesday, the admiral says he does not believe there have ever been any differences about policy objectives in his area of responsibility. But he says the perception of differences makes it difficult for him to effectively serve U.S. interests in the area.
Announcing Admiral Fallon's departure, Secretary Gates said he granted the retirement request "with reluctance and regret." He said there is no policy difference, only the perception of a difference. But in the end that was enough.
"Part of the problem here, and I think it's finally manifested in Admiral Fallon's decision that he communicated to me this morning 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," said Robert Gates.
Secretary Gates said the decision was not based on any one article, but the Esquire profile of the admiral caused some stir in Washington. It called Fallon "the man between war and peace" and said he had defied the president by opposing war with Iran. The article, which did not attribute most of its assertions, also claimed Admiral Fallon might soon be fired, and that if that happened it could signal a move toward war.
Secretary Gates dismissed that claim.
"The notion that this decision portends anything in terms of a change in Iran policy is, to quote myself, ridiculous," he said.
Secretary Gates has called Admiral Fallon one of the best strategic thinkers in the U.S. military, and he said Tuesday the admiral's departure will leave a "hole' in his team. But Gates said the admiral's views on Iraq will be reflected in a report his command will submit later this month as part of an Iraq policy review.
The admiral's retirement takes effect at the end of the month, and will mark the end of his nearly 42 years of service. He had been expected to remain at Central Command at least until the end of the year. In that position, he is one of the top 10 operational commanders in the U.S. military. He is one of very few officers to hold four four-star commands during his career, and also one of few remaining in the U.S. military who served in Vietnam.
Secretary Gates said he led with "conviction, strategic vision, integrity and courage." President Bush said the admiral served "with great distinction," and gave him credit for what he called recent progress in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Admiral Fallon will be replaced temporarily by his deputy, Lieutenant General Martin Dempsey.
Yeah, the Neocons had no plans to attack Iran
There was no dispute or disagreement, so he had to go.
What agenda? The agenda to point out a disconnect in the reasoning behind this resignation? I don't understand exactly what the problem is here.
Please explain how the complete policy agreement between the admiral and the Bush administration forced the admiral to resign.
40 years of service, plenty of retirement pension, maybe hired into jobs as consultant/lobbyist for MIC.
I doubt that he is only the first of wave of officers who refuse to continue dubya's bull wars for oil. 99+% of them keep their heads down.
Israel and AIPAC, with their own agenda, must be thrilled that a top guy resigned to protest attacking Iran.
Attacking Iran is therefore still an option of the lameduck dubya/ head/neo- s to commit one more huge up. And everything they've done for 7 years indicates they will up up attacking Iran.
Last edited by boutons_; 03-11-2008 at 09:33 PM.
A top military commander retires over an Esquire article?!
What complete bull . Thats horse on a stick...
Seriously, people in Washington lack imagination, these guys must get caught calling into work every time they try with lame ass lines like that.
It wasn't just the article. The article was very likely symptomatic of a deeper conflict that has likely gone on for some time.
I think the Esquire article was just put out after the guy already made the decision to get out.
Funny how many former brass have completely come out against this administrations ed up policies.
War is fun!!! Especially when you have no stake in it!! No worries..Darth Cheney is on his to the Middle East... Translation we will be at war sooner than you think...
With 9 more months of the Bush administration and pro-war candidates John McCain and Hillary Clinton looking very vulnerable, this could get really scary....
The site I am about to link....I have no idea what it is. I was perusing the Detroit News about our Detroit mayor, Mr. Kwami Kilpatrick (the scandal is out of control...take a read sometime), and I trekked into the opinion section.
Upon reading some local comments, I came across a post about Iran, the nuclear weapon movement late last year, etc.
So take it for what its worth. I found it interesting.
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/arti...ew/6585/1/322/Fallon's Greatest Secret Accomplishment
By JC Garrett
Political Affairs Magazine
After nearly a half century of service Admiral William J. Fallon resigned Tuesday from his post as top U.S. military commander for the Middle East because of growing publicity of his differences of opinion over Bush Administration policy on Iran. Bush's beef with Fallon:
"He doesn't react like Pavlov's dog to inflammatory rhetoric from inflammatory little men."
A Mar. 11 article in "Esquire" speculated on the longevity of Fallon's career, asking
"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. President Bush is not accustomed to a subordinate who speaks his mind as freely as Fallon does, and the president may have had enough."
How very "Nostradamus" of them.
However, their next prediction proved the absence of total omnipotence, suggesting that Fallon might last until this summer when Bush would replace him with a more deferential commander who would chase whatever stick the neocons threw into Iran.
One can only hope that "Esquire's" third prediction proves them to be charlatans and false prophets:
"If that were to happen, it may well mean that the president and vice-president intend to take military action against Iran before the end of this year and don't want a commander standing in their way."
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has tried to downplay the existence of any disagreement, going so far as to declare, "I don't think there were any differences at all."
Wanna know just how much "difference" there is between Fallon and the Bush Admin's policy?
You may recall the very under-reported story about a B-52 bomber carrying six live nuclear warheads across the country to Louisiana. It was scheduled to continue to the Middle East after refueling. Fallon and a few other sane Intel and Air Force officials found out and stopped it before it could take off.
To put it politely, Fallon was royally perturbed.
When the incident was leaked to the press by high-level officials, distinguished patriots all, concerned about the possibility of being dragged into another aggressive, unprovoked war-- this time a nuclear one-- the inconceivable explanation offered by the morons in charge was:
It was an accident.
The "Bent Spear" B-52 incident of August 30 was no accident. Live nuclear warheads stored in impenetrable underground bunkers, at heavily guarded sites do not "accidentally" attach themselves to cruise missiles, drive themselves out on a fork truck, and jump into place on a bomber that has for several years been prohibited from carrying nukes because the B-52 has been deemed too unsafe for that purpose.
The timeline tells the tale here. One week after the "accident", on Sept. 5, the story was leaked to the Military Times. The next day, Sept. 6, Israel bombed a compound in Syria that was rumored to be a "suspected nuclear facility" where the Syrians were cooperating with North Korea on a secret project that was partially funded by Iran.
How convenient that those three nations turned out to be the exact ones in Bush's "Axis of Evil."
Asked about the incident, Bush refused to speak one word on the subject. To this day, nobody in the administration has offered any substantive information on the bombing of Syria.
Just before Fallon stopped the nuclear-armed bomber from delivering its cargo, Robert Gates had matter-of-factly announced that the new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran would not be released publicly. After Fallon realized exactly how maniacal the Bush regime was, he and other military and intel officers forced the release of the NIE, which said Iran had not had a nuclear weapons program since 2003, and was unlikely to resume it. It contradicted everything the White House had been selling.
How did they force Bush's compliance? They threatened to tell the whole story to every reporter in Washington – that Bush was trying to sneak nukes to the Middle East with the intent of bombing Iran's nuclear energy plants at the same time Israel bombed Syria.
British intel sources say the Israeli attack on Syria was originally intended to coincide with a U.S. attack on Iran. After the mutiny over sending nuclear-armed missiles to the Middle East, Israel proceeded with its attack on Syria.
Remember how passively Bush and Cheney took the disclosure of the NIE? Normally, they would have shouted and wailed, aggressively attacking such a repudiation of all the rhetoric they had been spouting for years. What caused their uncharacteristic calm and deference when the NIE was first released?
They were scared. If the public discovered the extent and scope of their plans, they might finally insist that Speaker Nancy Pelosi to return the nourishing meal of impeachment to the table from which she swiped it, thereby depriving the children of Democracy of the sustenance provided by the Cons ution. More than that, Bush and Cheney were afraid of going to prison for their highly illegal trespasses. Fallon had their cajones in his fists, and had convinced them that he would not hesitate to twist them off if they continued to do everything possible to get us into a third idiotic war.
Remember just days after that NIE was made public, when Bush suggested that other countries better fall in line if they were "interested in avoiding World War III"?
That is exactly what Admiral Fallon helped to prevent.
Hopefully, his retirement will allow him the freedom to expose the reckless insanity of the worst administration in the history of America.
that would make the scariest horror story for summer camp.
dubya and head, brokeback cowboys on their insane Strangeloveian Crusade to bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-Iran, with McCain promising more of the exactly the same insanity.
Do you come up with these phrases where you are high on drugs?
Actually, I think they're more akin to images burned into a CRT.
When I saw the thread le, I thought David Robinson was switching support from one canidate to another.
Be scared, be very, very scared....
JPostThe timing of US Vice President Cheney's visit here next week, coming right after Tuesday's resignation by Adm. William J. Fallon as America's chief military commander in the Middle East, may simply be coincidence.
--
Fallon had to go, and to go before Cheney arrived here on Sunday; that's how some commentators are interpreting his resignation.
"This was George Bush's going-away present to his vice president on the eve of Cheney's tour of the Middle East... Cheney just did not want this Fox around his Middle East henhouse," wrote former US ambassador Marc Ginsberg on The Huffington Post on-line news site.
Others are reading even more significance into the vice president's trip. After leaving Israel, Cheney journeys to Saudi Arabia and Oman - the latter the site of four air force bases strategically situated on the Straits of Hormuz, right across from Iran, and regularly used by the US military for refueling, supply storage and logistics. Both nations would play key roles in the run-up to any military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, and the timing of Cheney's visits there, combined with Fallon's farewell, has raised red flags in Washington and elsewhere that they may be signs Bush has taken a strategic decision to move against Teheran before leaving office.
--
Writing in US News & World Report this week, Terry Atlas linked the two events conspiratorially with last September's Israel Air Force strike on an alleged Syrian nuclear facility ("to force Syria to switch on the targeting electronics for newly received Russian anti-aircraft defenses") and even to the Second Lebanon War ("while this seems a bit old, Israel's July 2006 war in Lebanon against Iranian-backed Hizbullah forces was seen at the time as a step that Israel would want to take if it anticipated a clash with Iran") as among a number of signs that the US - with Israel's help - is indeed heading for war with Iran.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
