Top U.S. Mideast commander quits after Iran article

[Saguaro]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Adm. William Fallon, the top U.S. commander for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, announced his retirement on Tuesday citing what he called false reports of big differences between him and the Bush administration over Iran.

His decision followed a report in Esquire magazine last week which called Fallon "The Man between War and Peace" and portrayed him as resisting a drive by the administration to take tougher action against Tehran.

Announcing Fallon's decision to reporters at the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Robert Gates dismissed a conclusion of the Esquire article that if Fallon were to leave his post it would make war with Iran more likely.

"I have approved Admiral Fallon's request to retire with reluctance and regret," Gates told reporters at the Pentagon.

"Admiral Fallon reached this difficult decision entirely on his own," he said. "I believe it was the right thing to do, even though I do not believe there are, in fact, significant differences between his views and administration policy."

The Bush administration says its policy is to use diplomacy to resolve its differences with Iran, particularly over Tehran's nuclear program, but it will not take military options off the table.

Washington and other Western nations say Iran is trying to develop the capability to build nuclear weapons. Iran says its program is to produce energy.

Fallon heads U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Florida, the headquarters that oversees U.S. operations in the Middle East, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has been in the post for just under a year.

WAR AND PEACE

The Esquire article that led to his resignation described Fallon as challenging the White House and urging restraint on Iran.

Fallon cooperated with the author during the article's preparation but strongly criticized the story after it appeared, describing it as "poison pen stuff."

But Gates said the perception that Fallon was at odds with the administration was not linked just to the article.

"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," he said.

Fallon will retire at the end of the month. His deputy, Army Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, will take charge of Central Command until a long-term successor is chosen, Gates said.

Fallon said he had concluded that perceptions of a rift were hurting his ability to do his job.

"Recent press reports suggesting a disconnect between my views and the President's policy objectives have become a distraction at a critical time and hamper efforts in the CENTCOM region," he said in a statement.

"And although I don't believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command Area of Responsibility, the simple perception that there is makes it difficult for me to effectively serve America's interests there," Fallon said.

Both Gates and Bush praised Fallon's military service.

"Admiral William Fallon has served our nation with great distinction for forty years," Bush said in a statement.

"During his tenure at CENTCOM, Admiral Fallon's job has been to help ensure that America's military forces are ready to meet the threats of an often troubled region of the world, and he deserves considerable credit for progress that has been made there, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan," Bush said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080311/ts_nm/usa_military_fallon_dc;_ylt=Ar341I.n1XwoGYY9NPs707 as0NUE

[Trueblue]

I regret to see such of voice of reason leaving.

[Saguaro]

A voice of reason has no place in the Bush administration,apparently.

[toxic]

Adm. Fallon was apparently forced to resigned because he stood up to Bush:
- for US troops in Iraq and Afganistan, and
- against starting war in Iran.

The Bush insanity continues.

There is little doubt in my mind that Bush will invade Iran prior to the General Election to accent the shortcomings of the Democratic Candidate.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2008/03/commanders_resignation_shows_a.html?nav=rss_blog

Commander's Resignation Shows a New Era of Micromanagement
On the surface, the early retirement of Adm. William Fallon appears to be another instance of the Bush administration's contempt for military advice and a mark of potential war with Iran.

Fallon's "views on strategy in the region have put him at odds with the Bush administration," says The Post. Fallon "had rankled senior officials of the Bush administration in recent months with comments that emphasized diplomacy over conflict in dealing with Iran, that endorsed further troop withdrawals from Iraq beyond those already under way and that suggested the United States had taken its eye off the military mission in Afghanistan" says the New York Times.

Yet we are not going to war against Iran, and Fallon's leaving is not going to change anything in Iraq. The issue is that we have entered a new era of micromanagement and control, where the view of the "commander" in the field is secondary to the needs of Washington.

Fallon, the commander of the U.S. Central Command, which oversees military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, abruptly resigned yesterday, asking for and receiving permission from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to seek early retirement. Known as "Fox" Fallon, he had taken over the job from two failed Iraq commanders just last year.

The "reason" for Fallon stepping down is ostensibly a profile in this month's Esquire magazine where Fallon is portrayed as challenging President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over a potential war with Iran. In the article, written by a military expert and former War College professor, Fallon says a war with Iran would be ill-advised. Last year, he also said that "bellicose comments" from Washington about Iran were "not particularly helpful," an admonition that many saw as a direct criticism of the president.

In a statement issued by his headquarters yesterday, Fallon acknowledged that "recent press reports suggesting a disconnect between my views and the president's policy objectives have become a distraction at a critical time and hamper efforts" across his theater. "I don't believe there have been any differences about the objectives of our policy" in the Middle East, Fallon said.

Many senior military officers were quick yesterday to point out that Fallon's views were in line with both Gates and Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Yes, perhaps Fallon had been forceful in his opinion, and didn't believe that war with Iran made sense or was winnable. But that is not a sufficient explanation for his resignation.

Previously the commander of Pacific Command, perhaps the most powerful and expansive posting for any American military officer, Fallon took up the Middle East post and soon found himself having to contend with a losing war in Iraq, a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and a White House seemingly intent on confrontation with Iran. What is more, though Fallon was the new "combatant commander" with the authority to direct day-to-day dealings and tactics of the Iraq war, he instead found himself largely marginalized.

Fallon was a naval officer commanding in a ground-forces theater that had only seen Army and Marine Corps commanders. And with the anointment of Gen. David H. Petraeus as savior of Iraq, he was made secondary in terms of directing the war effort there.

Then came an odd phenomenon associated with the surge and the American political debate about support for the troops. The armed services, which are supposed to raise and train the forces, were pitted against the "needs" of the commander, who is supposed to determine requirements and strategy to fight and win (under the law, the combatant commander, and not the services, is supreme). For political and domestic reasons, the Army and Marine Corps' views regarding how many troops they could afford and the health of the services became paramount.

What is more, when President Bush said he was listening to his "commanders," even if it were indeed true, the impression was that he was listening to Petraeus and not Fallon. So the supreme commander for the Middle East became more adviser and kibitzer than commander.

Relegated to handling the Iran portfolio, military strategy and approaches regarding Tehran soon became a point of friction between Fallon and the White House. In the end, it was Fallon's strange and untenable position as commander-but-not-commander that doomed him.

In Esquire and in the news media, Fallon is characterized as speaking out on Afghanistan and troop strengths in Iraq and Iran, as if somehow he was stepping out of line or "meddling." Some will find it worrisome that the administration only makes a pretense of listening to its military commanders. I find it much more worrisome that there is nothing particularly "military" associated with most of the decisions we are making regarding Iraq, Afghanistan or Iran, and yet we continue to make a fetish of according the brass some superior understanding of the nation's needs.


By William M. Arkin | March 12, 2008; 9:20 AM ET

[Trueblue]

I never suspected Bush could be this bad. He continues to amaze me with his incompetence, ignorance, and inability to take good advice.