CENTCOM Commander Resigns: Adm. Fallon Opposed Attack on Iran (1 Viewer)

i can see where you wouldnt want to have a general openly say he wouldnt invade a country - doesnt mean we are going to do it, you just cant say you wont \wouldnt do it.

i just hope we dont
 
There was clearly a lot to admire about Adm. Fallon. But he knows the rules of the game, and his very public interviews with the media were clearly meant as a career swan song.

Max Boot brings up some excellent points this morning regarding Adm Fallon's very public departure from Centcom. Please, I don't need to hear the whole neocon babble re Boot for the millionth time. Neocon or not, Boot's comments are reasonable.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-boot12mar12,0,5337128.story
Per Boot:
- "It is highly improbable that, as the profile implies, the president had any secret plans to bomb Iran that Fallon put a stop to. But there is no doubt that the president wants to maintain pressure on Iran, and that's what Fallon has been undermining."

- Barnett writes further: "Smart guy that he is, Robert Gates, the incoming secretary of Defense, finagled Fallon out of Pacific Command, where he'd been radically making peace with the Chinese, so that he could, among other things, provide a check on the eager-to-please General David Petraeus in Iraq."

It's doubtful that this was why Bush and Gates appointed Fallon. Why would they want to "check" the general charged with winning the Iraq war? But it's telling that Barnett would write this; it may be a reflection of Fallon's own thinking.

- The problem is that Fallon is a newcomer to the Middle East and Iraq, while Petraeus has served there for years and is the architect of a strategy that has rescued the United States from the brink of defeat.
 
There was clearly a lot to admire about Adm. Fallon. But he knows the rules of the game, and his very public interviews with the media were clearly meant as a career swan song.

Max Boot brings up some excellent points this morning regarding Adm Fallon's very public departure from Centcom. Please, I don't need to hear the whole neocon babble re Boot for the millionth time. Neocon or not, Boot's comments are reasonable.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-boot12mar12,0,5337128.story
Per Boot:
- "It is highly improbable that, as the profile implies, the president had any secret plans to bomb Iran that Fallon put a stop to. But there is no doubt that the president wants to maintain pressure on Iran, and that's what Fallon has been undermining."

- Barnett writes further: "Smart guy that he is, Robert Gates, the incoming secretary of Defense, finagled Fallon out of Pacific Command, where he'd been radically making peace with the Chinese, so that he could, among other things, provide a check on the eager-to-please General David Petraeus in Iraq."

It's doubtful that this was why Bush and Gates appointed Fallon. Why would they want to "check" the general charged with winning the Iraq war? But it's telling that Barnett would write this; it may be a reflection of Fallon's own thinking.

- The problem is that Fallon is a newcomer to the Middle East and Iraq, while Petraeus has served there for years and is the architect of a strategy that has rescued the United States from the brink of defeat.
Fallon according to this piece was in part pushed out because he would not be relentlessly confrontational with Iran and Syria:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080313/NATION/442198655/1002

Certain "military analysts" are quoted as supporting Fallon's firing because he "failed to stem the flow of fighters from Iran and Syria." This of course is a selective viewpoint from people who wish to have war with Iran and Syria and wish to keep them spun as "the problem."

The story neglects to note that 60% of foreign fighters in Iraq are Saudis and Libyans with a significant portion crossing also from the Saudi frontier. Saudis likewise are funding the insurgency.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/world/middleeast/22fighters.html

For all the vitriol against Fallon in that aritcle because he won't play ball with regard to beating the war drums with Iran, where is the effort to hold our "ally" Saudi Arabia accountable for it's role the insurgency? If it was any other country in the region the fact that approximately 50% of the insurgents hailed from there the fact would be trotted out as proof of a direct government role in recruiting and bankrolling the fighters.

This is the sort of selective use of fact that is essentially dishonest that this administration specializes in. A half truth is about the same as a whole lie.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, but there is a logic to what Boot is saying.

This isn't simply about going to war, but also about how best to prevent a war. Basicaly, Gates is the guy who fired Fallon. Gates is no neocon. The issues with Fallon would seem to go well beyond the whole neocon conspiracy argument that is made from time to time.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom