Admiral Fallon’s “No Iran War” Line Angered White House
WASHINGTON — A new article on CENTCOM commander Adm. William Fallon confirms that his public statements last fall ruling out war against Iran last fall were not coordinated with the White House and landed him in trouble more than once with President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
In an admiring article on Fallon in Esquire, former Pentagon official Thomas P.M. Barnett writes that Fallon angered the White House by “brazenly challenging” Bush on his aggressive threat of war against Tehran. Barnett also cites “well-placed observers” as saying Bush may soon replace Fallon with a “more pliable” commander.
Barnett’s account, which quotes conversations with Fallon during the CENTCOM commander’s trips to the Middle East, shows that Fallon privately justified his statements contradicting the Bush policy of keeping the “option” of an unprovoked attack on Iran “on the table” as necessary to calm the fears of Egypt and other friendly Arab regimes of a U.S.-Iran war.
Barnett recalls that when Fallon was in Cairo in November, the lead story in that day’s edition of the English-language daily Egyptian Gazette carried the headline “U.S. Rules Out Strike against Iran” over a picture of Fallon meeting with President Hosni Mubarak.
That story, published Nov. 19 and not picked up by any U.S. news media, reported that Fallon had “ruled out a possible strike against Iran and said Washington was mulling non-military options instead.”
Later that day, according to Barnett, Fallon told him during a coffee break in a military meeting, “I’m in hot water again,” and then confirmed that his problems were directly with the White House.
That was the second time in less than a week and the third time in seven weeks that Fallon had publicly declared that there would be no war against Iran. In an interview with Al-Jazeera television in September, which Fallon himself had requested, according to a source at Al-Jazeera, he had said, “This constant drum beat of conflict is what strikes me which is not helpful and not useful”.
And only a week before the trip to Egypt, in an interview with Financial Times, Fallon had said, a military strike was not “in the offing”, adding, “Another war is just not where we want to go.”
These statements represented an extraordinary exercise of power by a combat commander, because it contradicted a central feature of the Bush-Cheney strategy on Iran. High-ranking Bush administration officials had been routinely repeating the administration’s line that no option had been taken “off the table” since early 2005.
At an Oct. 17 news conference, Bush said he had “told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.”
Fallon’s public statements explicitly ruling out an attack on Iran thus undermined the Bush administration’s threat against Iran.
The willingness of the top commander in the Middle East to take the military option “off the table” was in part a reflection of the determination of uniformed military leaders to prevent what they regarded as a disastrous course.
The new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, who replaced Gen. Peter Pace in June, was even more candid about his opposition to the use of force against Iran than Pace had been, according to a Congressional staffer who had participated in private meetings with both. Pace declared publicly in late October, “We have to be mindful of the risks that would [be spawned] by engaging in a third conflict” in the region.
Mullen added, however, that military options “cannot be taken off the table”.
But Fallon, as the commander responsible for the entire Middle East, was concerned about more than the consequences of actually exercising the military option. He was prompted to enunciate a “no-war” line on Iran by the panicky reactions of Arab states to what they thought were indications of the warlike intentions of Bush administration.
In the latter half of 2007 friendly Arab regimes were upset by the possibility of a U.S.-Iran war, which they feared would destabilise the entire region. Fallon is quoted as telling Barnett, “[I]t’s all anyone wants to talk about right now. People here hear what I’m saying and understand. I don’t want to get them too spun up.”
Fallon told Barnett that his ruling out of military action against Iran was necessary to calm the very regimes the Bush administration was hoping to enlist to support its anti-Iran line. “Washington interprets this as all aimed at them,” Fallon said in Cairo, according to Barnett. “Instead, it’s aimed at governments and media in this region. I’m not talking about the White House.”
Fallon was arguing, in effect, that it makes no sense to make the possibility of an unprovoked attack part of your declaratory policy if merely induces confusion and panic among friendly governments without influencing the target of the threat.
Barnett quotes Fallon as complaining that “they” — meaning White House officials — were asking him, “Why are you even meeting with Mubarak?” But Fallon strongly defended the diplomatic role he was playing in relations with Mubarak and other Middle Eastern leaders. “This is my centre of gravity,” Fallon told him. “This is my job.”
Fallon’s sensitivity to the political-diplomatic consequences of a declaratory policy that explicitly keeps open the threat of an aggressive war as a potential option set him apart not only the White House but from the consensus among national security specialists in both parties. In early 2007, all three of the top three Democratic contenders for the presidential nomination publicly declared their support for keeping “all options on the table”.
Fallon is not the first CENTCOM commander to rein in aggressive White House policy toward the Middle East. In late 1997, according to Dana Priest’s book, “The Mission”, the Bill Clinton White House wanted CENTCOM commander Gen. Anthony Zinni to order his pilots to provoke a military confrontation with Iraq in the no-fly zone by deliberately drawing fire from Iraqi planes.
The request for such a provocation was conveyed to Zinni by the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Ralston. But Zinni, who believed that it could lead to an unwanted war with Iraq, insisted that a formal request from the White House would have to be sent, and the plan was dropped.
The unhappiness of the Bush administration with Fallon’s role as well as the unflattering picture of administration policy revealed by the article was evident Thursday from the failure of either the White House or the Pentagon to issue the usual reassuring statements in response to the article.
The White House declined to comment, although, according to the Washington Post’s Thomas Ricks, the article “was being discussed there”. The Pentagon spokesman, Geoff Morrell, said Secretary of Defence Robert M. Gates “has read the profile on Admiral Fallon but chooses not to comment on it or other press accounts.”
Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. The paperback edition of his latest book, “Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam”, was published in 2006.
Copyright © 2008 IPS-Inter Press Service
It’s quite sobering to realize that American generals and admirals are the last line of defense against a rogue civilian Administration’s out of control belligerence. The knowledge that Bill Clinton was also trying his utmost to provoke a war with Iraq (imagine, the Iraq war beginning in 1997), and Zinni’s subtle defiance should be front page news. In affairs of empire, there is little difference between Republicans and Democrats.
Obama is the least bad option of the mainstream candidates. He at least speaks about changing the mindset of war, even if he has conceded to the military-industrial establishment in other areas. Hillary and McCain are the most likely to press the big red button (never mind answering the big red phone).
“That story, published Nov. 19 and not picked up by any U.S. news media …”.
Kind of reminds me of the statement Rumsfeld made in January or February of 2003, to the effect that the US was going into Iraq even if Saddam didn’t have any WMDs. He said it in Germany, so the US media never picked up on that one either.
Isn’t a responsible, free and independent press wonderful? Don’t you wish we had one?
Counterpunch has an article by Chris Floyd which has a harsher take on Fallon. Floyd views Fallon more as a politico who doesn’t like the current ‘timing’ of war with Iran.
Are we really to believe that an article in Esquire is to be taken seriously? And is this the Barnett who believes that Canada and parts of Mexico will be a part of the U.S. in 50 years? What junk passes for political content today. If someone has a more penetrating article, why not report on it than the one in ESquire? Next thing we will see is junk publications like Vanity Fair being taken seriously.
Obama should consider picking someone like Zinni as a VP choice. Many Generals who are willing to
voice their opinion are saying that someone with a hot temper like McCain should not have his
finger on the hot button.
Why can’t we just get rid of all the war mongers and try them for crimes against humanity?
Not knowing all that much about Fallon, its difficult to predict where his loyalties actually lie and what his actions will be in the long run. But the fact that he stands up to Bush/Cheney on occasion gives me hope. That and the fact that he once called Petraeus “an ass-kissing little chickenshit”.
“… Bush may soon replace Fallon with a “more pliable” commander.”
Just what we need. Make the military as redundant as all the other departments of our government - like the one responsible for assuring kids aren’t getting “leaded” toys, and the food we eat is fit for even pigs to eat - and the idiot in charge who says she doesn’t need any more money, or employees! Her current $36,000,000 is just fine. In the ’80s that department was getting $100,000,000, and we didn’t even have all the crap coming from foreign countries to contend with like we do now.
Those who criticize the Bush war policies must be silenced. Unlike Admiral Fallon, his mind is not cluttered with facts, and he can see the dangers of a non war economy. One can only imagine the disastrous consequences to Halliburton and other defense contractors if we ceased to be at war.
I respect this man as a true soldier, ethical, rational, and showing the bravery to stand up to more than one kind of enemy to our people and Constitution.
I just briefly read the Counterpunch article cited by Greg above. Fallon obviously feels its worth sticking his neck out about Iran, but it might be more about the timing than the ethics or legality.
Personally I am glad he is speaking up regardless of his motives.
Nazi Germany in the 1930’s, with herr Fallon speaking up saying it’s a stupid idea invading Russia…[or any other bloody country for that matter]
Now, go back and re-read yesterday’s article “U.S. foreign policy is becoming increasingly dominated by the Pentagon”
Today’s article is an example of ‘the Pentagon’ initiating foreign policy -
in this case, attempting to provide some sanity.
I was thinking more of Darth Vader saying, “Now you’re in command. Don’t fail me!”
simonhhh,
Right on target. Putting everything aside, ‘Operation Barbarossa’ was the catalyst for the Nazi defeat. (not they should have won!)
THIS is what courage, integrity and heart look like…
” Esquire is to be taken seriously? ”
Get your head out of the sand ; If the more “respectable tabloids” ( NYT , WP , …) printed the story like comparatively-unbiased European newspapers would have , then the above “less-respected tabloid” wouldn’t have to . Truth is truth whether it is written in a morocco-bound Encycl.Brit or in sand .
Go against Bush, get kicked out on your read to be replaced by a no talent ass kissing hack. Sheesh. And we still call ourselves a top military force?
Looks to me like this guy is trying to prevent the US version of “Operation Barbarossa” i.e. an attack/invasion of Iran. Which will not only greatly dimishish, if not destroy the US militay but the US standing in the world as well. To the point where no one can rescue it.
I don’t expect this guy will last till summer folks.
Stand up men do not survive in a criminal enterprise. They do survive in the minds and hearts of good Americans.
My question: Who benefits from this supposedly glowing tribute to Admiral Fallon? All the piece does is help put him in the PUBLIC cross-hairs of Dick Cheney et al. And make it that much harder for SecDef Gates to keep Fallon in place while he works to ease out Petraeus (who is Fallon’s subordinate) to some “safer” spot (like NATO commander). Fallon played a crucial role (Feb 2007) in blocking Cheney’s attempt to get three carrier groups on station in the Gulf, which would have set us up for an attack on Iran in the Spring of 2007. If Fallon were replaced by Petraeus, however…
Unlike Iraq or Afghanistan for the last 18 years or so, Iran is still capable of obtaining modern weapons. US forces have not faced modern weapons for a long time. Fallon knows any attack could be costly, as the US Navy in the Persian Gulf is vulnerable to land-based attacks.
Bravo Admiral! Finally someone willing to go against the grain a bit. this current administration could always replace their commanders with less talented yes men, but the intelligence community will have none of that..
@rjmart01 March 8th, 2008 3:51 pm
I would absolutely LOVE a link to that.
Hang in there Admiral Fallon. Be careful.
Imagine there is one person that is the check and balance to the Bush Administration. Isn’t this a little ironic?
There are some 534 members in Congress each with an operation and per diem budget that would make anyone pretty dumbfounded. Each with several offices plus their staff none of which could bring a stop to the terrible dark ages and stupidity of the Bush Administration. And yet Admiral Fallon achieved this.
What is wrong with this picture?
What is wrong is that we have about 535 people that do not understand their role as check and balance and clearly are pretty illiterate as to what the Constitution says and what the Bill of Rights mean. Clearly every member failed to abide by the Oath sworn to uphold and defend The Constitution and clearly these people need to be jailed for this failure to do so.
This is probably why the Second Amendment exists. To give us power to do the right thing.
Bush and Cheney tolerate no obstacles to their criminal enterprise, yet, their blanket obsession with all things military makes it difficult to discipline Admiral Fallon. To see a high ranking military officer in direct open opposition to their policy madness places into check their Iran war making machine. Cheney responded that he gets it! The Iran war drums have cooled for now. Bush and Cheney are now searching for answers to the depth of military and intelligence opposition to their policies and their power. Clearly they do not fear a feckless Congress. Military and intelligence opposition is a more serious matter. The neo-con threat is being challenged internally at the highest levels and Fallon is not acting alone. The lunatary decider appears to be somewhat contained in the Middle East. So now they have turned their attention to striking a match in South America.
central problem for us having the bush administration in power is summed in the following:
“they” — meaning White House officials — were asking him, “Why are you even meeting with Mubarak?” But Fallon strongly defended the diplomatic role he was playing in relations with Mubarak and other Middle Eastern leaders. “This is my centre of gravity,” Fallon told him. “This is my job.”
if only more of the people in power knew what their job requires, and were proudly willing to do that job, we’d not be in the current mess(es) we’re in.
(i’m looking at you, congress. can we drop the baseball players using steroids hearings for just a little while??? we don’t give a shit. more pressing issues)
and thank you, admiral.
braithwa842 March 9th, 2008 5:08 am
Try:
http://tinyurl.com/33j5ur
If that doesn’t work go to the home page of the Egyptian Gazette:
http://www.algomhuria.net.eg/gazette/1/
On the bottom right in the section titled PDF Archive choose 2007, 11, 19.
I found it interesting that I was able to get to the archives without having to pay or to be a registered member as is the case with so many of the online versions of US newspapers.
This country can not afford another expensive war! Our resources are stretched to the limit now. That’s what war with Iran would be. It would wind up the same quagmire Iraq and Afghanistan are today. With literally nothing being solved but to create another mess there were no clear answers to. What ever possessed the American people to vote this war mongering nut into the White House is beyond me? He isn’t in touch with reality. He is an very unstable man! What’s more frightening there is every chance we aren’t through with these people after the elections. McCain is as bad if not worse than Bush!
So, the war-mongering White House was unhappy with Fallon? I guess the war-mongers in Washington don’t feel that they’ve made enough money with the Iraq War. Looking for more money-looking for more war; same thing.
One year ago Fallon was refusing to support a military build up in the Persian Gulf as he resisted the deployment of a third carrier group there. Supposedly at the time of his confirmation hearing he had said privately that he would not allow an Iran war to take place on his watch. In February and March of last year, after Fallon’s resistance, the Bush Administration modified it’s policy toward Iran to include more diplomatic engagement, though no reason was given for the change.
This information came out last spring, so this has been an ongoing situation which the above article brings out in more detail.
“….Bush may soon replace Fallon with a “more pliable” commander.”
In other words, he’ll be looking for a sociopathic war monger to replace Fallon.
Gail, another “ass-kissing little chicken shit” will do.
kathyodat
Tumbleweed,
You got it right. A bit of time spent at the folowing link will explain a lot about what we see in this country. http://ponerology.com/ We have a confluence of influence of some who have no concern for the welfare of this country(or perhaps any other), the influence of the MIC, and the opportunism of of psychopaths. All together, the perfect storm for mass destruction on a world scale. If you visit the site given above, click on any or all of the subjects in the column at the left side of the page. There is a lot here, but very worthwhile reading.
rjmart01 said:
“The knowledge that Bill Clinton was also trying his utmost to provoke a war with Iraq … and Zinni’s subtle defiance should (have been) front page news. ”
Yes, absolutely!! It just isn’t fair that “rjmart01″ should be the only person on the planet with this “knowledge”…
And even if this so-called “knowledge” were accurate,
we can rest assured that if President Clinton HAD invaded Iraq in 1997 (as the secret knowledge purports), you can bet that he (Clinton) would have been smart enough to “get us out of there by 1998″!
rjmart01 said:
“Obama is the least bad option of the mainstream candidates.
He at least speaks about changing the mindset of war…”
You really think so, do you?
Mr. Obama has stated that he would redeploy our troops “from Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan”.
Such a “redeployment’ would sadly necessitate “an invasion of Pakistan”. So much for Obama’s “changing the mindset of war”.
“This country can not afford another expensive war! Our resources are stretched to the limit now. That’s what war with Iran would be. It would wind up the same quagmire Iraq and Afghanistan are today.” - tumbleweed March 9th, 2008 9:05 am
It would be much worse than you imagine.
Iraq was an exhausted, broken country when the U.S. invaded in 2003. It was not even able to threaten Kuwait, much less a ’superpower’. The U.S. invaded because the UN fiction of the ‘weapons of mass destruction’ searches which allowed the U.S. and U.K. to keep Iraq from signing oil concessions with France, Russia and China was unsustainable.
And the Afghanistan ‘war’ is a joke, the U.S. put in fewer troops than the NYC police department. They tried to buy off warlords to do their fighting for them. The Taliban are patient and know the country. Afghanistan is just a sideshow. NATO wants no part of this loser.
Iran is a whole different league. 70 million well fed, well organized, nationalistic people that are still pissed at the U.S. for the 1953 coup d’etat (CIA Operation Ajax) that destroyed their Parliament and installed the hated dictator (Shah) so the West could regain control of their oil. There is no possibility of occupying Iran. The U.S. plans only air bombardment and naval missile attacks, to try to break Iran. Iran knows this, and will wipe out all shipping in the Persian Gulf (supersonic torpedoes, missiles), will destroy Saudi refineries in the desert, and will destroy supply lines to the U.S. troops in Iraq and cause the Shia in the area to rise up against all American forces.
The global economy as we know it will be over. Oil will hit $300/barrel. The Persian Gulf will not be safe for decades. Insurance rates on oil tankers will skyrocket. Asia will ditch U.S. hegemony, since they will be shown to be incompetent and weak. China will rise, Japan and Korea will kick out the long term occupying forces, the American Oil Empire will end abruptly. The dollar will crash, and the millions of Chinese, Indian and Jewish immigrants that came to the U.S. for the money, will leave, further devastating the Fortune 500.
The U.S. military likes to beat up small weak countries (Panama, Grenada) or ones softened up by sanctions (Iraq). Iran has modern weapons from China and Russia. The U.S. hasn’t faced anything close to an equal fight since WWII, and Russia did most of the fighting in that war.
Iran could never invade the U.S. But they are not planning on it. In their own neighborhood, they will be impossible to ‘crush’. Even when they ‘lose’ a fierce, bloody fight, they will win the War. Admiral Fallon realizes this, and even insane Cheney is hesitating. Bush of course, is clueless.
I don’t trust the one demurral in this string about Admiral Fallon. Why shouldn’t we think the obscure magazine article alluded to is just another example
of all-too-prevalent character assassination of anyone who has character.
So– if he’s replaced or even if not– Fallon for president?
ThadStone,
From all the information available, you have the most accurate prediction of what may still come to pass.
Most Americans don’t remember how the American capitalist/banking cartel turned on Russia after they destroyed the Germany Army. The Ruskies haven’t forgotten. Same with China who lost about 10-12 million? people murdered by the Japanese Imperialsts.
Iran has been preparing for an attack by the world’s “super bully.” We may have to be humbled before we wise up and say No to military aggression.
OK, so Bush and Cheney are angered that a very senior admiral was so naive as to tell the truth. I am so sick of this pair that I am having great trouble waiting for January, 2009, when they will be sent back to their ranches and animals who won’t worry whether to lie or be truthful. The pair ought to be impeached and censured, but Democrats just don’t have enough of a certain male appendage.
Thad Stone: I second Peaceman’s comment. Excellent information.
I admired Fallon when he made a comment about Petreaus last year. Petreaus is Cheney’s poodle. I also think that Fallon’s first allegiance is to the men in uniform and to America; in that order. He doesn’t want the miltary capacity of the U.S. to become completely broken. It also occurs to me that the Bush/Cheney cabal is not making any comment to this because Fallon is giving them an out for all their bombastic rhetoric on Iran.
Think about it. If Cheney has finally woken up to the fact that the U.S. cannot win a war and secure Iran’s oil, than they somehow must rachet down the expectation of an attack on Iran without looking weak. Fallon has just given them the “excuse” they need to back away from Iran for now. And Fallon is being much more public about his opinion than any of the other military leaders that have butted heads with Bush/Cheney (remember Shinsecke).
The BushCo’s are always saying that they listen to their Generals/Admirals. Fallon has given them the green light to temporarily back away from a frontal attack on Iran. Just as sanctions broke the back of Iraq, BushCo will TRY to do the same thing with Iran. But one thing Iran has going for it that Iraq did not is the allegiance of China and Russia. (I wonder if this is the reason that BushCo is antagonizing the Bear in Eastern Europe?).
And the thing with the sanctions and actions of Preznit Clinton informs us that this mess has been in the plans for a very long time. And it is ALL about the oil. These idiots want to be the last man standing in a post carbon world. And worldwide (including in the U.S.; think Katrina) genocide in all its forms is also part of the plan. Less of the “little” people using what oil remains.
I’m thinking out loud here, but I have to say that this line of thinking is helping me line up the dots and get a handle on the motives of all the madmen in the world.
P.S. Does anyone else see the resemblance between Fallon and Anthony Perkins?
I think you guys are right about Iran’s capabilities. We better just leave them alone. Attacking numerous targets would make them decide to “use it or lose it”. Once they confirm missiles and aircraft incoming, they could launch everything, and if they have targets ready, bases and ships all over the region would be at risk.
Would Iran not retaliate to a single strike to the nuclear enrichment facility? Lets not go there.
Rebel Farmer,
A much older version of Anthony Perkins. Tony had sharp features, but I know what you mean.
You’re absolutely right about the OIL (and natural gas as well.) Bush/Cheney and our greatest friends in the Universe, Israel, (the country that can do no wrong) and their lobbyists are ratcheting the diatribes about Iran.
We have lowered the standards for entering the military and they now take gang members who are looking for free military training. We need fodder to feed the cannons and just about anyone is acceptable today.
Russia and China are preparing for the hubris of the coward-in-chief and the 5-deferment quail killer himself.
Fallon and all honest military brass should speak up loud and clear against the demented ones running the show. For the sake of our country and the innocent people we kill and maim abroad.
Angering this Whitehouse lets you know you are on the right track.
Quelle:
Ditto that…
Anybody stupid or naive enough to believe that Obama (or Killary, McBain, et al) would be the wiser more level headed choice as POTUS is a dollar short and a day late!
Obama has already made clear his intentions regarding Pakistan by eerily parroting insane McBain’s Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran rant.
Obama, like Killary + McBain, is like a child left unattended in a candy store; he, like they, have had a taste of power and now want to gorge on it.
He, like Killary and McBain, have been bedazzled by the HiTech wizz bang gadgetry especially designed to WOW the mental midget politicos, who, like pigs at the trough, greedily chow down the corporate slop tossed their way while simultaneously pocketing bribes, ready to vote to give the “house” away at the first opportunity. In short, Obama is a spineless, 2faced forked-tongue shifty Beltway sockpuppet, who’ll faithfully execute policies dictated by the Industrial Military Medical Media Complex.
I see this as a fight between factions of the ruling class. Someone has to be backing Fallon, or he wouldn’t stand up to the Cheney junta. I remember him speaking out sometime last year, before November.
Yeah, there are the crazies (who have been in charge of the country for 7 years) who want to achieve total world military.domination. But wiser heads prefer to control the world the traditional way, with money as the first weapon. Read John Perkins’ Confessions of an Economic Hitman.
What we are witnessing is the reining in of the neocons. It’s not anything to get all dewey eyed over. I’m sure the rulers backing Fallon don’t want the kind of world we CDers want.
ThadStone & Rebel Farmer- thanks for your thoughts; certainly some realistic possibilities in your musings.
The military and TV comedians are the main sources of sanity and information. Sad.
Journalists and journalism students: Change this situation, even if it harms your pathetic lapdog careers with the mainstream media.
Do you remember the bull we were fed prior to the Iraq invasion? WMDs, the evil dictator Saddam… And the troop rolled in as liberators, not conquers. Oh no, this wasn’t a war against Islam it was to free the people from despotism.
What has been said here about Iran’s capabilities is right but it is only half of it. Iraq was ruled by the will of a dictator but Iran is ruled by Mulahs, Islamic clerics and by the will of Allah. It is the only nation so far to be completely run on Sharia Law.
How would the USA spin this war? Even if you nuked them off the planet, you’d still lose because you’d be fighting the Islamic states of the old USSR, most of Africa, Pakistan, the middle-east, South East Asia and Brooklyn… Now that would be a dumb move.
Fortunately for all of us, CENTCOM is one of those high-ranking military positions that requires Congressional Confirmation. Admiral Fallon is a favorite in the Senate and were he removed, no nominee would be approved and he would end up in a kind of limbo as General Shinseki did.
Shinseki was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff prior to the Iraq war. He was the one that told Bush/Cheney that while they could defeat Sadaam’s army with 150,000 troops it would require another 200,000 additional forces to effectively occupy the country. Since Bush is not the kind of emperor that likes to be told, that he has no clothes, he ordered Shinseki’s removal.
When informed by the Senate, in no uncertain terms, that no replacement would be approved prior to the end of Shinseki’s term, Bush backed off. He did name Shinseki’s successor 18 months early, effectively letting the whole military establishment know that while Shinseki hadn’t been fired, he was no longer on the Whitehouse Christmas card list.
It sure didn’t take Georgie Boy very long to lose his temper and threaten to fire Admiral Fallon if he wouldn’t retire/resign, now did it? Georgie-boy doesn’t give a damn whether or not our country loses one of its most capable military commanders. He just can’t stand opposition or dissent of any kind. He is the original 2-year-old tyrant, and he surrounds himself with yes-men.
I think that the Administration should seriously consider having the Justice Department bring up some charges on Fallon. His rhetoric is broderline treasonous. This man is not a policy maker, he is supposed to be a soldier. When America’s military stops listening to the President, then we will have then become a fascist state. He should never say anything like “there will be no war, blah, blah, blah.” This kind of talk only emboldens our enemies’ plans which is to kill Americans. Further, this ikind of attitude explains why Iran is so blatant and confident about their terrorist activities inside Iraq and other acts that dont make any sense. Fallon’s outrageous comments may have already killed his own fellow serviceman. I do find it sad that so many others in this forum are so blind with their hatred of George Bush, that they would appease someone as evil as Hitler. It especially angers me when people opine without knowledge. The author here makes it pretty clear how he stands on the issue, but I would get a better editor. Just written a little rough is all.