Fallon Out

Admiral William Fallon, sometimes said to be standing between George W. Bush and the "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" policy, is resigning amidst a storm of controversy surrounding suggestions that he's been standing between Bush and war with Iran. More insta-analysis here at The Washington Independent. Basically, there seems to be a mobius-strip like quality where it's awkward for people to think Fallon is dissenting from the administration's Iran policy, so he's on his way out, though the administration and Fallon both deny that there is any such dissent or that any Iran policy changes are in the works. Got that?

Comments

Uh, this is really bad news on the bomb Iran front.

Regardless, I think Fallon has done a good job in his position so far. I think it's time for him to really light into the administration now. Of course, the 101st fighting keyboardist will criticize him as a bitter retiree, but who's listening to those guys at this point?

Posted by mpowell | March 11, 2008 4:01 PM

Hummm... how does the fact that he's standing between GWB and war with Iran result in him stepping down? Isn't that like saying Lebron James is standing between the Cavs and loosing every game they play, ergo LeBron must go?

Posted by JP | March 11, 2008 4:08 PM

I keep remembering the Dallas Morning News op-ed column by Georgie Anne Geyer from June 1, 2007:

...Friends of his from Texas were shocked recently to find him nearly wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated "I am the president!" He also made it clear he was setting Iraq up so his successor could not get out of "our country's destiny."

(Without a hint of irony, the DMN no longer has a link to that specific Geyer column of June 1st; read the article at Alternet.

It reminds me of another quote, too -- quite apropos when considering Our Sainted War Leader, the rugby sucker-puncher, and his glorious intentions to force America to suffer a destiny that reflects not the national will, but the twisted degeneracy of a small number of men:

We have seen their kind before. They're the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way to where it ends in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies.

Posted by Jemand von Niemand | March 11, 2008 4:15 PM

Think Vice President Cheney's travel to the Gulf is connected to this. Pre-war consultations perhaps. Connect the dots. Goldman Sachs on $200 oil. Mr. bomb bomb bomb Iran who all the Republicans - and apparently Hillary - think is capable of running wars - and with a third one after Iraq and Afghanistan who would roll the dice on Obama. And Hillary .... well .... she is a woman. No wonder Bush said confidently McCain would be th enext president.

Posted by Jake | March 11, 2008 4:15 PM

Its 3 PM. The President has called for a vote authorizing war against Iran. Who do you trust not to get the nation into yet another cluster####?

Posted by ntr Fausto Carmona | March 11, 2008 4:21 PM

Leider war er nicht genug Führertreu.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | March 11, 2008 4:23 PM

Could be part of a deliberate diplomatic strategy: Have Admiral Fallon leak that he's essentially the guy holding the administration back from bombing Iran, and then have Fallon resign to scare the Iranian political class into stopping its enrichment.

Posted by Fred | March 11, 2008 4:37 PM

Basically, there seems to be a mobius-strip like quality where it's awkward for people to think Fallon is dissenting from the administration's Iran policy, so he's on his way out, though the administration and Fallon both deny that there is any such dissent or that any Iran policy changes are in the works. Got that?

Writing "Fallon is dissenting from the administration's Iran policy, so he's on his way out" is sort of like innocently calling out in an airplane when you see your dear friend Jack. Please don't do it.

Posted by Cyrus | March 11, 2008 4:42 PM

And Hillary .... well .... she is a woman.

More to the point, she's McCain-lite. And who would vote for that when you can have the real thing?

Posted by goethean | March 11, 2008 4:50 PM

Re Georgie Anne Geyer

Ms. Geyer is lying antisemitic Israel bashing whore, a left wing version of fuckwit columnist Robert Novak. Her entire career has been devoted to spreading lies about the State of Israel. Her columns have been quoted in that fine upstanding web site stormfront.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/zogs-puppeteers-make-bush-do-38090.html

Posted by SLC | March 11, 2008 4:51 PM

Fred: You forgot the part about sending coverage of Fallon's resignation back in time four and a half years to when they actually stopped enriching.

Posted by Max | March 11, 2008 4:54 PM

A bad sign. A very, very bad sign.

Any reports on how many carrier groups we have in the Persian Gulf presently? Is it still three?

Word is that the Air Force has been itching to get their hands dirty. It's no fun watching the Army and the Marines have all the fun. And the Air Force has much cooler toys to play with. What the point of having a nuclear-tipped bunker buster if you can't use it?

Posted by afferent input | March 11, 2008 4:56 PM

I would just like to say that sometimes people in great responsibility say ill-advised things to the press and they get in trouble for it.

It may be as simple as that.

Posted by calipygian | March 11, 2008 4:58 PM

I am not getting the unorientable-manifold quality of the situation. Am I missing something?

Posted by Chuck | March 11, 2008 5:17 PM

This may be a bad sign, but it's a real opportunity. Both Obama and McCain could do far worse in the way of a VP pick, and probably will.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 11, 2008 5:18 PM

If Gates resigns, I'm headin' for the hills.

Posted by MattF | March 11, 2008 5:28 PM

I'd like to point out that Hillary Clinton is the only democratic Presidential candidate who voted for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment - which will make a more bellicose American approach toward Iran all the easier now that Fallons out of the way.

100 REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON

IT'S NUMBER 4 ON THE LIST

Posted by mica | March 11, 2008 5:32 PM

@ SLC: Re: Georgie Anne Geyer...Ms. Geyer is lying antisemitic Israel bashing whore...

Well okay then. But, Geyer's position viz. the state of Israel is irrelevant. Incidentally, she wasn't the only person who had a source on that story (follow the Alternet link, please).

My guess is that the Sucker-Puncher-In-Chief wants more war.

If so, and Fallon was advised that 'Lil Boots intends to say, Fuck th' Eye-ranians; we're takin' 'em out; YAAAAH-hoo!! -- he'd be faced with a choice between publicly calling Bush a criminally incompetent fool, or resign. Admiral Fallon is old school. Look closely at what he said in his statement.

If there are any other resignations at the Pentagon or in CENTCOM in the coming weeks, I'd get concerned: These people vote with their feet but keep their mouths shut.

Posted by Jemand von Niemand | March 11, 2008 6:14 PM

Not to worry so much. The Esquire article made it sound like Adm. Fallon's 'manhood' was bigger than W's. And W is the commander-in-chief. You can see how wrong that would be.

Posted by George | March 11, 2008 6:23 PM

The ironic thing is that all of Ben Bernanke's frantic straining on behalf of the banks and major investment houses will be completely undone once President Cheney gives the order to attack.

That said, I'd invest in naval shipbuilding heavily right now. There'll be a sudden increase in demand for replacement naval vessels within a couple of months.

Posted by bluestatedon | March 11, 2008 6:23 PM

Wasn't it Fallon who ordered the stand down with those crazy Iranians in the powerboats? You remember the incident with the Filipino Monkeyboy, or whomever, shouting things on the radio? It seems like we've lost a cool head.

All you've done is weaken a country today, Kaffe. That's all you did. You put people's lives in danger. Sweet dreams, son.

JVN,
Is 'Lil Boots a reference to Caligula?

Posted by Just Karl | March 11, 2008 6:52 PM

Also check out Gareth Porter's Fallon's 'No Iran War' Line Angered White House article.

Posted by Chris Dornan | March 11, 2008 7:14 PM

Re: Admiral William Fallon, sometimes said to be standing between George W. Bush and the "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" policy,

I suspect it's more like "standing between Dick Cheney and war with Iran". Bush seems decidedly (and genuinely) cool to the idea of war with Iran.

Posted by JonF | March 11, 2008 7:37 PM

"Fred: You forgot the part about sending coverage of Fallon's resignation back in time four and a half years to when they actually stopped enriching."

No time machine needed, unfortunately: International Herald Tribune (via Associated Press), February 25th, 2008: "Iran enriching uranium twice as fast"

Posted by Fred | March 11, 2008 7:45 PM

Thank God we got this guy out of there. Now the holy war on brown people can continue.

I can't believe this "phony soldier" had the cojones to criticize Bush's genius plans. This Fallon character must be destroyed. Quick, somebody find out what kind of countertops he's got.

Posted by cd6 | March 11, 2008 8:11 PM

It's too bad Colin Powell and others didn't likewise resign when they saw a bad unnecessary war coming. Cheney's clearly going over there to push for another war again, (more $$ for the military industrial complex like Haliburton).

Posted by J.E.Dundee | March 11, 2008 9:41 PM

I tried for a while to think of how this situation is like a Möbius Strip. I failed. Did anyone else figure that one out?

Posted by Julian Elson | March 11, 2008 10:02 PM

According to PBS, " 'People should not misconstrue this as the price to be paid for speaking out within the Pentagon,' [Pentagon press secretary Geoff] Morrell said, according to the AP. 'This is not indicative of a hostile environment toward free thinking. This is indicative of what sadly became a perception problem that dogged Admiral Fallon -- this perception that he was in a different place than the president and the administration when it came to Iran.' "

So... Fallon resigned because there was a perception that he felt a certain way, and was a major roadblock to possible hostilities against Iran. Which wasn't really true.

But despite that, he had to resign anyway. 'Cause appearances are, you know... appearances. And Bob Gates stated that reading any change in the U.S. position viz. Iran into Fallon's resignation was "ridiculous" -- and he apparently said it three times in the same gaggle.

Wow. Did any of Bob's people clear that response with Shooter, and see if he believed it's ridiculous?

Posted by Jemand von Niemand | March 11, 2008 10:06 PM

Jemand von Niemand,

Americans take the principle of civilian control over the military quite seriously. Even perceptions of potential insubordination need to be nipped in the bud.

Posted by Fred | March 12, 2008 1:28 AM

There will be no strike on Iran. Period.

No one who can read a map would ever agree for such nonsense, and that includes about everyone in the Pentagon from Gates on down. There is no, zero, support for such an action anywhere in the government. The only people who think such an act is even theoretically likely are the increasingly marginalized Dick Cheney, and the usual hysterics on the left.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 12, 2008 2:51 AM

As someone in the military, I can relate in this fashion: as long as you're doing what's right, going by the rules, you generally have a leg to stand on when you dissent against superiors. So it's a shame Admiral Fallon stepped down, if stories about him being a buffer are true.

Still though, whenever you stand your ground against superiors who want you to budge or "go with the flow", you tend to draw peace-of-mind by knowing that other superiors will back you up. I guess when you get that high in rank and tenure, there aren't too many people superior to you to support you!

With almost 41 years in though, I imagine that it wouldn't have been terribly hard for them to force him out eventually. You're probably sick and tired of being sick and tired at that point, anyway.

Posted by socctty | March 12, 2008 3:00 AM

As for the comment about Powell, and how he should have resigned when he saw a war coming... I don't understand that train of thought. You're the roadblock to their war, and you step down, thus enabling it? That doesn't make sense.

Although I suppose a resignation that high up perks up the ears of the press, and becomes a giant, pointing finger.

I guess you could argue it reasonably from both directions.

Posted by socctty | March 12, 2008 3:18 AM

Americans take the principle of civilian control over the military quite seriously

No they don't.

Posted by BP | March 12, 2008 4:04 AM

Powell is still an idiot.

All the signs are that Bush and Cheney intend to start a war with Iran in order to tie the hands of the incoming Administration, whether it be McCain or anyone else. Once the war is started, it will be incredibly difficult to stop it - even more so than the Iraq war.

Asia Times had an article on this yesterday. Clearly Israel doesn't want to leave Hizballah, Hamas, Syria and Iran in the positions they are in now, given that the compliant Bush administration is on the way out. So both Israel and Cheney have decided to "double down" and try to take out all their enemies at one fell swoop.

Needless to say, it won't work.

The signs include Israel's intent to attack Iran - which Cheney has been maneuvering for, the movement of more US warships into the Med and Persian Gulf to provide missile cover for Israel in the event of an attack on Lebanon and/or Syria by Israel in conjunction with an attack on Iran, the probability that completion of prep for the attack on Iran was scheduled for this spring according to Scott Ritter, Cheney's visit to the ME including Oman (which is critical for US support) and Saudi Arabia (to increase oil production to offset the loss of Iranian production), and other signs.

Also, the Air Force and Navy are very much up for an attack on Iran, since they've been mostly marginalized in Iraq. A war on Iran would be initiated by the Air Force and Navy, with little US Army participation - until it all goes to hell, of course.

"Could be part of a deliberate diplomatic strategy: Have Admiral Fallon leak that he's essentially the guy holding the administration back from bombing Iran, and then have Fallon resign to scare the Iranian political class into stopping its enrichment."

Fred is just being ridiculous here - as usual. Anybody who thinks Iran is being "scared" of anything the US has done so far is an idiot.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 12, 2008 7:26 AM

This provides an excellent test for RSH's "credibility", if anyone out there still imagines that he has any. If within the next nine months we launch a war with Iran, The Amazing Hack can be considered at least marginally believable. Fat chance. If you're betting, you've got a better chance wagering on a Martian invasion.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 12, 2008 7:35 AM

The fighting part of a war with Iran will be over in hours because there won't be a ground war. There will be bombing sorties directed at potential nuclear enrichment facilities and a brief naval blockade.

And, of course, astronomically expensive oil.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 12, 2008 9:20 AM

Re Robert Powell

I don't know if Mr. Powell is aware of it but Mr. Hack is a convicted bank robber who spent 9 years in the federal birdcage in Leavenworth for his criminal activities. He has also advocated assassinating police officers. It should be quite obvious to anyone on this blog that Mr. Hack is a man with substantially fewer then 52 cards in his deck.

Posted by SLC | March 12, 2008 9:37 AM

See video: Why Fallon's Resignation is Frightening Defense Secretary Robert Gates did not have to accept Admiral Fallon's resignation. "The military people think basically that Admiral Fallon was PUSHED OUT" - Mark Thompson Time Magazine National Security Correspondent
Fallon is described as "the one person in the military or Pentagon standing between the White House and war with Iran."

Posted by Tom | March 12, 2008 10:54 AM

@ Fred: Americans take the principle of civilian control over the military quite seriously. Even perceptions of potential insubordination need to be nipped in the bud.

Oh; right (slaps forehead) -- we're Americans.

I'd feel better about that 'control' if the civilians exercising it didn't gravitate between acting like nazis, or guest acts on "Hee-Haw" -- which, unfortunately, is how much of the the world views us, now.

Posted by Jemand von Niemand | March 12, 2008 11:24 AM

I believe if Jeffrey Davis gives it a bit of thought, he'll agree that starting a war with Iran--and make no mistake, that's what an air campaign would do--would not "be over in hours."

Iran has Russian supersonic anti-shipping cruise missiles against which we have no effective defense dug in to virtually un-strikeable positions in the northern heights commanding the Persian Gulf. With tens of thousands of sailors and Marines floating around like sitting ducks, we'd be looking at an immediate naval holocaust and the closing of the Straights of Hormuz.

A well-informed military intelligence officer told me, "Iran could burn Iraq down around our ears." In the event of war with Iran, the casualties we'd likely take would make Iraq look like Grenada.

If Tom thinks Fallon was the only man standing between us and war with Iran, he needs to get out more. Let's start with the proposition that Time et al cannot be taken as neutral sources.

I've seen SLC's posts on RSH's record, but I have to say I'm not really interested. I assume he paid his debt to society, and what he's saying now should be judged on the merits. There haven't been many, and I must assume that other readers have seen what I've seen too. Boorishness is always a tipoff.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 12, 2008 1:03 PM

I'm thinking a better title for this post would have been "Fallon Gong".

"Iran has Russian supersonic anti-shipping cruise missiles against which we have no effective defense dug in to virtually un-strikeable positions in the northern heights commanding the Persian Gulf."

There are legitimate reasons why bombing Iran should be a last resort, but suggestions that Iran would wipe out the U.S. Navy aren't among them.

Posted by Fred | March 12, 2008 6:41 PM

Re Robert Powell

I am afraid that Mr. Powell and I are going to have to disagree about the relevance of Mr. Hacks' criminal record, hopefully not disagreeably.

1. Mr. Hack has shown no remorse for his crime which consisted of shoving a loaded gun into a bank tellers' face and demanding all the money in the tellers' drawer on pain of having the latters' chips cashed in. In fact, he appears to be proud of his crime, bragging that the gun didn't have a round up the spout, and apparently likes to brag about his incarceration. Until such time as he expresses remorse, I don't consider him to have paid his debt to society. I suspect that if Mr. Powell had been on the wrong end of Mr. Hacks' gun, he would not be quite so forgiving.

2. As proof of Mr. Hacks' tendency toward violence, he has, as I mentioned, advocated the assassination of police officers and made a threat against the life of radio talk show host Michael Savage (nee Weiner). Now I have no use for Mr. Savage either as he is a scumbags' scumbag but such threats are illegal.

Posted by SLC | March 12, 2008 6:50 PM

Amazingly, I have to give Powell props for having at least that much intellectual honesty as to not be interested in my background.

Of course, that's not much intellectual honesty since he doesn't really know one way or the other, and beyond that, he's never said anything that was backed up by anything. However, in the case of Iran, he's correct about the consequences. Of course, he doesn't think it will happen, thus underestimating the determination of Dick Cheney and the Israeli Zionist freaks.

But even in that respect, he's way ahead of SLC, who IS just a genocidal Zionist freak.

Fred: Perhaps you're not aware of the 2002 war games in which a Marine general playing Iran sank 14 US warships. They had to stop the game.

Yes, Iran has the capability of seriously damaging, if not sinking, one or more US warships and closing the Straits of Hormuz. It will take quite a while for US air power, naval power and Marine land sorties to deal with the Iranian defenses all up and down the coast of Iran.

If the US attacks Iran, it will be the worst military defeat in US history. It may take ten years, but it will make Vietnam look like a victory.

William Lind believes it's even possible that the US will LOSE - not be defeated, but LOSE - its military in Iraq. Iran and the Shia militias they influence in Iraq could completely cut US supply lines from Kuwait. Airlifted supplies and supplies from Turkey would be inadequate to support US troops under heavy attack in Iraq. Within thirty to sixty days, US troops in Iraq would be out of food, water, fuel and ammo.

In any event, the intent of an attack on Iran is to seize the Khuzestan province oil fields, which are just a ways across the border from Iraq. If the US attacks Iran, there will inevitably be ground incursions across the border on both sides. Eventually, the only way to stop them (ostensibly) would be for US troops to invade Iran. The real purpose would be to seize the oil fields, under the pretext that it would cut off Iran's war funding.

All that would really do is unleash a decade of guerrilla war which would make the Iraq insurgency look like a tea party.

Count on a war cost of twenty or thirty billion a month - half a trillion dollars a year, most likely - over the next ten years.

Not to mention China, pissed at being cut off from Iranian oil and gas, dumping the US dollar. Watch the US economy evaporate from that and $200/barrel oil.

So you think Bush and Cheney care about that? They're on their way out anyway. But their cronies in the military-industrial complex and oil companies will be profiting for a decade from such a war, regardless of what happens to the rest of us.

Read my lips: the US government has been run by outright criminals - criminals who make my little banks run insignificant - for the last eight years.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 12, 2008 11:52 PM

I take SLC's point. I'm just saying that Hack discredits himself in terms of discussions like this by, a) citing obvious and notorious propaganda outlets as "sources"; b) espousing absurd ideas like the imminent attack on Iran by a handful of officials with no institutional support--and why? Well, to seize the Khuzestan oilfields for the Zionists, of course! ; and c) by his relentless boorishness, in itself a nearly infallible marker for a lack of intellectual depth. Richard, you have never once refuted any of the facts I've cited, yet attempt blanket rejection because I don't link to "antiwar.com" and the like. Academically unsound.

Fred--as I assume you know, I don't think Iran could "wipe out the US Navy". But I think you must agree that it's the general opinion at the Pentagon that starting a war with them would be a disaster, for a variety of reasons.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 13, 2008 3:48 AM

I believe if Jeffrey Davis gives it a bit of thought, he'll agree that starting a war with Iran--and make no mistake, that's what an air campaign would do--would not "be over in hours."

I realize Iran's strengths which is why I don't think that we'd invest a lot of men fighting it. No ground war, as I said. Nor do I think that following Day 1's flurry of activity that Iran would follow up with an attack on our troops in Iraq. It's a calculated bet, but I think a massive Day 1 assault would give Iran pause. Their bluff would be called on the belief that they'd lose more than they'd gain by doing much more than fulminating. My thoughts assume our interest in an assault on Iran would be to cripple or set back the development of their nuclear facilities. If the Cheneys of the world want more than that, like regime change, we're screwed. Big time.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 13, 2008 10:58 AM

With all due respect, Mr. Davis, I think it would be an catastrophic mistake to assume that Iran would absorb major strikes on urban areas, which is where most of the nuclear work is being done, without major retaliation. This is a nation that sacrificed about a million young men resisting Iraq's attempt to carve off a small slice of their territory. Our army in Iraq is a fraction of the size of Saddam's in the '80's, and could be cut off and massacred in many of its current locations by the simple expedient of Iraqi proxy forces, a technique Iran is well-experienced with.

The best hope we have going forward with Iran is to be found in the potential for decent relations between it and our allies in Iraq; and in the huge youth demographic cohort inside Iran that's generally positively disposed towards the US, and increasingly hostile to the rule of the mullahs. Dropping bombs on these people would be uniquely counterproductive.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 13, 2008 11:34 AM