PDA

View Full Version : Fallon Suddenly Resigns (forced out?) as CENTCOM Commander


jAZ
03-11-2008, 02:24 PM
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/182847.php

03.11.08 -- 3:24PM // link | recommend (12)

Fallon Resigns
Admiral William Fallon is out as CENTCOM commander.

Fallon has resigned, according to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in a press conference at the Pentagon.

According to a recent Esquire profile of Fallon, a piece which generated considerable controversy within the Pentagon:

[W]ell-placed observers now say that it will come as no surprise if Fallon is relieved of his command before his time is up next spring, maybe as early as this summer, in favor of a commander the White House considers to be more pliable.

Here is Fallon's statement:

"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. 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," said Fallon.

"I have therefore concluded that it would be best to step aside and allow the Secretary and our military leaders to move beyond this distraction…and focus on the achievement of our strategic objectives in the region. I have submitted my request to retire to the Secretary of Defense."




--David Kurtz

Cochise
03-11-2008, 02:28 PM
"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. 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," said Fallon.

but... ith a conthpirathy.... .. .... .. ...

jAZ
03-11-2008, 02:30 PM
but... ith a conthpirathy.... .. .... .. ...

Read carefully. He's not saying there is no differences. He's saying specifically "objectives".

patteeu
03-11-2008, 03:02 PM
Read carefully. He's not saying there is no differences. He's saying specifically "objectives".

He does say that he doesn't "believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy..." so you're going to have to help me parse this into the nondenial denial you seem to think it is. I'm not saying you're wrong, It's just not clear to me.

jAZ
03-11-2008, 03:06 PM
He does say that he doesn't "believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy..." so you're going to have to help me parse this into the nondenial denial you seem to think it is. I'm not saying you're wrong, It's just not clear to me.
Depends on how you define the word "objectives" in this case. He might read objectives in this sentence to mean "we all agree that we are trying to use our soldiers in the best possible way to defend america. That's our common objective. (ahem... but we disagree on the tactic of invading Iran)."

ClevelandBronco
03-11-2008, 03:21 PM
Depends on how you define the word "objectives" in this case. He might read objectives in this sentence to mean "we all agree that we are trying to use our soldiers in the best possible way to defend america. That's our common objective. (ahem... but we disagree on the tactic of invading Iran)."

He goes further than that. He refers to there being no"...differences about the objectives of our policy..." Seems to me he's saying there are no differences. No differences in objectives. No differencees in policy. No differences in the objectives of our (singular) policy.

Then again, I suppose he could be lying. Is that what you'd like to suppose, jAZ?

jAZ
03-11-2008, 03:25 PM
He goes further than that. He refers to there being no"...differences about the objectives of our policy..." Seems to me he's saying there are no differences. No differences in objectives. No differencees in policy. No differences in the objectives of our (singular) policy.

Then again, I suppose he could be lying. Is that what you'd like to suppose, jAZ?
Again... objectives <> tactics. That's what I said. That's what I'm saying. And that's still the case.

jAZ
03-11-2008, 03:26 PM
A little more info...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/182868.php

03.11.08 -- 5:04PM // link | recommend

Big Picture on Fallon
The interlocking rumor and speculation mills are now buzzing with theories about whether Adm. Fallon jumped or was pushed from his perch as the top military commander for US military forces across the Middle East (what the Pentagon refers to as 'Central Command'). But there is a big picture that is important to keep in focus. That is, quite simply, that Fallon is leaving because he was apparently too sane for the Bush White House.

Those may seem like fighting words, but they're not.

By all accounts, the points of contention between Fallon and Bush administration officials centered on three points: 1) his belief that the indefinite occupation of Iraq is a disaster for the US military, 2) that diplomacy has a central role in American foreign and national security policy, 3) that war is not a credible policy for the US to pursue in dealing with Iran. The last of these was believed to be the key issue.

Bear in mind too that Fallon was not foisted on the White House. Nor was he a holdover from a previous administration. The administration chose him. And while the political leadership of the Pentagon and the White House can't choose just anyone for that job they have a fair amount of latitude to choose an officer of sufficient rank who is to their liking -- a prerogative this administration has availed itself of as much or more as any in modern American history.

It is widely believed in media and political circles that despite the difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan, American foreign policy is back under some kind of adult/mainstream management. In other words, that we've left the Cheney/Rumsfeld era behind for a period of Gates/Rice normalcy and that Iran regime change adventurism is safely off the table. But put together what the disagreements with Fallon were about, the fact that the president chose him as someone he thought he could work with not more than one year ago, and the almost unprecedented nature of the resignation and it becomes clear that that assumption must be gravely in error.

--Josh Marshall

ClevelandBronco
03-11-2008, 03:27 PM
Again... objectives <> tactics. That's what I said. That's what I'm saying. And that's still the case.

Then you're being disingenuous about what he said.

jAZ
03-11-2008, 03:31 PM
Then you're being disingenuous about what he said.
I'm not at all.

I'm saying there is plenty of wiggle room for him to not be lying and simultaneously not be at all forthcoming about disagreements over tactics (not mentioned) that lead to being fired/resignation.

Cave Johnson
03-11-2008, 04:22 PM
Just as Fallon took over Centcom last spring, the White House was putting itself on a war footing with Iran. Almost instantly, Fallon began to calmly push back against what he saw as an ill-advised action. Over the course of 2007, Fallon's statements in the press grew increasingly dismissive of the possibility of war, creating serious friction with the White House.

Last December, when the National Intelligence Estimate downgraded the immediate nuclear threat from Iran, it seemed as if Fallon's caution was justified. But still, well-placed observers now say that it will come as no surprise if Fallon is relieved of his command before his time is up next spring, maybe as early as this summer, in favor of a commander the White House considers to be more pliable. 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.

http://www.esquire.com/features/fox-fallon

patteeu
03-11-2008, 05:46 PM
Depends on how you define the word "objectives" in this case. He might read objectives in this sentence to mean "we all agree that we are trying to use our soldiers in the best possible way to defend america. That's our common objective. (ahem... but we disagree on the tactic of invading Iran)."

The fact that he used the word "objectives" twice in his statement, once to describe the rumors of differences and once to deny that there are differences makes your theory a hard sell to me.

However, given that I think there's probably some truth to the notion that there were differences and that these differences may well be behind this guy's resignation, I'm not dismissing the gist of your theory about what Fallon might be trying to do completely. It's just that if he's actually trying to tell the truth while appearing to deny it, he's doing a pretty poor job of meeting both of his "objectives", IMO.

I agree with the speculation that this could be a sign of military action against Iran before the end of the year.

beer bacon
03-11-2008, 06:29 PM
Bush must really hate McCain if he is planning on attacking Iran this summer.

a1na2
03-11-2008, 07:05 PM
From the news reports I've heard the Admiral resigned due to the media circus that was spinning up and he didn't want to have the objective of the military splashed all over TV at this time.

To me it sounds like a simple disagreement with the direction we are going.

Make of it what you will but what you will not see is a continuing story regarding the Admiral, he is now out of the picture.

Ultra Peanut
03-11-2008, 07:06 PM
Can't have anyone with a different point of view in there.

patteeu
03-11-2008, 07:07 PM
Bush must really hate McCain if he is planning on attacking Iran this summer.

The attack could occur in November or December, of course.

Are you completely confident a pre-election attack would hurt McCain?

penchief
03-12-2008, 05:27 PM
Can't have anyone with a different point of view in there.

That would be unpragmatic and undemocratic. To be truly free we must be in lockstep.

jAZ
03-12-2008, 10:46 PM
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/183181.php

03.13.08 -- 12:27AM // link | recommend

Second Look on Fallon

Yesterday we reported at some length on the departure Adm. William Fallon, commander at Centcom. Then yesterday afternoon a reporter colleague told me that the real issue with Fallon wasn't Iran but something called "the pause." With 'surges' and 'pauses' and various other bits of jargon floating around, it's a little hard to keep track. But essentially the 'pause' refers to how long we're going to put off drawing down our forces in Iraq. Fallon wanted a short pause, this colleague told me, and Petraeus wanted a long or (I think more likely) an indefinite one. Now Fred Kaplan at Slate and David Ignatius in the Post bring reports confirming that this was indeed the key issue.

So, not about Iran but Iraq -- and specifically whether we stay there indefinitely waiting on the El Dorado of political progress. Fallon wanted to start drawing down. His bosses disagreed. And now he's gone.

--Josh Marshall

Logical
03-12-2008, 11:48 PM
That would be unpragmatic and undemocratic. To be truly free we must be in lockstep.
Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't this the failure of the military policy for the Kremlin in Afghanistan?