Fallon falls on his sword

Admiral William "Fox" Fallon, Commander of US Central Command, has just resigned.

Adm. William Fallon, the top U.S. military commander for the Middle East, has resigned, citing a magazine article which suggested he was at odds with President Bush's policy toward Iran.

US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates says nothing will change.

When asked if today's announcement might be interpreted as a move closer toward military action against Iran, Gates said, "that's ridiculous, just ridiculous. ... The notion that this portends anything in change of Iran policy is, to quote myself, ridiculous."

Watch the Bush rhetoric very, very closely.

H/T liberal catnip and reader Cat.

Fallon could be the signal

There are signs that the Commander US Central Command, Admiral William "Fox" Fallon may be on the move - out the door.

Fallon, a naval aviator, is the regional commander of US forces operating in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa.

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".

Fallon's selection as Commander CENTCOM was viewed with some alarm by many. He is the first sailor to hold the critical position overseeing most of the US military's expeditionary activities. It was also suggested that, because he is a naval aviator and an aircraft carrier man he possessed the requisite expertise to marshal coordinated naval air forces for an attack on Iran.

That however, would be well beneath both Fallon's role and his reputation. As the Commander CENTCOM Fallon, if there was ever to be a strike against Iran, would have the role of planning and leading it delegated to a subordinate commander. What is more important though is that Fallon has a reputation for reserving military action as a last resort after all other avenues have been exhausted.

He was accused by some in the Bush camp of being soft on China when he commanded US forces in the Pacific. According to at least one source Fallon was heard to say about a possible attack on Iran, "It isn't going to happen on my watch."

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 short, the guy knows how to read the reactions of other countries and he's well aware that the Bush administration needs to be reigned in.

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.

Bad news. Bush and Cheney have a history of dumping competence and reason in favour of outright fealty. They can't brook criticism.

Keep an eye on Fallon. If he is suddenly replaced or announces his resignation the lashings will be off Bush and Iran will be the target.

The Urusov Gambit: Attacking Iran

Yesterday I pointed out that the appointment of a navy admiral to head up US Central Command was providing a hint of things to come. There's more. In fact, there's a lot more happening.

Tossing a naval aviator into a command which is occupied by two ground campaigns, Afghanistan and Iraq, is out of symmetry with the command's focus -- right now. Central Command's area of responsibility includes Iran and, while Fallon would be somewhat removed from the tactical events, his background makes him well suited to provide the strategic construction of forces necessary to attack Iran.

Fallon, at least publicly, comes off as a Bushite. He has quite openly stated that Americans have missed the point. The "War On Terror" is bigger than Afghanistan and Iraq.

I get the feeling that the majority of American people don't quite get it. This is not a slam, it is not an indictment or accusation, it is just an observation. While there is a lot of talk about the war, I don't think most of us truly understand what it is that we are involved in.

Then there is the "Long War" of Donald Rumsfeld.

This confrontation in which we are engaged is not going to be over any time soon. No matter how fast the Iraqi and Afghan security forces can pick up the burden to defend themselves, these are only two battlefields in this war.

That was from June, 2006. Whether he was simply projecting the Rumsfeld doctrine of war without end or whether he truly believes that the United States can endure a hot conflict that extends into the next decade is impossible to say. He is promoting the Bushco idea of a continuous and undefined war.

Israel is getting antsy about Iran. Via Huffington Post an article by UPI Editor at Large Arnaud de Borchgrave lays out the level of rhetoric being spread by uber-hawks like Benjamin Netanyahu.

Israelis are now reminded daily that the Iranian president is a new Hitler who has to be terminated "with maximum prejudice" before a Persian nuclear weapon terminates Israel. The existential threat to Israel looms even larger, in Netanyahu's view, with the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group (ISG) report. His critique's main points:
• The ISG report smacks of rank appeasement when it recommends talking to Syria and Iran at a time when Iran has been handed the whip hand in Iraq by the U.S. with a U.S.-facilitated, pro-Iranian Shiite-led government.
• ISG says a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a sine qua non to stabilizing the rest of the Middle East. The implied suggestion that it's now up to Israel to make further concessions to the Palestinians is yet another manifestation of appeasement. Israel must reject any perceived sign of weakness.
• In reality, if the problem of Iran, which Israel's enemies call "the strategic backbone of Hezbollah and Hamas," were solved by the forceful elimination of its nuclear facilities, or a highly unlikely voluntary return to nuclear power for peaceful purposes under U.N. inspection, the conflict with the Palestinians would become easier to tackle.
• Hezbollah and Hamas are rapidly arming themselves thanks to the Israeli government's decision to refrain from further action against them. Since the cease-fire was declared, dozens of Kassam rockets have been fired at targets in the western Negev.
• If Olmert's government reacts limply to Iran's statements about its intentions to destroy Israel, "why should we expect the world to act against them?"
• ISG says, "The majority of the political establishment in Israel has grown tired of a continuous state of a nation at war." When even Israel's leadership sends out a message of fatigue and weakness, "why should we be surprised that the world agrees?"
Netanyahu then said Israel "must immediately launch an intense, international, public relations front first and foremost on the U.S. The goal being to encourage President Bush to live up to specific pledges he would not allow Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons. We must make clear to the government, the Congress and the American public that a nuclear Iran is a threat to the U.S. and the entire world, not only Israel."

That, as De Borchgrave points out, is already happening.

Anticipating the new line, Sen. Joe Lieberman (Independent-CT) referred to "Iran and al-Qaida" on Wolf Blitzer's Sunday program on CNN. That Iran is Shiite and al-Qaida Sunni becomes irrelevant in the new game plan that will most probably lead to U.S. air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities in 2007/08.

Would Bush do it?

Do we really need to ask that?

He would if he could get away with it. The truth is, he has the authority under two umbrellas: The Authorization for the Use Of Military Force which flowed from the September 2001 attacks and the War Powers Act of 1973, which gives him 60 days to do whatever he wants. The AUMF is weak in that it specifies the power is to be used to go after the perpetrators of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

That would be why Lieberman is suddenly making linkages between al Qaeda and Iran. It was the same lie that got Bush his war in Iraq.

This is looking more and more like Iran is in the gunsights of neo-cons, a country with which the Bush administration won't even hold a discussion.

"... we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Condoleeza Rice. September 8th, 2002.

Indeed we don't.

Moving the bishops and the knights: Get ready for an attack on Iran

This could have been expected given that so many of the current US generals in charge of the Iraq war have opposed Bush's "surge" of anywhere from 20,000 to 30,000 troops.

It is proof of at least one thing: Bush is going to ignore any and all advice and go for a massive troop escalation in Iraq.

But the one change that shocked me, and I mean shocked, was the appointment of Admiral William Fallon to command Central Command. From the US Defense Secretary: (Emphasis mine)

I am proposing to the President that Admiral William Fallon succeed General John Abizaid as commander of Central Command.
"As Commander of Pacific Command, Admiral Fallon oversees military operations and security relationships in an area encompassing 43 countries and approximately 60 percent of the world's population. Admiral Fallon's tenure in Asia has been characterized by an extraordinary level of innovation and strategic vision in dealing with a range of political, economic and security challenges. He has forged new partnerships to help combat the influence of violent extremist networks and ideologies that threaten the moderate Muslim nations of the Pacific. A naval flight officer who flew combat missions in Vietnam, Admiral Fallon combines nearly four decades of military experience with a fresh perspective to the challenges America faces in the Central Command's area of operations.
"Fox Fallon is one of the best strategic thinkers in uniform today and his reputation for innovation is without peer. Subject to confirmation, he is exactly the right person for this most challenging assignment.
"I believe that it is essential to have individuals of experience, skill and creativity in key national security positions. However, it is also critical to have a team of individuals whose mix of experience, skills, creativity, and strategic vision make the whole greater than the sum of the individual parts. I have recommended these three men to the President for these positions because I am convinced they have these talents.
"We are engaged in three wars - in Iraq, Afghanistan, and against jihadist terrorism worldwide. As secretary of defense, and as a citizen, I firmly believe that Generals Petraeus and Casey and Admiral Fallon, as individuals and as a team, bring to the challenges that face us the qualities necessary to be successful in war and to protect the American people. After detailed discussions of these prospective appointments with the President, I have recommended these three officers to him for nomination to the U.S. Senate."

Central Command has wars going in Afghanistan and Iraq. The major contribution to those wars is ground forces. Fallon is already the commander of a US unified command. His next move up would be into the Pentagon as the Chief of Naval Operations. This is a lateral move. Fallon is a naval aviator.

How would the US fight Iran? From the Persian Gulf, with naval aviation.

Get ready for it.

More later.