Print This Post Print This Post

Mar

12

Bush ousts Centcomm head because he wasn’t a yes-man re: war in Iran


I read this, and I think, we need more people like him in every government (people who will oppose and give different perspectives) not fewer.

From the Inter Press Service News Agency:

[Admiral William] Fallon’s greatest concern appears to have been preventing war with Iran. He was one a group of senior military officers, apparently including most of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who were alarmed in late 2006 and early 2007 by indications that Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney were contemplating a possible attack on Iran.

Gates chose Fallon to replace Gen. John P. Abizaid as CENTCOM chief shortly after a Dec. 13, 2006 meeting between Bush and the Joint Chiefs at which Bush reportedly asked their views on a possible strike against Iran.

Col. W. Patrick Lang, a former intelligence officer on the Middle East for the Defence Intelligence Agency, told the Washington Post last week that Fallon had said privately at the time of his confirmation that an attack on Iran “isn’t going to happen on my watch”, When asked how he could avoid such a conflict, Fallon reportedly responded, “I have options, you know.” Lang said he interpreted that comment as implying Fallon would step down rather than follow orders to carry out such an attack.

As IPS reported last May, Fallon was also quoted as saying privately at that time, “There are several of us trying to put the crazies back in the box”. That was an apparent reference to the opposition by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to an aggressive war against Iran.

I can just imagine.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 12:10 pm March 12th, 2008 in Foreign Affairs, Government, Politics 

Comments

5 Responses to “Bush ousts Centcomm head because he wasn’t a yes-man re: war in Iran”

  1. 1 Jason on March 12th, 2008 7:44 pm

    Jill – Very interesting article. I wonder if he was ousted because Cheney really wanted some time of preemptive strike on Iran or if it was because he didn’t “tow the party line?”

  2. 2 Anon on March 12th, 2008 7:48 pm

    Here is an entirely different take on Adm. Fallon’s retirement.

    From the last paragraph:

    The question is: Will rank insubordination on a scale arguably not seen in a military commander since MacArthur faded away nearly six decades ago be rewarded by still higher office? Will Democratic politicians, so anxious to demean George Bush’s presidency and seek partisan advantage by pandering to the American people’s penchant for ignoring, rather than confronting emerging threats, resist the temptation to embrace Fox Fallon[, possibly as a vice presidential candidate]?

  3. 3 Anon on March 12th, 2008 10:26 pm

    And here is yet another take by Mackubin Thomas Owens:

    The problem wasn’t that Fallon was merely “pushing back” within the administration against a policy he didn’t like. The problem was that a uniformed officer was actively working to undermine that policy after the decision had been made[. ... Commanders] have a responsibility to support the missions they’ve been given, not to publicly evaluate the wisdom of the policy because, among other things, such a public evaluation undermines the confidence of their subordinates as they go into battle. This is unacceptable.

    [... T]hose who see Fallon as a hero for “pushing back” against George Bush should realize that someday a President Barack Obama might have to deal with a future combatant commander who is publicly undermining his policies, as Fallon was undermining those of President Bush.

    (BTW, the author of the extract in post #2 was Frank J. Gaffney.)

  4. 4 Jill Miller Zimon on March 23rd, 2008 1:31 pm

    Jason – I have to believe it was a bit of both – but have you noticed how quickly it’s fallen off the radar?

  5. 5 Jill Miller Zimon on March 23rd, 2008 1:35 pm

    Anon in #3 – thanks for indicating that the quote came from Gaffney. I was scunching up my face to imagine that it had any truth to it before your notation and now, I know why I questioned it. I find Gaffney to be quite the alarmist. I have some real issues with his slant and presentation.

    This question of undermining: you know, I think people have a much finer tuned sense of what is undermining and what is questioning. While others may use the fact that someone questions something or someone else as fodder to spin, the fact is, good leaders AND good followers ask questions. We’re asked to watch our neighbors, our kids’ teachers and other parents etc. for suspicious behavior. So the notion that we should be doing that but not raise questions in the contexts described in your comments is inconsistent.

    IMO.

Leave a Reply




"));