Now this is interesting:
The top U.S. military commander for the Middle East resigned Tuesday amid speculation about a rift over U.S. policy in Iran.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that Adm. William J. Fallon had asked for permission to retire and that Gates agreed. Gates said the decision, effective March 31, was entirely Fallon’s and that Gates believed it was “the right thing to do.”
Fallon was the subject of an article published last week in Esquire magazine that portrayed him as opposed to President Bush’s Iran policy. It described Fallon as a lone voice against taking military action to stop the Iranian nuclear program…
“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,” Fallon said.
“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,” Fallon added.
Gates described as “ridiculous” any notion that Fallon’s departure signals the United States is planning to go to war with Iran. And he said “there is a misperception” that Fallon disagrees with the administration’s approach to Iran.
So, did he decide to resign his post based on the misperceptions generated by TPM Barnett’s article, or did he resign because he couldn’t get on board with administration policy in the region?
It ought to quickly become obvious. Don’t wait for the usual suspects to wait that long.
Fair winds and following seas to an old war horse – it isn’t like he didn’t do his bit.
Is this the “eat it” part of Skippys earlier assessment?
Well, I must say-sure did not see that coming.
I find it hard to believe that Fallon would leave because of Barnett’s article, because Barnett was not the only person writing that.
Maybe he just go tired of beating his head against the wall-especially after being PACOM which was probably a lot more fun.
It will be interesting to see who relieves him-and where he ends up.
Just saw this in the NYT. They make a much more overt claim to the connection between the Barnett article and ADM Fallon’s resignation.
Whatever prompted it, fair winds and following seas. . .
One of “Rumsfeld’s Rules” came immediately to mind when I heard about this:
“Be able to resign. It will improve your value to the president and do wonders for your performance.”
Lex, when I first heard this, it really blew my mind. I don’t have all of the facts, but I also believe the same is true of all of us. We all have opinions, but’s that’s it. Permission was requested from SECDEF for Fallon to retire. It was granted. This was according to SECDEF. My sense is the rest creates more serious questions.
It reminds me of many years ago on the old TV programs, at the end they would say, “Stay tuned.” My sense says, “Stay tuned.” is good counsel.
I wish ADM Fallon well.
Grumpy
Fallon’s stock will certainly rise once he hits the talking head tour….
Finally a vice president candidate for either party.
I think jug has it. I was going with the “its all politics at that level” meme and I hadn’t considered the VP aspect. I think I’m too quick to judge and jumped on the obvious “allowed to resign” which sounded too much like “resigned to spend more time with his family” to which top execs in the business world succumb. Just goes to prove I’ll never make a spy. All that double think about motives and wheels within wheels makes my head hurt.
What I’d pay to be a fly on the wall at CENTCOM right now.
I think there’s just to many options behind this story. Did Fallon resign because of the article? Did he say what he said in the article to give himself a reason to resign because he’s a)tired of fighting the warhawks or b) because he sees the inevitable and doesn’t want to be there to have to decide whether or not to carry out an order he doesn’t agree with? I just don’t know.
I’m going to side with the “wait and see” camp on this. But I do suspect the media is making more of the connection with the Barnett article than is necessarily behind this decision.
Either way, fair winds and following seas to a helluva good man.
I think his replacement will be in DC next month
The other thing that will be interesting is to see if a “Petreaus for CENTCOM” movement starts in Congress.
BLACKFIVE seems to have some information that nobody else does….go there and see what he says and hints at. More information to come it looks like.
When a top leader takes their marbles and goes home in this fashion, I think for the purpose of command morale, the troops need a little bit more of an explanation. If not, it can make the replacement bosses job a bit more difficult than it needs to be.
I don’t think that it is clear if he marched smartly off the end of the plank, or if he was pushed and shoved off the end. I could not, however, miss the echo of a meeting on Midway island in the 1950 timeframe in which a theater commander who refused to recognize that he had sworn an oath to follow the orders of those appointed above him in all matters which included enforcing those decisions which he didn’t like and didn’t agree with. In case anybody missed it, the decision as to whether we go to war with Iran is a politicl decision that will be made above his pay grade.
I realize that all three and four star officers are there because they are politicians at heart, but they all need to remember that there is only one Commander in Chief. And letting some left-leaning journalist write a major piece claiming that you are the only thing standing between that idiot Commander in Chief and a regretable war with Wazjerkistan clearly show you’re not quite ready for prime time.
I read T.P.M. Barnett’s blog regularly. He’s a very smart man and a big picture thinker. He is, however, a democrat. While he believed the Iraq war was necessary, when the post invasion period turned nasty he jumped on the anti-Bush/Rumsfeldt bandwagon and has beat that drum pretty heavily. He has mentioned Fallon often in his blog, always admiring him for his ideas and attitudes which, according to Barnett, were not as warlike as the Bush administration.
Barnett has written about his interview with Fallon as if there was a major meeting of the minds. Barnett believes it is no biggie if Iran gets nukes. He has the idea that Iran is not led by a bunch of whack-jobs. He views the mullahs as shrewd operators who would be circumspect in their use if WMDs. IMO he is far too sanguine on this issue.
I have not read the Esquire piece because I’m sure it would make my blood boil. (Esquire seems to be as left leaning as all the other East Coast rags.) Doubt they would publish anything that was pro Bush. Fallon may not have realized that the article was going to be a hit job on Bush policy. He may, in fact, be embarrassed and feel his usefulness is in doubt.
At any rate, if he really felt strongly about his idea that Iran with nukes was no problem, it was his duty to resign and let the administration put someone else in the job.
Is there nobody above 04 that just wants to, you know, *retire* after time served and spend a little time fishing or sitting next to the fireside with a grandchild on his knee?
Not that this is probably one of those cases, but these days if anybody on the campaign trail, in the 5-sided Möbius strip, or in the administration decides to resign it’s obvious politics. So far in the past 6 years the only resignation I can recall being factually given and reported is Tony Snow — I have cancer, I need more money for my family, I’m outta here.
I fear we read too much into these everyday happenings and pluck meanings from them we wish, rather than what was intended.
– Max
This wasn’t everyday, Max. This is leaving suddenly and without a replacement in the middle of a tour.
That’s certainly unusual enough to merit comment.
My friend at centcom says they (the minions) learned about it on CNN and GO/FO’s learned only minutes before.
He’s in the 5 shop. so much for planning.
The decent thing to do when, for reasons unknown to me, one is faced with an inability to get the job done as required. Fox Falllon is a smart man who has taken the Queen’s Shilling for a long time. He knows the rules. Remember, there are good days and bad days, even for a 4-star.
On the bright side, this enables some other good guys to get promoted all along the line.
Marine6, the decision to go to war requires a vote of Congressional authorization. There hasn’t been one, nor has the matter even come up for vote. Fallon obviously isn’t refusing an order to go to war. What he would be much more likely to be rejecting are actions that he believes are imprudent (and might get us into a war with Iran), like a disproportional response. (who knows of course)
I guess we’ll know, for sure, one way or the other, if he joins this “August” group of blowhards as time goes on… hawk. …spit:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=6191
b2
Marine6-It may be the President’s decision to intiate an attack against Iran-it nonetheless remains the obligation of those who serve under him to tell him that it is stupid to do so. For so many reasons-more than I need to take the time to explain here, attacking Iran is against the national interest.
Had Fallon stayed and been ordered to, he would have done his best-however having worked with the man personally, he is not the type to allow himself to be pushed into a position he does not want to be in. So if he left of his own accord-good for him. If the adminstration pushed him off the plank-still good for him and bad for the President. I’m going with the latter until proved otherwise. Its in keeping with the character of this administration.
If I were trying to impress Naval personnel and those that care about them that I was ready to be CINC, I wouldn’t have Sestak and Stone on my list of official endorsers.
Sestak was hated by almost everyone who worked for him and his firing was the first official act of the incoming CNO (for whom he had worked directly when he was a DESRON commander).
Stone was an empty suit who retired with one star having never commanded a real Carrier Strike Group (he command NIMITZ CSG which consisted at the time of NIMITZ alone during her refueling and transit from Norfolk to San Dog).
I personally heard Stone say in a Flag briefing, “Let’s make sure the passageways are clear when we bring up the DVs so they don’t have to see any sailors.” Indeed. Sailors? Yuck.
His talents led him to the post-retirement plum job of “Administrator” of the highly regarded TSA.
If you want to spin the Salamander up, note that “VADM” Sestak has once again been promoted to his last active duty grade, rather than the two-star rank he was retired at…
N-
BTW, I just put that list there..as an option..if that prima dona , left pinkie out .Mr. T.T.P.M. Barnett, ESQ, Dr. , Intellectual guesses right..er left…..
In other words, I’ll be surprised as anyone if’n Fox “turns”.
b2
Another take on this here.
Not that guy Skippy.
We all know Huber’s take. Right out of Cindy Sheehan’s playbook…he never has an agenda, right? LOL
“Crying”? Fox Fallon? C’mon.
Jeffey is just another Hummer dude gone Rogue. Rogue not as in Erol Flynn but rogue as in Benedict Arnold!
b2
Heard an interesting perspective yesterday: Fallon and Barnett were in the same year group, plus it was implied that they had become friendly while Fallon was PACOM. Speculation was that the Esquire interview may have been a planned exit strategy by Fallon, getting his old friend to write something that would give him a way out. We also discussed whether or not Congress ought to get Fallon on the stand to hear him out before he’s officially gone and beyond their authority.