Came across this at the end of a conference today in a location pretty much isolated from the rest of the world - media-wise. Am troubled moreso by the political overtones than prospect of impending attack on Iran. Fox isn't one to up and quit - I think there's more behind the (political) curtain...seemed to be the same take by those attending with me including GCC reps.
-SJS
How are political considerations more alarming than the prospect or a Strike on Iran? Israeli, US, or otherwise. Not being snarky, I want to know what you're thinking.
Well, without speaking for SJS, the political aspect of it is what troubles me most also. As he says, from what I've read (mainly from people within the Naval community who would know better than me) Adm. Fallon doesn't seem to be the sort to quit. Which means that an officer in the U.S. military was forced to resign due to solely political considerations. There's something more going on here, and whatever it is I don't like it.
And to answer your question, political considerations are (for me) more alarming because they're happening now. A strike on Iran just isn't something I consider likely, but members of the government working behind the scenes to oust officers they don't like is. And that troubles me.
Bravo ! Excellent post!
I think the rumor mill is that Fallon has pulled a very sly political move. Setting the stage for a possible new career as a VP for a junior senator that has at best 0 military credibility for war time election.
McFann:
More troubling because from where I sit, I don't think an attack on Iran is in the offering...take it for what it's worth...
- SJS
C-Low,
It strikes me as too far-fetched.
From a simplistic point of view, it's always a bad thing when a capable military leader is no longer leading and you need his leadership.
Lets take the assumption that the Bush administration pushed Fallon. Not sure if I fully believe it, but for the sake of my post we'll accept it 100%. This would mean that the administration wanted someone more friendly to their line of thinking. Regardless of the talks of "multiple faces" to this administration's view, one face, the more unilateral face, hence made this decision.
Now, this administration has to move out of the office in 10 months. The only reason I can see them making this move if they did it was they saw themselves as running out of time and wanting to get some "work" done before the clock hit midnight.
That's not quite as far-fetched a scenario as Fallon positioning to become VP, but take it for what it's worth.
Think Long and Hard as You Contemplate What This Means
There isn't much time left for a war so it needs to happen soon. I wonder how soon that will be? I'm guessing a few months.
rj
I wasn't saying I bought the VP idea although I don't really buy the Bushitler/Neocon conspiracy move to invade Iran either.
But since we are running scenerio's let me run one. Perhaps the intelligence tea leaves are saying that the shadow War has shifted to our advantage and the other side is prepping a open hot move to try to roll those gains back.
Under that premise a reshuffle to the A squad for a open hot conflict. Like it or not Fallon while a excellent reputation of cool headed diplo-esq peace-keeper, I have not really heard much as a tactician or strategist.
Short the Jaw Jaw open think guessing needless to say time will tell.
"I really am stunned, I have never really believed the US was going to strike Iran until today."--Galrahn
It sort'a looks that way. From my personal perspective, during the past three years, there've been moments where I thought war was imminent. This latest moment appears more serious than those of the past, in that it possibly represents an internal shuffle for war, where the previous moves represented external forms of power projection.
The Admiral has fallen on his sword. Now the timeline for a war with Iran is more relevant than ever.
Not for nothing isn't this the guy who is in charge of the guy who has been making the so called surge a success? It boggles the mind.
We need to gird up our loins and get through some major league stupidity for the next couple of months. We can't open up another front in the so called war on terror when we are slipping in Afghanistan and have limited Allied support and a not so endless supply of selfless 18 year olds and oil over $100 a barrel. We should be having tea with the Iranians and pointing out to them that we can let Afghanistan and the Kurds and the Wahabis go off on their own and be their problem for the next ten years. Yeah, we're the Great Satan. Get used to it. Work with us or try working without us. That could be fun.
Side thought; put yourself in the Islamist shoes for a minute.
-Would you not want to turn the heat up to hard boil?
-Is it really in your best interest to undermine a party that has already promised to end the GWOT unilaterally?
-Would you want to undermine a anti-war position in your enemy so they could have a fair election?
On the flip side would the US side really want a ranking military leader running around undermining the threat of US just waiting for the excuse to jump?
I wonder what Mr. Gates input is. Not too long ago Mr. Gates went through that area and visited with him didn't he? Maybe for what ever reason it falls under the heading of one of those things where the "commander" has lost "confidence" in their subordinate.
I wonder what impact the speedboat incidents (and possibly others that we haven't heard about) had on this.
I really don't know what to make of this. Is this a political canning, a reshuffling due to a posture/mission change, an attempt to send a message to Iran, or something else altogether?
Thanks, all, for the candor. I am far-removed from active military, so I appreciate the insight you boys provide.
I have repeatedly heard that Fallon was the main obstacle to an Iran strike. So, to have him forced out is certainly alarming. I had assumed your "political" references pertained to the general election, as a major conflict would probably benefit McCain.
Of course, this political "dismissal" would be alarming for anyone serving. It just renews my fears of Bush going out in a "Blaze of Glory", and letting the next administration clean up the mess.
Keep up the good work, guys. I come to you for information.
Go Atlanta Braves!
Mc Fann (aka Brian McCann).
With all the bad news it warms my hear to know somebody is still cheering for the Atlanta Braves.
Hope and baseball are eternal.
Eeentersting. Stratfor has just weighed in and blamed it on Afghanistan/Pakistan, and the resurgence of the Taliban--not that it was his fault, but more that the seat is being cleaned out for Petraeus or Mattis to take over.
Of course, Stratfor has been dead certain since the beginning that a) We will never attack Iran and b) Iran will negotiate away the Bomb at the highest price possible solely because they "know" we or Israel would attack them if they got it. They also predicted the demise of the Euro for years, and were certain after the last election that we would cut and run. So, they're definitely not perfect, but they do keep coming up with some interesting thoughts.
"But since we are running scenerio's let me run one. Perhaps the intelligence tea leaves are saying that the shadow War has shifted to our advantage and the other side is prepping a open hot move to try to roll those gains back."
Do you know this or is this just back of the envelope speculation like my prognosis on why Fallon resigned?
Everything I've read from a strategic viewpoint of Iraq is that Iran and the U.S. are at a type of stalemate for reasons of geopolitics. Both sides are happy the other is troubled by the current state but worry that if things don't go their way they'll lose the area forever. It's not in Iran's interests for the Iraqis to be very pro-American for obvious reasons, and it's not in the U.S. or Saudis' interests for the Iraqis to be very pro-Iranian.
The thing is, we had this dumbass notion of "democracy will cure all ills" and hence installed the majority Shiites, who are pro-Iran, as the rulers.
Just some clarification. We aren't dealing with Wahabi jihadists. We are dealing with Persians. Persians who have lived in a tough neighborhood for thousands of years. Take Islam out of it.
When you scratched a Soviet you got a Russian. When you scratch an Iranian mullah you get a Persian who is still pissed off about 300 and wants to see his team go to the World Cup. Sure, he prays five times a day, but so do the nut job chaplains at the Air Force Academy who think Jesus is going to start a war to fight some fantasy anti-christ. The Persian might not only be more reasonable, he has real problems, like Afghan jihadists, Wahabis who want to kill them, Israel, the Kurds and millions of teenagers who want to make love and listen to rock music. He doesn't need a damn war. A little diplomacy can go a long way.
But we deal with them the same way we dealt with Fidel. Needless as it is to say it ain't working.
John
I would agree Persians are historically a more capable enemy but we are not really going to run over the "my enemies enemy is my friend" issue again. Shia Islamist & Sunni Islamist may at the end of the day fight each other, but they can and are working together against the Infidels.
Hamas confirmed
whispers of AQ, ICU, Nigerian Delta, Sudan
If you were a Shia Islamist would you really not give one enemy weapons so he could kill and be killed by another enemy? US support of WW2 Stalin, 80's Saddam never would have happened if not.
rj
Pure speculation. But when you see the Sunni/Gulf close ranks, Awakening Iraq, decimation of AQ Iraq, March 14 movement, Islamist roll back from Algeria/Chad/Somalia/Iraq/Saudi Arabia/Afghanistan pushed to Warizistan as their foundation, Mughniyeh's sudden death, then Sadr's sudden unexpected early retirement by LETTER notice?
Should make you go Hmmm Those last two should pull a triple take.
I'm not doing a triple take, I don't have Tourette's. :D
Stuff happens, and most of it is kept under wraps good enough that us normal folk have no idea what the f*** is going on. It's just as much true for Fallon's resignation as Israel's attack on Syria. All we can really do is read tea leaves, as we're all doing.
"Think Long and Hard as You Contemplate What This Means"
Admiral Fallon's resignation presages neither an imminent attack upon Iran, nor surrender to sinister machinations over politics. Not necessarily; there may be a simpler answer.
How does a senior U.S. military leader with a possible health issue take his leave? He bows out with dispatch and honor. He arranges competent relief before he risks skipping a beat.
May the good admiral (age 63) enjoy the balance of his life and his CENTCOM replacement be as worthy.
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."
Another point of view, although based on the commonality of all the viewpoints above, I doubt it will be genuninely considered.
Who Is Thomas P. M. Barnett
Has anyone considered that ADM Fallon was telling it like it is in the resignation point: i.e. people seeing him as disagreeing is the interfering with his military duties. The political squabbling in our house, and the credibility hit with foreign officials when it seems like he's saying the opposite of what his boss say, and may not be, despite everyone's spin would be intensely frustrating to a Ham and Egger who seems to just want to do the job right.
Well, it is time to start treating Iran like another country. Sure, that could mean you treat them like Nazi Germany, but you could start by looking at the simple fact that they lived through a quite brutal war where Iraq was the aggressor and we simultaneously fought a rather humiliating naval war against them with subsequent civillian casualties when we shot down an Airbus full of women and children and then gave the skipper a Legion of Honor. We also managed to blame them when Iraq dropped an Exocet on the USS Stark, which was rather interesting. Go figure. We have a rather interesting history with them where we could have been a bit more thoughtful. They should be pissed at us. And don't get me started on the '53 coup. We gave them the Shah. They took hostages. We're even. Move on.
For the world's premire superpower we sure manage to hold a grudge like some some little old banana republic. We should act like adults. Talk to the bastards. Of course they will try asymetrical means to get some leverage against us. Big deal. We can always kick their butt AFTER being polite for a change.
The Iranians are not Islamacists like Osama and his crowd. They are what was left standing after the Savak were done screwing around with the communists, the social democrats and all other possible opposition. They want to live. We should encourage them to do so and see what happens.
That's a great idea! Then, after we lose a city or two, most folks won't have any problem with killing all of them, including the majority of civilians who hate the oppressive regime!
"Admiral Fallon's resignation presages neither an imminent attack upon Iran, nor surrender to sinister machinations over politics. Not necessarily; there may be a simpler answer."
Vigilis,
I agree with that, it doesn't mean imminent attack, but I am no longer dismissing the possibility outright as I have in the past.
I'll accept "simpler answers" when someone can explain why Fallon is the first Joint Combatant Commander run out of his position during the war. To me that is the big red flag here.
Lose a city? To the Iranians? I don't think so. They know we know where they live. So far they've shown remarkable restraint in Iraq acting mostly to exert their influence through diplomacy and political support. They have been, for the most part, respectful of the internal political forces like Sistani. In the north they've been much less of a problem with the Kurds than the Turks. Do I trust them? No, but the people shooting at us are Saudis who seem to have no problem getting in country. The Iranians have done terrible things, but all stuff that works for their particular security and internal political concerns.
Does anyone remember the Khan network and those nice pictures of a Pakistani C-130 given to them to fight the "War on Terror" unloading nuclear technology in North Korea? If we get nuked here it will be with a Paki bomb given to Osama to calm down the tribes and it will be given to them by their military and intelligence apparatus.
My big worry is that we invite a Paki destroyer to Fleet Week and let it go past the Verazzano Bridge. I'm not that worried about the Iranians doing anything.
According to Arkin at the Washington Post, Petraeus killed off Admiral Fallon.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/
e...e_k_1.html#more
Apparently, Fallon wanted a troop draw-down in Iraq and Petraeus didn't and went over Fallon's head to Bush, who, of course, agreed. I've seen this angle from others as well, but Arkin's the most succinct. So much for chain of command.
They want to live.
Is that why they call them suicide bombers?
I agree with that, it doesn't mean imminent attack, but I am no longer dismissing the possibility outright as I have in the past.
The issue may not be Iran, but its neighbors. Take a look at CENTCOM's Area of Responsibility. Then figure out which nation(s) have 'issues' that might need more attention, but haven't.
What this means is that the military is no longer tolerating insubordination from Adm Fallon - what an arrogant asshole!
Yes. Slipping in Afghanistan.
Rumors say Iran has been providing the grease.
Commenting by HaloScan
