| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Admiral Fallon Resigns as Head of Centcom |
| 2008-03-11 |
| Just breaking --- I read an article the other day -- was about Fallon NOT being a person for war -- rather negotiate and didn't won't to attack Iran. Article speculated, that if he stepped down -- Iran is back in the cross hairs. WASHINGTON — Admiral William Fallon, the head of U.S. Central Command, which leads U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan is stepping down, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced Tuesday. Gates said Fallon said misperceptions about differences between his ideas and U.S. policy are making it too difficult for him to operate. Gates said their differences are not extreme, but the misperception has become too great. I don't know whether he was misinterpreted or whether people attributed views to him that were not his views, but clearly there was a concern," Gates said. |
| Posted by:Sherry |
| #27 Mattis is a non-nonsense Marine's Marine. |
| Posted by: anymouse 2008-03-11 23:55 |
| #26 Can't say too much other than his rep at PACFLT and PACOM was that he as an appeaser and fancied himself as a modern day MacArthur (i.e., warrior-statesmen). He butted heads with a lot of folks with his attitude on WESTPAC issues. I can assure you his selection as CENTCOM was as a surprise to everyone in the PACOM AOR. |
| Posted by: anymouse 2008-03-11 23:53 |
| #25 Can't get rid of Clinton's weak sisters soon enough. Mattis would be an excellent replacement. He gets it and is willing to fight. "You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for 5 years because they didn't wear a veil," Mattis continued. "You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." Just don't let the politicians leave the task half finished. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-03-11 22:25 |
| #24 See also FREEREPUBLIC > SIX SIGNS THAT WE ARE HEADED TOWARDS WAR WITH IRAN. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2008-03-11 22:01 |
| #23 good a Marine ... 3-2-1 baboomb |
| Posted by: legolas 2008-03-11 21:32 |
| #22 time to take over the saudi oil fields ... screw all this |
| Posted by: legolas 2008-03-11 21:29 |
| #21 NS; nice, cogent summation. TY. |
| Posted by: Whiskey Mike 2008-03-11 20:17 |
| #20 Spook86 speculates that the replacement will be Gen. James N. Mattis USMC. Ponder that, Nutjob. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-03-11 19:52 |
| #19 Don't let the door hit you in the ass... |
| Posted by: Chuck Simmins 2008-03-11 19:48 |
| #18 I should have added that the one bright lining in the dark clouds has been Gates apparent recognition of exactly what we're dealing with over the last year. I hope he continues to grow in the job as this action leads me again to believe he has. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-03-11 19:44 |
| #17 Bush said he wasn't going to let the Iranians get Nukes. He appointed Fallon, Mr. Nice-Guy Clinton-Admiral Barnett-Gapmeister to head up CentCom under Mr. Slick-Operator Gates from the Anti-BusHitler-CIA and Dr. Can't-We-All_Get_Along Rice at the subversive Department of State and they proceeded to generate soft power policies culminating in the NIE that the CIA types thought would end his ability to deal with Iran. But none of the huggy-bear kissy-face policies paid off. And now everybody in the Gulf and Europe is recognizing that they come in range long before we do. So "Fox" Fallon has decided he can't implement the orders that are coming down the pike and decides to jump ship. I hope he finds it in himself to speak out promptly about what has lead him to leave his senior command during war time. And I hope it's better than Wesley Clark pablum. And I hope Bush can clear the decks of Clintonistas among the 2 and 3-stars befor he leaves office. And I hope Nutjob can read the tea leaves. Cause Bush won't be letting Iran get Nukes. Looks like he's been misunderestimated again. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-03-11 19:42 |
| #16 ION, WAFF.com EU, RUSSIA HEADED FOR CONFRONTATION OVER ABKHAZIA [Georgia], + WAPO OP-ED > NATO SHOULD PROTECT UKRAINE AND GEORGIA, + WAFF/TOPIX > EUROPE CANNOT GO ANY FURTHER + RUSSIA: NO MORE NATO EXPANSION. * TOPIX > RUSSIA's ETHNIC MINORITIES SEEK AUTONOMY/POLITICAL FREEDOM. Again from WAFF > AZERBAYCAN [AZERBAIJAN/AZERIS] VERSUS ARMENIA + AZERBAYCAN TO USE FORCE IN KARABAKH [Nagorno-Karabakh]. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2008-03-11 19:30 |
| #15 ZC5881 - I'd certainly say he's put in his time, and if he disagrees with the C-in-C policies, he has every right to resign or retire. Good for him. How long before he's on the political hustings? From a comment at ASOHQ: 11 Fallon's a Clintonista, Billy Jeff handed him his fourth star ala Weasly Clark. Expect him to endorse Obama shortly with an expectation of serving that malodorous administration as NSA or SecDef. Posted by: Alamo at March 11, 2008 04:00 PM Any Clark connection makes him suspect in my mind |
| Posted by: Frank G 2008-03-11 18:40 |
| #14 The guy's been doing this for 40 years, he's probably plain tuckered out. He had a distinctive career, to say the least, without any major F-ups. |
| Posted by: Zenobia Chomosing5881 2008-03-11 18:19 |
| #13 and announced yesterday, Cheney -- who leaves March 16 bound for Oman, Saudi Arabia, Israel, the West Bank and Turkey -- will also pursue US diplomatic efforts to isolate Iran and prod US oil-exporting allies to help rein in skyrocketing prices. |
| Posted by: Sherry 2008-03-11 17:38 |
| #12 Ed Morrisey (now at Hotair) adds this: "Allegedly he isnÂ’t a big fan of Petraeus either, so bear that angle in mind too as explanations emerge. Stand by." I think Petraeus has proven himself a lot more than Fallon in the ME theater see, also, this: "As he was preparing to take command, Fallon said that a war with Iran 'isnÂ’t going to happen on my watch,' according to retired Army Col. Patrick Lang." shouldn't that be on the table if the Iranians make it happen? Sounds perfect for Obama SecDef |
| Posted by: Frank G 2008-03-11 17:11 |
| #11 #10 Wasn't Adm Fallon the one who was so warm/fuzzy towards China? Posted by: tipover that's been the general implication among posts/comments here.... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2008-03-11 17:01 |
| #10 Wasn't Adm Fallon the one who was so warm/fuzzy towards China? |
| Posted by: tipover 2008-03-11 16:46 |
| #9 I don't know anything except what I read from various sources (none more comprehensive than this one, to be sure). But it seems to me there is a lot of tension about the ongoing optempo within the military. There are those voices who say it simply cannot be sustained any longer and that we need near immediate change. There are others who are less alarmist and want to finish the job, especially in Iraq, before we do any significant drawdown/reduciton in op tempo. Does this square with those in the know? |
| Posted by: Remoteman 2008-03-11 16:44 |
| #8 Nothing is as it seems. Fallon is an expert on Iran and he was probably very aware that one does not just casually attack them. Trouble is, that this can be mistaken for "McClellan-itis", an unwillingness to attack. However, Fallon has been on the job long enough to do what was absolutely critical--to point out what needs to be done in an attack. A reality check against those who think it would be a 'walk in the park'. There is always an abundance of militarists who underestimate what is involved in a war. On the flip side, Fallon might be a "build up" commander, to be replaced by an "execution" commander. Two very different sets of skills involved in those jobs as well. (See Frederick William I and Frederick the Great of Prussia as examples.) |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-03-11 16:44 |
| #7 Scuttlebutt was that Fallon is opposed to the surge and wants it drawn down quicker than Gen Petraus. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-03-11 16:38 |
| #6 Does this mean his resume to the Clinton-Obama-DNC organization made it? To be on the campaign trail for the party by fall in 10, 9, 8, .... |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-03-11 16:20 |
| #5 Now added to the Fox article: The misperceptions relate to an article published last week in Esquire magazine that portrayed Fallon 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. "I think this is a cumulative kind of thing," Gates countered. "It isn't the result of any one article or any one issue." Fallon has had a 41-year Navy career. He took the Central Command post on March 16, 2007, succeeding Army Gen. John Abizaid, who retired. Fallon previously served as commander of U.S. Pacific Command. It was often reported that he and Gen. David Petraeus butt heads about troop levels in Iraq, which the two denied, but was an ongoing dispute that simmered below the surface within the Pentagon. Fallon is responsible for not only Iraq and Afghanistan. The article noted that the troop numbers were so taxed in Iraq that it was hurting operations in Afghanistan. Centcom's second-in-command Gen. Martin Dempsey will now take over Fallon's post. |
| Posted by: Sherry 2008-03-11 15:59 |
| #4 Hum -- reading more -- maybe the article is what is meant when Gates talked of misperceptions about differences between his ideas and U.S. policy |
| Posted by: Sherry 2008-03-11 15:58 |
| #3 Here's the article The Man Between War and Peace and here's the article with Admiral Fallon's opinion: Commander Rejects Article of Praise Asked about the article yesterday, Fallon called it "poison pen stuff" that is "really disrespectful and ugly." He did not cite specific objections. Both articles, especially the Esquire one, well, interesting.... I find it rather biased... I'm trying to be nice! |
| Posted by: Sherry 2008-03-11 15:44 |
| #2 Redacted by moderator. Comments may be redacted for trolling, especially if you're a multi-nymed one from Toronto. |
| Posted by: Huport Bourbon3420 2008-03-11 15:42 |
| #1 Good. |
| Posted by: RWV 2008-03-11 15:36 |