Admiral William Fallon, commander of the Middle East command CENTCOM, has resigned today, throwing fuel on the already burning flames of speculation about an attack on Iran coming before the end of the year.
Esquire Magazine did an article last week that made this implication and created the appearance of a rift between President Bush and one of his chief military commanders:
Last December, when the National Intelligence Estimate downgraded the immediate nuclear threat from Iran, it seemed as if Fallon’s caution was justified. But still, well-placed observers now say that it will come as no surprise if Fallon is relieved of his command before his time is up next spring, maybe as early as this summer, in favor of a commander the White House considers to be more pliable. If that were to happen, it may well mean that the president and vice-president intend to take military action against Iran before the end of this year and don’t want a commander standing in their way.
And so Fallon, the good cop, may soon be unemployed because he’s doing what a generation of young officers in the U. S. military are now openly complaining that their leaders didn’t do on their behalf in the run-up to the war in Iraq: He’s standing up to the commander in chief, whom he thinks is contemplating a strategically unsound war.
So questions concerning future U.S. military plans for Iran hinge not so much on anything Fallon said, but on the aforementioned opinion of writer Thomas P.M. Barnett.
Dana Perino was asked about this during a press briefing at the White House last week:
Q Dana, there -- I know you haven't read this, but if you'll trust me to quote from -- there is an article in Esquire Magazine about Admiral William Fallon. It says this: "Because of Fallon's caution on Iran, Fallon may soon be unemployed because he is doing what a generation of young officers in the U.S. military are now openly complaining that their leadership didn't do on their behalf in the run-up to the war in Iraq. He's standing up to the Commander-in-Chief, who he thinks is contemplating a strategically unsound war." Is that an accurate portrayal of the relationship?
MS. PERINO: You're right, before I came here I told you I haven't seen the article. I don't know who wrote it. I've never heard anything of that sort, except for in rumor mills that don't turn out to be true. So I'll check it out, but I don't think there's anything to it.
Now today comes word from AP and other sources that Admiral Fallon has resigned:
"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, who is traveling in Iraq, said in a statement issued by his U.S. headquarters in Tampa, Fla.
"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," he said.
The Pentagon has this video report of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates statement today:
Additionally Fox News adds these comments from Secretary Gates:
Gates said it is "ridiculous" to assume that because Fallon is leaving, the U.S. is preparing war against Iran or has changed its policy at all toward Iran.
"As I say, the notion that this decision portends anything in terms of change in Iran policy is, to quote myself, 'ridiculous,'" he said.
Whether Fallon's departure signals a buildup to action against Iran or not, action definitely needs to be taken against this terrorist-supporting state which is intent on gaining nuclear capability. Bush did list Iran as a chief member of the "Axis of Evil" at the onset of the War on Terror.
Whether that action will be taken by the United States in the waning months of the Bush Administration, or whether it will fall to Israel to destroy Iran's ability to create nuclear weapons, remains to be seen.
0 comments:
Post a Comment