| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:35 pm Post subject: Fallon resigns as Mideast military chief: |
| Fallon resigns as Mideast military chief:
http://tinyurl.com/yvaj6k
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fallon 'may lose job over Iran war'
Fri, 07 Mar 2008 21:54:40
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=46317&ionid=3510203
Adm. William Fallon, the head of the US Central Command, may lose his job for opposing President Bush's plans to wage war against Iran.
According to a new Esquire article by Thomas Barnett; Admiral Fallon may be prematurely 'relieved of his command' as soon as this summer to be replaced with a more 'pliable' commander.
"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," says the article which will be published on March 12.
Admiral Fallon, who has been named as 'one of the best strategic thinkers in uniform today' by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, opposed the troops surge in Iraq and has consistently battled with President George W. Bush to avert confrontation with Iran.
The Navy admiral has vowed that an attack on Iran would 'not happen on his watch', calling the White House warmongering echelons 'not helpful'.
Washington and its allies are at loggerheads with the Islamic Republic over the country's nuclear standoff with the West.
The Bush administration accuses Iran of pursuing nuclear weaponry, while Tehran maintains its uranium enrichment will only provide fuel for the country's under-construction nuclear power plants.
President Bush insists the military option against Iran remains on the table, while his top military experts, including Admiral Fallon, urge the White House to choose a diplomatic approach towards Tehran.
In a Thursday White House press briefing, spokeswoman Dana Perino was asked about the Esquire piece and refused to confirm whether Fallon's position is secure until the end of his tenure.
MD/RE
-----------------------------------------------------------
FYI
by Gareth Porter
A new article on CENTCOM commander Adm. William Fallon confirms that his public statements last fall ruling out war against Iran last fall were not coordinated with the White House and landed him in trouble more than once with President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
In an admiring article on Fallon in Esquire, former Pentagon official Thomas P.M. Barnett writes that Fallon angered the White House by "brazenly challenging" Bush on his aggressive threat of war against Tehran. Barnett also cites "well-placed observers" as saying Bush may soon replace Fallon with a "more pliable" commander.
Barnett's account, which quotes conversations with Fallon during the CENTCOM commander's trips to the Middle East, shows that Fallon privately justified his statements contradicting the Bush policy of keeping the "option" of an unprovoked attack on Iran "on the table" as necessary to calm the fears of Egypt and other friendly Arab regimes of a US-Iran war.
Barnett recalls that when Fallon was in Cairo in November, the lead story in that day's edition of the English-language daily Egyptian Gazette carried the headline "US Rules Out Strike against Iran" over a picture of Fallon meeting with President Hosni Mubarak.
That story, published Nov. 19 and not picked up by any US news media, reported that Fallon had "ruled out a possible strike against Iran and said Washington was mulling nonmilitary options instead."
Later that day, according to Barnett, Fallon told him during a coffee break in a military meeting, "I'm in hot water again," and then confirmed that his problems were directly with the White House.
That was the second time in less than a week and the third time in seven weeks that Fallon had publicly declared that there would be no war against Iran. In an interview with Al-Jazeera television in September, which Fallon himself had requested, according to a source at Al-Jazeera, he had said, "This constant drum beat of conflict is what strikes me which is not helpful and not useful."
And only a week before the trip to Egypt, in an interview with Financial Times, Fallon had said, a military strike was not "in the offing," adding, "Another war is just not where we want to go."
These statements represented an extraordinary exercise of power by a combat commander, because it contradicted a central feature of the Bush-Cheney strategy on Iran. High-ranking Bush administration officials had been routinely repeating the administration's line that no option had been taken "off the table" since early 2005.
At an Oct. 17 news conference, Bush said he had "told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."
Fallon's public statements explicitly ruling out an attack on Iran thus undermined the Bush administration's threat against Iran.
The willingness of the top commander in the Middle East to take the military option "off the table" was in part a reflection of the determination of uniformed military leaders to prevent what they regarded as a disastrous course.
The new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, who replaced Gen. Peter Pace in June, was even more candid about his opposition to the use of force against Iran than Pace had been, according to a Congressional staffer who had participated in private meetings with both. Pace declared publicly in late October, "We have to be mindful of the risks that would be spawned by engaging in a third conflict" in the region.
Mullen added, however, that military options "cannot be taken off the table."
But Fallon, as the commander responsible for the entire Middle East, was concerned about more than the consequences of actually exercising the military option. He was prompted to enunciate a "no-war" line on Iran by the panicky reactions of Arab states to what they thought were indications of the warlike intentions of Bush administration.
In the latter half of 2007 friendly Arab regimes were upset by the possibility of a US-Iran war, which they feared would destabilize the entire region. Fallon is quoted as telling Barnett, "It's all anyone wants to talk about right now. People here hear what I'm saying and understand. I don't want to get them too spun up."
Fallon told Barnett that his ruling out of military action against Iran was necessary to calm the very regimes the Bush administration was hoping to enlist to support its anti-Iran line. "Washington interprets this as all aimed at them," Fallon said in Cairo, according to Barnett. "Instead, it's aimed at governments and media in this region. I'm not talking about the White House."
Fallon was arguing, in effect, that it makes no sense to make the possibility of an unprovoked attack part of your declaratory policy if merely induces confusion and panic among friendly governments without influencing the target of the threat.
Barnett quotes Fallon as complaining that "they" – meaning White House officials – were asking him, "Why are you even meeting with Mubarak?" But Fallon strongly defended the diplomatic role he was playing in relations with Mubarak and other Middle Eastern leaders. "This is my center of gravity," Fallon told him. "This is my job."
Fallon's sensitivity to the political-diplomatic consequences of a declaratory policy that explicitly keeps open the threat of an aggressive war as a potential option set him apart not only from the White House but from the consensus among national security specialists in both parties. In early 2007, all three of the top three Democratic contenders for the presidential nomination publicly declared their support for keeping "all options on the table."
Fallon is not the first CENTCOM commander to rein in aggressive White House policy toward the Middle East. In late 1997, according to Dana Priest's book, The Mission, the Bill Clinton White House wanted CENTCOM commander Gen. Anthony Zinni to order his pilots to provoke a military confrontation with Iraq in the no-fly zone by deliberately drawing fire from Iraqi planes.
The request for such a provocation was conveyed to Zinni by the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Ralston. But Zinni, who believed that it could lead to an unwanted war with Iraq, insisted that a formal request from the White House would have to be sent, and the plan was dropped.
The unhappiness of the Bush administration with Fallon's role as well as the unflattering picture of administration policy revealed by the article was evident Thursday from the failure of either the White House or the Pentagon to issue the usual reassuring statements in response to the article.
The White House declined to comment, although, according to the Washington Post's Thomas Ricks, the article "was being discussed there." The Pentagon spokesman, Geoff Morrell, said Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates "has read the profile on Admiral Fallon but chooses not to comment on it or other press accounts."
http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=12483
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unreconstructed Neocon Wurmser Decants 'Regime Change,' Holy War, and 'Goodbye to 2-State Solution' to a Thin Crowd:
http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/03/when-i-signed-u.html
Wurmser is also mentioned in the 'A Clean Break' discussion by Bamford on pages 261-269/321 of his 'A Pretext for War' book (can read such via the 'A Clean Break' link at the top of http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.BLOGSPOT.COM ).
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nutjob Pastor John Hagee endorses McCain, McCain returns compliment:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2008/02/28/nutjob-pastor-john-hagee-endorses-mccain-mccain-returns-com.php
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Looks like Israel and Hezbollah are going to go at it again which would be right in accordance with the rest of the 'A Clean Break'/war for Israel agenda (see the 'A Clean Break' link at the top of http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.BLOGSPOT.COM):
Subject: Israel, Hezbollah: Gearing Up for Another War?
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
---------------------------
ISRAEL, HEZBOLLAH: GEARING UP FOR ANOTHER WAR?
Summary
A number of indications suggest that Israel and Hezbollah could be
readying themselves for a military confrontation in Lebanon in the near
future. Israel's operations in Gaza could be an attempt to ensure it only
has to fight on one front, and Stratfor sources report Hezbollah is
gearing up for a battle.
Analysis
With Palestinian rocket barrages continuing and Israel threatening to
reoccupy the Gaza Strip, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is
visiting Cairo, Ramallah and Jerusalem on March 4 with the ill-fated goal
of reviving Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. While the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict is bound to flare up every now and then, there appears to
be a bigger issue in play. Israel's current focus on degrading the
Palestinians' rocket-launching ability could in fact be tied to possible
Israeli intentions to wage war against Hezbollah in the near future.
Israel launched a major offensive into the Gaza Strip on Feb. 29 after
Palestinian militants lobbed around 20 Soviet-designed Grad rockets (a
step up from the usual homemade Qassam rockets) into the coastal
Israeli city of Ashkelon, 11 miles north of Gaza. These rockets are more
disruptive than deadly, but they inflict a heavy psychological toll on
Israel. The Israeli government came under heavy pressure to respond in
force, particularly after a Qassam attack killed a civilian in the southern
Israeli town of Sderot.
Despite international condemnation, Israel has made clear that its
operations in Gaza are not over. Haaretz reported March 4 that Israeli
Defense Minister Ehud Barak said this is not a quick operation, but
rather a long process that will involve more intense offensives. Israeli
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni even threatened that Israel would reoccupy
the Gaza Strip if necessary.
Israel's big push on Gaza might be driven by concerns larger than just
its conflict with the Palestinians, however. There are a number of
indications that Israel could be readying itself for a military
confrontation with Hezbollah in Lebanon in the summer. The Israelis have been
extending unusual carrot and stick offers to Syria as a warning to stay out
of their fight with Hezbollah; U.S. warships are sitting off the coast
of Lebanon, signaling possible U.S. intervention; and Hezbollah --
along with its Syrian and Iranian patrons -- appears to be making
preparations for a coming war.
According to a Stratfor source in Lebanon, a large contingent of
Iranian foreign intelligence officers, military officials and security
experts have recently arrived in Beirut. Iranian missile and tactical support
experts are allegedly in control of several military operations rooms
recently set up by Hezbollah in the southern Lebanese town of Nabatiye
and the Bekaa Valley towns of Mashghara and Al Hirmil. Stratfor has
discussed before the Iranian intent to secure its grip over Hezbollah
ahead of any major confrontation with Israel.
Hezbollah, according to a Stratfor source, also is transporting a
large number of Zelzal missiles to the heights of the West Bekaa valley.
These unguided rockets are large and difficult to transport or hide. They
did not make an appearance in the 2006 conflict; however, if Hezbollah
has managed to acquire several Zelzals, these long-range rockets could
send a large warhead deep into Israeli territory. And Hezbollah is
digging out tunnels and underground shelters, reorganizing its command
structure in the western Bekaa Valley and training under Iranian military
commanders in Tehran. Moreover, Stratfor has received reports that
Hezbollah is installing explosive devices in Iranian-built Mohajer unmanned
aerial vehicles and has acquired new antitank guided missiles.
While Hezbollah appears to be digging in for a fight, Israel is
focusing on diminishing the threat it faces on the Palestinian front. Embedded
in a section on manpower requirements and reserve mobilization in the
final Winograd report on Israel's performance in the 2006 conflict,
several points were made on the difficulties Israel faced due to slow
decision-making in fighting Hezbollah in Lebanon while simultaneously
conducting operations against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The difficulty during
that conflict was not in fighting the Palestinians per se, but in
having enough manpower to cover both fronts. If Israel can manage to
degrade a fair amount of Hamas' rocket-launching capability in Gaza ahead of
a military confrontation with Hezbollah, it can clear its plate a bit
and focus more intently on the issue of allocating enough forces to
impose a military defeat on Hezbollah.
Copyright 2008 Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Stratfor
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 12:19 PM
Subject: Lebanon: Israel Sends a Signal to Hezbollah
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
---------------------------
LEBANON: ISRAEL SENDS A SIGNAL TO HEZBOLLAH
Summary
Israeli warplanes flew over the Lebanese capital of Beirut on March 7, a
day after a Palestinian gunman attacked a yeshiva in Jerusalem, killing
eight students. While Israel has conducted several overflights into
southern Lebanon since the 2006 conflict with Hezbollah, it is unusual
for such flights to go as far north as Beirut. The March 7 overflight is
a warning to Hezbollah.
Analysis
Israel air force (IAF) warplanes flew over the Lebanese capital of
Beirut on March 7, a day after a Palestinian gunman attacked a yeshiva
in Jerusalem and killed eight students. Ever since the 2006 summer
conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, the IAF has conducted a number of
overflights into southern Lebanon. It is far more unusual, however, for
these overflights to extend as far north as Beirut.
This latest overflight represents a direct signal to Hezbollah. The
March 6 yeshiva shooting was claimed by a shadowy organization calling
itself the "Galilee Freedom Battalions--The Martyrs of Imad Mughniyah."
The claim of responsibility flashed across the screen on Hezbollah's Al
Manar television station shortly after the attack. A day later, a Hamas
official told Reuters it is taking "full responsibility for the
Jerusalem operation" and promised to release more details at a later
stage. The claim raises suspicions over why Hamas did not just go ahead
and take credit for the shooting when it issued a statement "blessing"
the shooting the day of the attack. Adding even more confusion to the
situation, Hamas retracted its claim of responsibility for the attack
shortly after the initial claim.
Though Israel has been bracing for a Hezbollah retaliatory attack after
the Feb. 12 assassination of the group's top commander Imad Mughniyah,
the March 6 yeshiva shooting appeared too amateurish to bear the
hallmarks of Hezbollah. That said, Hezbollah could be playing it safe as
it sees a military confrontation with Israel approaching. Hezbollah is
likely aware that Israel's performance in a war against Hezbollah this
time around would be far superior to what it was in 2006, making it
suicidal for the group to give Israel an excuse to wage war in Lebanon.
At the same time, Hezbollah still has a need to retaliate for the
Mughniyah assassination, and it would want to create as much obfuscation
as possible regarding the responsibility for and execution of the
attack. If there is indeed a Hezbollah link to the attack -- no matter
how murky -- a larger militant campaign against Jewish targets with the
potential to extend beyond Israel could be in store.
Regardless of whom the perpetrator of the yeshiva attack was, Israel
still has an excuse to link the shooting to Hezbollah and justify
military intervention in Lebanon against the group. The Israeli
government has been eerily calm following the attack, quickly announcing
that the shooting would not derail peace talks with the Palestinians.
But actions can sometimes speak louder than words, and Israel's unusual
behavior could just be the calm before the storm. The IAF flight over
Beirut looks to be a warning to Hezbollah that trouble is coming its
way.
Copyright 2008 Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Israeli forces cross boarder line in south Lebanon
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/06/content_7733391.htm
Is the Middle East about to blow?:
http://lataan.blogspot.com/2008/03/is-middle-east-about-to-blow.html
'A Clean Break'/war for Israel:
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2008/02/clean-break.html
Blood-thirsty ISRAEL seeks "clean break" to ensnare Iran/Syria into the war after "shoah" attacks on Gaza & Lebanon (be sure to take a look at the comments at the bottom of the following URL)
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/5890
See the additional posts on both pages of the following URL:
http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.BLOGSPOT.COM
Latest on coming war with Iran:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2007/04/09/war-with-iran-real-risk-according-to-former-cia-operative.php
Yes, There Is a Guerrilla War Against Zionism in the U.S. What Should Jewish Institutions Do?:
http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/02/portrait-of-a-h.html | |  | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
