| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:10 am Post subject: India Under New Pressure to help with Iran Attack |
| India Under New Pressure to help with Iran Attack
*India Under New Pressure on Iran*
**
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/030708R.shtml
By J. Sri Raman
t r u t h o u t | Report
Friday 07 March 2008
As the Iran issue threatens to turn critical, New Delhi is faced
with a serious challenge from its policy of promoting a "strategic
partnership" with Washington. Efforts are on to push Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh's government to play a significant support role in case
the Pentagon unleashes another "pre-emptive" war in the Middle East.
India had been under pressure to play such a role in the first
"pre-emptive" war as well. Massive popular protests, however, had
stopped former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's government from
sending troops to Iraq and, indeed, led to a Parliamentary resolution
opposing the aggression on that country. The Singh government, on the
other hand, has already paved the way for a pro-Washington role on Iran
- not only as a strategic partner, but also as a semi-recognized member
of the "nuclear club."
The latest pressure has come in the form of a demand for New Delhi
signing a US-India Logistics Support Agreement (LSA), and amid
discussion for quite a while, without any further delay. On February 27,
US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, one of the many American emissaries
to descend on New Delhi over the recent period, reportedly pressed for
early conclusion of the LSA, under which the two countries would provide
logistic support to each other's military. New Delhi, according to
official accounts, is said to have asked for "more time to consider all
aspects of the matter."
Observers see this as a result of opposition to the agreement from
the Left parties, on whose outside support the coalition government of
Singh depends for survival and stability. The Left, for its part, has
left no doubt about the aspect of the agreement to which it objects. It
sees the LSA as an attempt to force India into a role vis-à-vis Iran
which public opinion forbade in the case of Iraq.
The LSA reminded not only the Left, but also large sections of
Indians across the political spectrum, of an instance of India's
involvement in yet another US intervention in the Middle East 17 years ago.
India had originally stayed away from the Gulf War of 1990-91,
unleashed by then President George Herbert Walker Bush far ahead of his
son's famous exploits in the region, but New Delhi's policy changed in
November 1990 with the swearing in of a minority government under Prime
Minister Chandra Shekhar. The government did not stop with voting for a
United Nations resolution, authorizing the use of force to expel Iraqi
troops from Kuwait and rejecting Iraq's linkage of Kuwaiti and
Palestinian problems. It set off a huge domestic uproar in January 1991,
when it officially permitted US military aircraft to refuel in Bombay.
The protests were powerful enough to force the withdrawal of the
refueling facility the very next month.
The facility offered then was nothing compared to what the LSA
envisages for US forces engaged in military operations in the region
(extending from Pakistan and Afghanistan to Iran and Iraq). Under the
LSA, according to experts, India will be obliged to provide services
including refueling and port facilities to US warships, bombers,
aircraft etc., and billeting of troops and storage of food for them. The
LSA has been compared to a similar agreement the US signed in 2002 with
the Philippines, converting the country into an almost American base,
according to protesters there.
Writing in Liberation, a Left-wing journal of India, Kavita Krishnan
says the LSA is actually a version of the Acquisition and
Cross-Servicing Agreement, formerly known as the NATO Mutual Support
Act, renamed "on special request by the Indian government which is eager
to mask its true purpose."
Under US law, according to Krishnan, such an agreement is possible
with a non-NATO country, only if it has "a defense alliance with the
US." This turns the "strategic partnership" into a NATO-type alliance.
The other conditions for such an agreement include permission for the
stationing of "members of the US armed forces or the home porting of US
naval vessels" in such a country. By the agreement, the country will
also accept "pre-positioning" of US material on its territory. It would
also thereby agree to play the role of "a host country for US armed
forces during exercises" and for "other US military operations."
The LSA, if signed, will only legitimize the steps already taken by
India's security and foreign policy establishment to signify New Delhi's
all-but-official support for Washington on the Iran issue. On January 29
in these columns, we reported the latest in this series of signals (A
Spy Satellite and a Strategic Partnership
<http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012908F.shtml>). Eight days earlier,
India's polar satellite launch vehicle PSLV C10 put the Israeli
satellite Tecsar into orbit. Israeli daily Haaretz called it a
"sophisticated new spy satellite" which could "boost
intelligence-gathering capabilities regarding Iran." The Indian Space
Research Organization (ISRO) has made known plans to put two more
Israeli satellites into the orbit over the next few months.
New Delhi had earlier given more official expression to its support
for Washington's Iran policy in the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA). In two crucial meetings of the IAEA's Board of Governors in 2005
and 2006, India had shocked the entire developing world by voting
without reservations with the US on the issue, when even Pakistan under
a then secure Pervez Musharraf abstained.
The votes led to widespread protests in India. New Delhi, however,
remained unrepentant. The prime minister, defending the apparent
departure from the country's path of nonalignment in the Parliament,
played the nuclear card. Ever since President George W. Bush and Singh
divulged their idea of a US-India nuclear "deal" in July 2005, official
India has been conducting itself like an additional member of the
"nuclear club," counseling and cautioning all non-nuclear states,
including signatories to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),
against acquiring nuclear weapons like itself. Singh resorted now to the
same rhetoric, reinforced with a reference to the nuclear-armed rival,
Pakistan. On February 17, 2006, he told India's Parliament, "Successive
reports of the director general of the IAEA have noted that while Iran's
cooperation has resulted in clarifying a number of questions, there
remain many unresolved questions on key issues. These include the use of
centrifuges imported from third countries, and designs relating to
fabrication of metallic hemispheres. Honorable members are aware that
the source of such clandestine proliferation of sensitive technologies
lies in our own neighborhood, details of which have emerged from
successive IAEA reports. This august House will agree that India cannot
afford to turn a blind eye to security implications of such
proliferation activities."
Singh added, "The objectives of upholding Iran's rights and
obligations and our security concerns arising from proliferation
activities in our extended neighborhood have shaped our position." He
made no mention of the US-India nuclear deal, but did not need to. He
had already given proof of the greater importance he attached to the
deal than to an independent foreign policy.
Singh had done so on the issue of an Iran-India gas pipeline,
envisaged as running through Pakistan and thus reinforcing the peace
process between South Asia's nuclear-armed neighbors. On June 13, 2005,
New Delhi and Teheran inked an 18 billion-dollar accord for the supply
by Iran of five million tons of liquefied natural gas (LNG) per annum
over 25 years from 2009, buttressing the bilateral commitment to build
the proposed pipeline.
A series of warnings from Washington followed this preliminary
accord, as they had preceded it. The warnings marked a pre-emptive
strike against the project, envisioning a 2,000-km-long, four
billion-dollar pipeline from Iran's south Pars field transporting the
precious energy resource to India from Pakistan's port city of Karachi.
US Ambassador to India David C. Mulford lost no time and minced no words
in letting New Delhi know of the deep US "concerns" over the proposal.
Even tougher talk followed from US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
on her visits to India and Pakistan.
The gist of the warning was the US might invoke the Iran-Libya
Sanctions Act of 1996 if the project went ahead. The Act threatens
economic sanctions as a penalty for any investment of over $20 million
in any Iranian energy project. Predictably, the blatant attempts at
interference in India's affairs and its bilateral relations with Iran
elicited strong domestic protests. The pressure campaign, however,
received not-so-indirect support from an unexpected quarter - India's
prime minister.
Returning from his Washington visit, which produced the idea of the
nuclear deal, Singh took everyone by surprise by casually telling the
media, "... considering all the uncertainties of the situation there in
Iran, I don't know if any international consortium of bankers would
probably underwrite this (gas pipeline project)." No statement from
Washington could have dealt a more stunning blow to the project.
The progress on the proposal has been agonizingly slow ever since,
while Washington's attempts to adopt India as an ally against Iran have
become increasingly assertive. One of the major reasons the nuclear deal
has provoked a heated, nationwide debate in India is the Iran-related
provision in the Henry J. Hyde US-India Peaceful Atomic Energy
Cooperation Act, 2006, a legislation to enable a bilateral agreement to
give full and formal shape to the deal.
The Act requires the US president, after the deal is done, to
provide annually to the Congress "an assessment of whether India is
fully and actively participating in United States and international
efforts to dissuade, isolate, and, if necessary, sanction and contain
Iran for its efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, including a
nuclear weapons capability (including the capability to enrich uranium
or reprocess nuclear fuel), and the means to deliver weapons of mass
destruction, including a description of the specific measures that India
has taken in this regard."
The Act adds, "if India is not assessed to be fully and actively
participating in such efforts," the Congress should be provided "a
description" of the measures the US Government has taken to secure
"India's full and active participation in such efforts" and "plans to
take in the coming year" to secure such cooperation.
Annual reports favorable to India on the subject from any future US
president are a foregone conclusion, once the LSA is signed. | |  | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 8:24 pm Post subject: Fallon resigns as Mideast military chief |
| Fallon resigns as Mideast military chief
By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer 19 minutes ago
Adm. William Fallon, the top U.S. military commander for the Middle East, is resigning, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday.
Gates said Fallon had asked him Tuesday morning for permission to retire and Gates agreed. Gates said the decision 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.
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.
"I don't think there were differences at all," Gates added.
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.
Gates said that until a permanent replacement is nominated and confirmed by the Senate, Fallon's place will be taken by his top deputy, Army Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey.
The secretary called Fallon a very able military strategist and said his advice will be missed at the Pentagon.
"I think this is a cumulative kind of thing," said Gates, speaking of the circumstances leading up to Fallon's decision. "It isn't the result of any one article or any one issue."
"As I say, the notion that this decision portends anything in terms of change in Iran policy is, to quote myself, 'ridiculous,' " he said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The very short article below appeared on CounterPunch this morning, March 12.
Reference: http://www.counterpunch.org/christison03122008.html
March 12, 2008
Fallon and Gates -- At Least One Cheer
By BILL AND KATHY CHRISTISON
Admiral William Fallon’s resignation as CENTCOM commander and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’s handling of same is the greatest and most public break in the Bush team’s handling of preparations for war against Iran that we are ever likely to see. Gates has in fact publicly associated himself with the resignation by saying it was the right thing for Fallon to do, and Gates said he had accepted the resignation without telling Bush first. To repeat, “Hurrah” is the only thing everyone who opposes a U.S. attack on Iran should be shouting right now.
On March 8, 2008, we wrote the following on these pages:
“Since the present group of Republicans and copycat Democrats in Congress refuses to impeach Bush and Cheney, the danger of a war against Iran instigated by the U.S. and Israel remains real. The overextended state of U.S. ground forces, and Bush’s probable willingness to treat at least small nuclear weapons as ordinary weapons, mean that a war would possibly not be a ground war at all, but would begin with large air attacks and early use of nuclear weapons. While the longer term results of using nuclear weapons would be utterly disastrous, both for the world and for the U.S., the immediate results might be seen as a quick and cheap victory for the U.S. If the apparent military victory occurred before the November 2008 U.S. election, it would probably guarantee a Republican electoral victory. Given Bush’s interest in his own place in history, such a scenario could easily appeal to his gambling instincts.
“Noise, and lots of it, seems to be the only weapon we have to make it less likely that such a scenario actually happens. Let’s make that noise, do it globally, and do it every day. Pound out the message through every medium we can access, including music and literature, that ordinary people around the world DO NOT WANT THE U.S. AND ISRAEL TO KILL A SINGLE PERSON IN IRAN, regardless of the status of Iran’s nuclear weapons program.”
The dangers cited in the two paragraphs above are still there. It is more important than ever that every man and woman among us gets out on the streets and makes every bit of noise we are capable of.
Bill Christison was a senior official of the CIA. He served as a National Intelligence officer and as director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis.
Kathleen Christison is a former CIA political analyst and has worked on Middle East issues for 35 years. She is the author of Perceptions of Palestine and The Wound of Dispossession.
They can both be reached at kathy.bill.christison@comcast.net.
Last edited by Alpha on Wed Mar 12, 2008 6:15 pm; edited 1 time in total | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 8:32 pm Post subject: Fallon's resignation is frightening |
| Fallon's resignation is frightening.
Fallon's resignation is frightening. President Bush and his administration are totally out of control and it is a bad sign for Fallon resign given the context. It is unwise to simply hope that it doesn't "mean anything" with regard to a totally outrageous, illegal and unthinkable act which could be catastrophic for God knows how many people. The act I refer to is being discussed matter-of-factly as "war with Iran." A clear war crime and the mainstream media, as I type this, discuss it as simply an "option." It is NOT an option, it is a crime that can not be allowed to be carried out. We can not allow domestic forces to violate our laws and put our lives at risk. Bush attacks countries without any legal, legitimate or moral reason. He LIES about the reason why he started his war with Iraq! Bush has said at least four times now that Saddam didn't let the inspectors in. This is how out of control Bush is, it must be made clear immediately to Bush that he has no authority at all to attack another country. All those powers must we taken from him in the legal procedure that we the American people have at out disposal to protect ourselves. Mainstream media is working against us. For Bush to claim that Saddam didn't let the inspectors in is totally off the wall and it is DANGEROUS for mainstream media to let such a thing slide. We have a man with SERIOUS problems running our country. This threatens our lives.
http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2008/03/fallons-resignation-is-frightening.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRdf4GpFzlM
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."
Last edited by Alpha on Wed Mar 12, 2008 2:45 pm; edited 1 time in total | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 11:42 pm Post subject: US: Syria backs foreign fighters in Iraq |
| Dissenting Views Made Fallon's Fall Inevitable
By Gareth Porter*
WASHINGTON, Mar 11 (IPS)
Admiral William Fallon's request to quit his
position as head of the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) and to retire from
the military was apparently the result of a George W. Bush administration
decision to pressure him to resign.*
Announcing the resignation, Defence Secretary Robert M. Gates said he
believed it was "the right thing to do", thus indicating the
administration wanted it.
On Monday, Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell, asked whether Gates
still had full confidence in Fallon, would only say that Fallon "still
enjoys a working -- a good working relationship with the secretary of
defence", and then added, "Admiral Fallon serves at the pleasure of the
president."
The resignation came a few days after the publication of an Esquire
magazine article profiling Fallon in which he was described as being "in
hot water" with the White House and justified public comments departing
from the Bush administration's policy toward Iran. The publicity that
followed the article accelerated the pressure on Fallon to resign.
But Fallon almost certainly knew that he would be fired when he agreed to
cooperate with the Esquire magazine profile in late 2006.
On Tuesday, Fallon issued a statement saying, "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."
The resignation brings to an end a year, during which time Fallon clashed
with the White House over policy toward Iran and with Gen. David Petraeus
and the White House over whether Iraq should continue to be given priority
over Afghanistan and Pakistan in U.S. policy.
Fallon's greatest concern appears to have been preventing war with Iran.
He was one a group of senior military officers, apparently including most
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who were alarmed in late 2006 and early 2007
by indications that Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney were contemplating
a possible attack on Iran.
Gates chose Fallon to replace Gen. John P. Abizaid as CENTCOM chief
shortly after a Dec. 13, 2006 meeting between Bush and the Joint Chiefs at
which Bush reportedly asked their views on a possible strike against Iran.
Col. W. Patrick Lang, a former intelligence officer on the Middle East for
the Defence Intelligence Agency, told the Washington Post last week that
Fallon had said privately at the time of his confirmation that an attack
on Iran "isn't going to happen on my watch", When asked how he could avoid
such a conflict, Fallon reportedly responded, "I have options, you know."
Lang said he interpreted that comment as implying Fallon would step down
rather than follow orders to carry out such an attack.
As IPS reported last May, Fallon was also quoted as saying privately at
that time, "There are several of us trying to put the crazies back in the
box". That was an apparent reference to the opposition by the Joint Chiefs
of Staff to an aggressive war against Iran.
Even before assuming his new post at CENTCOM, Fallon expressed strong
opposition in mid-February to a proposal for sending a third U.S. aircraft
carrier to the Persian Gulf, to overlap with two other carriers, according
to knowledgeable sources. The addition of a third carrier was part of a
broader strategy then being discussed at the Pentagon to intimidate Iran
by making a series of military moves suggesting preparations for a
military strike.
The plan for a third carrier task force in the Gulf was dropped after
Fallon made his views known.
Fallon reportedly made his opposition to a strike against Iran known to
the White House early on in his tenure, and his role as CENTCOM commander
would have made it very difficult for the Bush administration to carry out
a strike against Iran, because he controlled all ground, air and naval
military access to the region.
But Fallon's role in regional diplomacy proved to be an even greater
source of friction with the White House than his position on military
policy toward Iran. Personal relations with military and political leaders
in the Middle East had already become nearly as important as military
planning under Fallon's predecessors at CENTCOM.
Fallon clearly relished his diplomatic role and did not hesitate to
express views on diplomacy that were at odds with those of the
administration. Last summer, as Dick Cheney was maneuvering within the
administration to shift U.S. policy toward an attack on bases in Iran
allegedly connected to anti-U.S. Shiite forces in Iraq, Fallon declared in
an interview, "We have to figure out a way to come to an arrangement" with
Iran.
When Sunni Arab regimes in the Middle East became alarmed about the
possibility of a U.S. war with Iran, Fallon made statements on three
occasions in September and November ruling out a U.S. attack on Iran.
Those statements contradicted the Bush administration's policy of keeping
the military option "on the table" and soured relations with the White
House.
Fallon also antagonised administration officials by pushing for a faster
exit from Iraq than the White House and Gen. Petraeus wanted. Fallon had a
highly-publicised personal and policy clash with Petraeus, for whom he
reportedly expressed a visceral dislike. Sources familiar with reports of
his meetings with Petraeus in Baghdad last March told IPS last spring that
he called him an "ass-kissing little chickens**t" in their first meeting.
Fallon later denied that he had used such language, suggesting to Esquire
that the sources of the report were probably army officers who were
indulging in inter-service rivalry with the navy. In fact, however, the
sources of the report were supporters of Fallon.
Fallon's quarrel with Petraeus was also related to the latter's insistence
on keeping U.S. troops in Iraq, even while the NATO position in
Afghanistan was growing more tenuous. Fallon was strongly committed to a
strategy that gave priority to Afghanistan and Pakistan as the central
security challenges to the United States in the Middle East and Asia.
Fallon made his distaste for a long war in Iraq very clear from the
beginning. He ordered subordinates to stop using the term "long war",
which had been favoured by the Bush administration. He was reported to be
concerned that the concept would alienate people across the Middle East by
suggesting a U.S. intention to maintain troops indefinitely in Muslim
countries.
Fallon's policy positions made him unpopular among neoconservative
supporters of the administration. One neoconservative pundit, military
specialist Max Boot, criticised Fallon last November for his public
comment ruling out a strike against Iran and then suggested in January
that Petraeus should replace the "unimpressive" Fallon at CENTCOM.
Fallon was playing a complex political game at CENTCOM by crossing the
White House on the two most politically sensitive issues in Middle East
policy. As a veteran bureaucratic infighter, he knew that he was
politically vulnerable. Nevertheless, he chose late last year not to lower
his profile but to raise it by cooperating fully with the Esquire article.
IPS has learned that Fallon agreed to sit for celebrity photographer Peter
Yang at CENTCOM headquarters in Tampa Dec. 26 for the Esquire spread,
despite the near-certainty that it would exacerbate his relations with White
House. That may have been a signal that he already knew that he would not
be able to continue to play the game much longer and was ready to bring
his stormy tenure at CENTCOM to an end.
*Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. The
paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of
Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in 2006. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 3:25 pm Post subject: Fallon's Exit Provokes Concern on Path of Bush's Iran Policy |
| Fallon's Exit Provokes Concern on Path of Bush's Iran Policy (Bloomberg.net):
Janine Zacharia and Ken FiremanWed Mar 12, 12:01 AM ET
March 12 (Bloomberg) -- Admiral William Fallon's resignation as U.S. commander in the Middle East provoked criticism that President George W. Bush won't tolerate dissent and fed speculation his Iran policy could become more confrontational.
``Congress needs to determine immediately whether Admiral Fallon's resignation is another example of truth tellers being forced to the sidelines in the Bush administration,'' said Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who lost to Bush in the 2004 election. ``His departure must not clear the way for a rush to war with Iran.''
Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that Fallon, 63, was resigning over perceived differences on Iran policy with the Bush administration as Fallon was starting an Iraq visit yesterday. Fallon will retire from the Navy at the end of March.
``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 his area of responsibility, known as Central Command, Fallon said in a statement.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, a U.S. senator from New York, called Fallon a ``sensible voice'' that supported ``engaging Iran.'' She urged her colleagues to back a bill requiring Bush to get congressional approval before taking any military action against Iran.
Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska lamented Fallon's departure, saying in an interview with Bloomberg Television that he was ``very concerned to see him go.''
Esquire Article
Fallon's resignation came after publication of an article in Esquire magazine, written by Thomas P.M. Barnett, a former professor at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island, that portrayed the admiral as the bulwark against a U.S. offensive against Iran.
``If, in the dying light of the Bush administration, we go to war with Iran, it'll come down to one man,'' Barnett wrote. ``If we do not go to war with Iran, it'll come down to the same man. He is that rarest of creatures in the Bush universe: the good cop on Iran, and a man of strategic brilliance.''
Barnett's article said Fallon might be ousted. Gates described as ``just ridiculous'' the idea raised in the article that if Fallon leaves, it may mean the U.S. is going to war with Iran.
Fallon said while he doesn't believe a policy rift exists, ``the simple perception that there is makes it difficult for me to effectively serve America's interests there.'' Gates said Fallon ``reached this difficult decision entirely on his own.''
Effect of Article
A senior defense official said the Esquire article was the latest and most serious instance in which Fallon appeared to be partially out of step with the rest of the administration.
The official, who spoke with reporters on condition of anonymity, said the cumulative effect was to create a perception that Fallon was operating on his own -- even though his actual views weren't significantly different from those of others in the administration.
In an interview last month in Doha, Qatar, Fallon said Iran continued to supply lethal aid and training to extremist militias in Iraq and said the U.S. was looking for ``a long-term change'' in Iranian behavior, echoing the administration's goals.
Diplomatic, Banking Pressure
While the U.S. is pursuing a policy of diplomatic pressure on Iran at the United Nations and unilateral sanctions to weaken its access to the international banking system, the Bush administration hasn't ruled out military action as an option.
Still, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice struck a conciliatory note last week when she spoke of incentives for Iran should it limit its nuclear work.
The U.S. persuaded the United Nations Security Council this month to approve expanded sanctions against Iran for its failure to suspend uranium enrichment under its nuclear program.
Fallon's area of responsibility stretches from Lebanon all the way to Afghanistan and Pakistan, with the oil-rich Persian Gulf countries in between. Vice President Dick Cheney travels next week to the Middle East to confront a host of challenges that include record oil prices of more than $108 a barrel, Lebanon in a political crisis and a U.S.-backed Israeli- Palestinian peace effort at a standstill.
Fallon, Petraeus
The Esquire article wasn't the first to portray Fallon as out of step with the White House or with Army General David Petraeus, the top-ranking commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.
In September, the Washington Post reported that Petraeus and Fallon were privately split over whether a surge in troops in Iraq would have a long-term impact. Fallon once referred to tough White House rhetoric on Iran as ``not helpful and not useful.''
On March 7, Fallon's straight-talking tendencies came out in testimony to a House panel when he appeared to differ with administration policy on the PKK, the Kurdish militant group in northern Iraq that the U.S. and its ally Turkey define as terrorists.
Fallon said ``some kind of an accommodation'' needs to be reached with the group.
Bush, in a statement, said Fallon, a former naval aviator who went by his call sign ``Fox'' among friends, had served the U.S. ``with great distinction'' for 40 years. Fallon was the first Navy officer to head Central Command.
To contact the reporters on this story: Ken Fireman in Washington at kfireman1@bloomberg.net ; Janine Zacharia in Washington at jzacharia@bloomberg.net | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 5:49 pm Post subject: |
| March 12, 2008
Mideast Commander Retires After Irking Bosses
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/washington/12military.html?ex=1205985600&en=6c1db740fe19ec9e&ei=5070&emc=eta1
By THOM SHANKER
WASHINGTON — Adm. William J. Fallon, the commander of American forces in the Middle East whose outspoken public statements on Iran and other issues had seemed to put him at odds with the Bush administration, is retiring early, the Pentagon announced Tuesday.
Admiral Fallon had rankled senior officials of the Bush administration in recent months with comments that emphasized diplomacy over conflict in dealing with Iran, that endorsed further troop withdrawals from Iraq beyond those already under way and that suggested the United States had taken its eye off the military mission in Afghanistan.
A senior administration official said that, taken together, the comments “left the perception he had a different foreign policy than the president.”
Admiral Fallon, 63, took over the Central Command only a year ago, becoming the first admiral to become the top officer there. In a statement issued by his headquarters, he acknowledged that “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” across his region.
His premature retirement was announced by his civilian boss, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who said he accepted the admiral’s request to retire “with reluctance and regret.”
The White House issued a statement from President Bush that, while complimentary, was pale by comparison to other messages of farewell for senior officials with whom Mr. Bush has worked more closely. The statement said Admiral Fallon had served his country with “honor, determination and commitment” and deserved “considerable credit” for the progress in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In his statement, Admiral Fallon said, “I don’t believe there have been any differences about the objectives of our policy” in the Middle East. Indeed, many of his public statements have fallen within the range of views expressed by Mr. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
But there was no question that the admiral’s premature departure stemmed from what were perceived to be policy differences with the administration on Iran and Iraq, where his views competed with those of Gen. David H. Petraeus, the American commander in Iraq, who is a favorite of the White House.
During a news briefing to announce the retirement of Admiral Fallon, a man hailed by the defense secretary as one of the most brilliant strategic minds in the military, Mr. Gates was asked whether the unexpected departure could be seen as a prelude to preparation for a war with Iran.
“It’s just ridiculous,” Mr. Gates responded.
Across the officer corps, a large number of senior military leaders share Admiral Fallon’s broad assessment that a war with Iran would bring unexpected and, perhaps, unmanageable, risks elsewhere in the Muslim world and around the globe.
But many said they agreed that once it became clear he had lost the confidence of his civilian bosses, it was the responsibility of the four-star admiral to retire. That was especially so, they said, as it became obvious that no great effort was being made by civilian leaders to persuade him to remain in command.
At the same time, some younger officers who have been critical of senior commanders for not speaking up about the risks of invading Iraq now see a senior officer who did speak his mind publicly being prompted to choose early retirement.
A number of officials said the last straw came in an article in Esquire magazine by Thomas P. M. Barnett, a respected military analyst, that profiled Admiral Fallon under the headline “The Man Between War and Peace.”
The article highlighted comments Admiral Fallon made to the Arab television station Al Jazeera last fall, in which he said that a “constant drumbeat of conflict” from Washington that was directed at Iran was “not helpful and not useful.”
“I expect that there will be no war, and that is what we ought to be working for,” Admiral Fallon was quoted as saying. “We ought to try to do our utmost to create different conditions.”
Readers of the Esquire article who are among the admiral’s supporters said they did not believe after reading it that the admiral had made comments that could be viewed as insubordinate to the president. But the cast of the lengthy article put him at odds with the White House.
“If, in the dying light of the Bush administration, we go to war with Iran, it’ll all come down to one man,” the article begins, referring to Admiral Fallon. “If we do not go to war with Iran, it’ll come down to the same man.”
Mr. Gates and Admiral Mullen have maintained an unwavering public line that disagreements with Iran should be resolved diplomatically, and that any military option was only the last resort. That view is frequently expressed by Mr. Bush, although some White House officials are said to hold far more hawkish views on dealing with Iran.
Mr. Gates said Tuesday that Lt. Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the Army officer who is No. 2 at Central Command and has served two tours in Iraq since the invasion of 2003, would temporarily take Admiral Fallon’s place when the admiral retires at the end of this month, and would serve until a permanent replacement was nominated and confirmed by the Senate.
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader, pounced on the retirement announcement, calling it “yet another example that independence and the frank, open airing of experts’ views are not welcome in this administration.”
When Admiral Fallon was nominated in January 2007 to be the commander of American military forces across a region where they are engaged in two ground wars, the choice struck many analysts as odd.
Admiral Fallon replaced Gen. John P. Abizaid of the Army. At the time, a range of senior Pentagon civilians and military officers said Mr. Gates had recommended that Admiral Fallon move from his post as commander of American forces in the Pacific to bring a new strategic view — as well as maritime experience — to the Middle East.
Although known for being tough on his subordinates, he also developed a reputation for nuanced diplomatic negotiations with friendly nations, and with some with whom the United States has more prickly ties.
Steven Lee Myers and David Stout contributed reporting. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 9:00 pm Post subject: |
| Just saw the following about Syria as well (again, going after Syria and Iran is right in accordance with the rest of the 'A Clean Break'/war for Israel agenda - see the 'A Clean Break' post at the top of http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.BLOGSPOT.COM):
US: Syria backs foreign fighters in Iraq (Associated Press) - even more warmongering propaganda for war against Iran
11 minutes ago
Despite increased counterterrorism efforts by Damascus, as much as 90 percent of the foreign fighters in Iraq cross the border from Syria, according to a Pentagon report that says Iran's support for Shiite militants also is hurting efforts to improve Iraq security.
As those external pressures dog coalition and Iraqi forces, the government of Iraq is also hamstrung by internal corruption and persistent problems getting basic services to the people, the report said.
The Defense Department's quarterly report on progress in Iraq, released Tuesday, said that militants continue to find safe havens and logistical support in Syria.
"It is not clear that Syria has made a strategic decision to deal with foreign terrorists using Syria as a transit point into Iraq," said the report, which covers events from December through February.
In late January, Iraqi officials suggested that about 150 foreign and Iraqi fighters slipped into the country from Syria a few months earlier and were responsible for a devastating explosion in northern Iraq that killed at least 38 people and wounded more than 200.
On the other border, meanwhile, Tehran's support for Shiite militant groups remains a sizable threat to stability in Iraq. The report asserts that the Quds Force, an elite unit of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, still provides much of the explosives for the militants.
Several military commanders in recent weeks have said that despite recent promises by Tehran to help promote stability in Iraq, there is continued evidence that Iran is training and funding Shiite extremists.
During a recent visit to Iraq, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismissed the allegations and said instead that the U.S. presence there was the problem.
The Pentagon report reflects the ongoing decline in violence in Iraq, bolstered by last year's increase in U.S. forces and the continuing growth of the Iraqi troops.
But while it specifically points to improved security conditions in Anbar Province, Baghdad and some surrounding areas, it also said al-Qaida remains strong in parts of the Tigris River Valley and in Ninewa Province.
Al-Qaida members, it said, have been targeting key figures in the groups of Sunni tribesman that have joined to fight the terrorists. The U.S.-funded groups are called the Sons of Iraq, and the report said they numbered about 91,000, with more than 71,000 being Sunni and the remainder Shiite.
Overcoming corruption in the government, the judiciary and prison systems continue to be key challenges. And the Iraqi government is still struggling to provide basic services to its citizens. Electricity demands have grown and — as of the report date — outpaced supplies by 57 percent.
While electricity generation hit a record high in December, it then dropped sharply in January due to maintenance and fuel distribution problems.
In related testimony on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, auditors told Congress that Iraq isn't spending much of its own money, despite soaring oil revenues that are pushing the country toward a massive budget surplus.
The expected surplus comes as the U.S. continues to invest billions of dollars in rebuilding Iraq and faces a financial squeeze domestically because of record oil prices.
"The Iraqis have a budget surplus," said U.S. Comptroller General David Walker. "We have a huge budget deficit. ... One of the questions is who should be paying."
Walker and the other auditors did not give a figure as to the likely surplus. U.S. officials contend that Iraq's lack of spending is due primarily to Baghdad's inability to determine where its money is needed most and how to allocate it efficiently. Two senators have called for an investigation into the matter.
Democrats say the assessment is proof that the Iraq war as a waste of time and money. The U.S. has spent more than $45 billion on rebuilding Iraq. And while officials in Iraq contend that much progress is being made, many projects remain unfinished and U.S. troops are still needed to provide security.
"They ought to be able to use some of their oil to pay for their own costs and not keep sending the bill to the United States," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.
___
Associated Press writer Anne Flaherty contributed to this report.
___
On the Net:
Defense Department: http://www.defenselink.mil | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:48 pm Post subject: |
| NBC Makes Mockery of US Constitution & Rule of Law
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U42a45F-vuE
Message to Jim Miklaszewski, NBC News Chief Pentagon Correspondent:
Dear Mr. Miklaszewski,
Could you explain why you use euphemisms to cover-up what is in fact a war crime? ... | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
