Another obstacle to Iran attack is removed

[turbo]

Admiral Fallon is resigning. It is supposedly voluntary, and doesn't signal a change in policy toward Iran, but since his resistance to mounting attacks on Iran is the main sticking point between him and the administration, this does not bode well for ME stability. It's often the case that the denied reasons for high-level resignations are exactly the reasons. Once he has resigned, I hope he gets really vocal about his experiences.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080311/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/fallon_resigns;_ylt=Ai.L00FE121gstImECd_niys0NUE

 

[russ_watters]

Admirals don't write national foreign policy.

 

[Supercritical]

Can anyone find a quote (even from the linked article) that Fallon was actually opposed to Bush's Iran policy? I think turbo-1 glossed over the finer details (which are very relevant) and drew a premature conclusion.

"I don't believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command area of responsibility," Fallon said, and he regretted "the simple perception that there is."

 

[mgb_phys]

In government generally an official quote claiming there is no difference between two people is generally regarded as proof that they are at each others throats!

 

[turbo]

Fallon was the subject of an article published last week in Esquire magazine that portrayed him as at odds with a president eager to go to war with Iran. Titled "The Man Between War and Peace," it described Fallon as a lone voice against taking military action to stop the Iranian nuclear program.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080311/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/fallon_resigns;_ylt=AnN3VvpbF8rihCh795VHBe.s0NUE

When Bush and Cheney floated the idea of attacking Iran, Fallon said "Not on my watch." You can parse that any way you want, but I'm taking him at his word. Now, the upcoming (I really hope NOT) attacks on Iran won't be on his watch.

 

[Astronuc]

Fallon, Top U.S. Commander in Mideast, Resigns
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88116189
by Tom Bowman

All Things Considered, March 11, 2008 · The top U.S. military commander for the Middle East has resigned. Adm. William Fallon reportedly has differed with the Bush administration on Iran policy. Fallon, in a statement, suggested that there were not differences but that the "perception" of differences made it hard for him to do his job as head of Central Command.

He apparently did make a statement along the lines that the US ought not to press for military action in Iran and should make an effort to prevent war. He's right of course.

 

[turbo]

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39235

He demonstrated his independence from the White House when he refused in February to go along with a proposal to send a third naval carrier task force to the Persian Gulf, as reported by IPS in May. Fallon questioned the military necessity for the move, which would have signaled to Iran a readiness to go to war. Fallon also privately vowed that there would be no war against Iran on his watch, implying that he would quit rather than accept such a policy.

 

[russ_watters]

I agree with not having 3 carriers in the Gulf, but I don't think the issue has anything to do with Iran: we're down to 10 active carriers. It just isn't practical to have 3 in the same place at once.

IIRC, though, when we had 3 all they did was overlap the tours by a month.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

The US is unlikely to attack Iran, I should know Bush told me.

Seriously though, I just can't see any sort of attack happening atm, they just haven't got a reason to, and I don't think it would be particularly popular either. You really can't attack someone just because you don't like them, you need a bit more than that. It's not playground time.

 

[turbo]

The Bush administration has shown that it does not need a reason to launch a military offensive against another country. In the case of Iraq, they made up their "reasons" to mollify Congress, and then questioned the patriotism of anyone who disagreed with the war. Even now, suggestions for setting guidelines to wind down the Iraq occupation and disengage are derided by Bush and Cheney as "surrender". Given the recklessness that this administration has demonstrated in foreign affairs, and their inability to see anything other than military "solutions" for the problems we face, Fallon's resignation is very troubling. The most likely scenario is that he was under increasing pressure to launch carrier-based air strikes against Iran, and that he has resigned rather than comply. Guys like Fallon don't walk away from a life of military service just because they want to help an administration save face or reduce the appearance of internal conflict. He was forced out.

 

[BobG]

Turbo's article, http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39235, illustrates the real reason Fallon is resigning. He lost his battle over the surge to a subordinate (and one he particularly dislikes):

In sharp contrast to the lionisation of Gen. David Petraeus by members of the U.S. Congress during his testimony this week, Petraeus's superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.

Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be "an ass-kissing little chicken****" and added, "I hate people like that", the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.

An opposing view on Fallon is provided by http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-boot12mar12,0,3473735.story .

This is not, however, a strategy that Fallon favored. Not only was Fallon "quietly opposed to a long-term surge in Iraq," as Barnett notes, but he doesn't seem to have changed his mind in the past year. He has tried to undermine the surge by pushing for faster troop drawdowns than Petraeus thought prudent. ("He wants troop levels in Iraq down now.") The president wisely deferred to the man on the spot -- Petraeus -- thus no doubt leaving Fallon simmering with the sort of anger that came through all too clearly in Esquire.

Like a lot of smart guys (or, at any rate, guys who think they're smart), Fallon seems to have outsmarted himself. He thinks the war in Iraq is a distraction from formulating "a comprehensive strategy for the Middle East," according to the profile. The reality is that the only strategy worth a dinar is to win the war in Iraq. If we fail there, all other objectives in the region will be much harder to attain; if we succeed, they will be much easier.

There's two things that affect Fallon's viewpoint on the surge:

1) The US military only has so many troops. Committing so many to Iraq means the US has less ability to respond to whatever may happen in Pakistan, less ability to take matters into their own hands along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, and less ability to maintain some kind of status quo with Iran. Starting a new war in Iran would push military manning so far beyond its capabilities that our entire Middle East strategy would collapse. (Max Boot is wrong that "By irresponsibly taking the option of force off the table, Fallon makes it more likely, not less, that there will ultimately be an armed confrontation with Iran." Thinking Iran can't see how far the military is already stretched is assuming that Iran's leadership consists of morons.)

2) While Boot is right that success in Iraq will make other objectives in the region easier to obtain, he doesn't talk about the odds of succeeding. Historically, civil wars last for decades and are only resolved by one side wiping out the other. The actions of Iraq's government has shown very little reason to believe Iraq will wind up any different than other countries that have been torn by ethnic civil wars. Banking on success in Iraq is like planning to pay your bills as soon as you win the lottery - it might actually happen! But, it probably won't. A Middle East plan that accepts and accounts for an ongoing ethnic civil war in Iraq has a better chance for success than one that depends on success in Iraq. The reduction in violence as a result of the surge just delays development of a realistic plan for the entire Middle East region.

If the administration could point to some other ethnic civil war that was resolved by a peaceful sharing of power in a democratic government and point to how they were using lessons learned from that civil war to improve the chances of success in Iraq, their position would be more credible. The fact that they haven't is a pretty telling gap in their story.

As it is, there's good reason for Fallon (and others) to doubt the wisdom of making such a long shot roll of the die an absolutely critical piece of the overall US Middle East strategy.

 

[Astronuc]

The Bush administration undermined, even sabotaged, a victory in Iraq from day 1, particularly with Paul Bremer and CPA. Thousands of Iraqi civilians were killed by US forces, and that right there precluded victory. The US military and CPA subsequently to secure and stabilize the country and provide basic acceptable living standards/conditions to the civilian population.

 

[mgb_phys]

The 'not at all a civil war' in Northern Ireland has more or less resolved itself peacefully after either 350year / 90years / 30years of violence depending on how far you want to push history.

It had the classic setup - a peacekeeping force from a well equipped democratic military that was basically supporting one side, a set of 'insurgents/terrorsists/freedom fighters' that were being supported by another foreign government and a local elected government with no power.

Peace came about either because a new government in charge of the military force decided to play nicely with both sides, or the foot soldiers on the 'I/T/FF' side worked out thaty could just run the drugs and protection rackets and keep the money instead of donating it to the cause, or the leaders of each side realized that they were getting old and being legititmate politicians with a pension might be better than being targets for some up and coming new generation of I/T/FF in search of promotion.

Either way - good luck in Iraq for the next few generations!

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

The Bush administration has shown that it does not need a reason to launch a military offensive against another country. In the case of Iraq, they made up their "reasons" to mollify Congress, and then questioned the patriotism of anyone who disagreed with the war. Even now, suggestions for setting guidelines to wind down the Iraq occupation and disengage are derided by Bush and Cheney as "surrender". Given the recklessness that this administration has demonstrated in foreign affairs, and their inability to see anything other than military "solutions" for the problems we face, Fallon's resignation is very troubling. The most likely scenario is that he was under increasing pressure to launch carrier-based air strikes against Iran, and that he has resigned rather than comply. Guys like Fallon don't walk away from a life of military service just because they want to help an administration save face or reduce the appearance of internal conflict. He was forced out.

Oh I agree but I can't see him doing anything now, he just hasn't got enough support or time left. I don't even think Bush would be that stupid, although...

 

[turbo]

Oh I agree but I can't see him doing anything now, he just hasn't got enough support or time left. I don't even think Bush would be that stupid, although...

I don't have your confidence in his intelligence, nor his perceived "need" for support. He has proven over and over that given an opportunity to engage with countries with whom we have disagreements, he will use a real or threatened military attack to coerce them instead. It wouldn't take much of an "incident" - real, imagined, or fabricated - to trigger an air-war against Iran. Such a war would stop all gulf tanker traffic for the duration, giving Bush and Cheney's friends in the oil business huge windfall profits. If he attacks Iran, we in the US will be praying for $5/gal gas.

Adm. Fallon wanted to back down on the use of military force and forge regional alliances to help restore peace, so we could spend our military resources on extremist groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan. To Bush, the very notion of negotiating with Syria and Iran (who have very real security concerns regarding the situation in Iraq) is off-bounds. I hope Adm. Fallon writes a tell-all book about his last command - it would probably be a doozy!

 

[BobG]

The 'not at all a civil war' in Northern Ireland has more or less resolved itself peacefully after either 350year / 90years / 30years of violence depending on how far you want to push history.

It had the classic setup - a peacekeeping force from a well equipped democratic military that was basically supporting one side, a set of 'insurgents/terrorsists/freedom fighters' that were being supported by another foreign government and a local elected government with no power.

Peace came about either because a new government in charge of the military force decided to play nicely with both sides, or the foot soldiers on the 'I/T/FF' side worked out thaty could just run the drugs and protection rackets and keep the money instead of donating it to the cause, or the leaders of each side realized that they were getting old and being legititmate politicians with a pension might be better than being targets for some up and coming new generation of I/T/FF in search of promotion.

Either way - good luck in Iraq for the next few generations!

Generally, declaring ends to civil wars is a little like declaring a recession. They're done after the fact (about 5 years after the fact in the case of civil wars) to see if a given settlement really worked or was a mere lull in the violence. The 5 year time frame is purely arbitrary. Civil wars successfully resolved by peaceful power sharing include Lebanon and Sudan. In both those countries, it took around 10 years for a new civil war to break out.

None the less, the presumptive resolution of problems in Northern Ireland do provide a lesson on at least one way to resolve civil wars:

If there are lessons from counter-terrorism in Ulster, they seem to be this. Recruit very good spies; then hire some more. Then give it time to work. The murders, the long wait and the compromises of the exit strategy may well grind the moderates to dust. Then wait some more. After that, the politicians can make their entrance.

According to a few books discussed in the article, Who Really Brought Peace to Belfast, it took a civil servant bureaucracy and 30 years of infiltrating the IRA to finally bring peace.

There are a few other successes that appear more inspiring (South Africa for example), but the tough step is explaining how to take lessons from those successes and apply them to Iraq in some meaningful way that doesn't include 'decades' as the scale for its timeline.

 

[mgb_phys]

I lived there for a while - the reason for 'peace' seemed to be a combination of:

Improved prosperity - it's hard to feel an oppressed occupied people when you have a shiny new BMW and your house equity went up 20% last year.

A new British government without the baggage of 15 years of 'we will crush terrorism' rhetoric.

An ageing leadership by both sides who fancied a Nobel prize more than a bullet.

A reduction in public (especially American) support for 'freedom fighters' following 9/11


On the down side - a new generation of foot 'soldiers' that now run the same fund raising efforts for themselves mean that some areas have got more dangerous since the peace - but these are poor estates so nobody cares.


There were some very good lessons to learn - talking to both sides, disbanding partisan police forces, reducing military and security presence.
A lesson that hasn't apparently been learned is that after 30years and 3500deaths from terrorism, Britain managed to survive with only the removal of litter bins from railway stations. Now the threat of Al-Queada means that we must have total surveliance, ID cards, new police powers etc ...

 

[edward]

Could this be another piece to the Iran puzzle?

Tucson-based Raytheon Missile Systems said today it has developed and tested a new conventional warhead technology to smash hardened and deeply buried bunkers.
The new technology, called the Tandem Warhead System, consists of a precursor "shaped-charge" warhead — shaped to focus its explosive energy — combined with a follow-through penetrator explosive charge, the company said.
During a Jan. 31 test, the new 1,000-pound-class warhead set a record when it punched through 19 feet, 3 inches of a 20-foot, 330-ton, reinforced concrete block with a high-velocity jet of molten metal, Raytheon said.

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/biz-topheadlines/229356.php

 

[russ_watters]

The Bush administration has shown that it does not need a reason to launch a military offensive against another country.

He, of course had reasons, he just didn't necessarily have the right ones.

The most likely scenario is that he was under increasing pressure to launch carrier-based air strikes against Iran, and that he has resigned rather than comply.

That is complete speculation. Completely baseless.

Guys like Fallon don't walk away from a life of military service just because they want to help an administration save face or reduce the appearance of internal conflict. He was forced out.

He may have been forced-out, but guys like Fallon have a strong sense of duty. If something was getting in the way of him performing that duty (whether a real or perceived conflict doesn't matter), he would leave rather than perform his duties in a compromised fashion.

 

[russ_watters]

Turbo's article, http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39235, illustrates the real reason Fallon is resigning. He lost his battle over the surge to a subordinate (and one he particularly dislikes):

That may be true, but it is odd that it would take more than a year for him to resign over it. I'd like to think he'd be more professional than to resign over sour grapes, now that the surge has proven effective in reducing the violence.

The article paints him as being a career contrarian, and if that's true, I don't know why he'd quit now over an interpersonal conflict. Unless the whole point is that he expects to win conflicts with subordinates. It would be incredibly ironic if he built his career on not being afraid to stand up to superiors, but quit because of being on the other end of it.

 

[Art]

IIRC Bush said some time ago that he would solve the 'Iranian problem' before leaving office as it would be unfair to hand it over to the next administration.

Recent events such as Cheney's forthcoming visit to the ME region, the stationing of anti-missile ships off Lebanon, the pushing back of the Iranian funded Hezbollah from Israel's borders and the anti-Iranian rhetoric casting Iran's president as the new Hitler (Saddam being the last one awarded that particular accolade) all seem to be steps to prepare the way for what seems to be, following the resignation of Fallon, an imminent US/Israeli strike against Iran. Even the US sponsored Israel/Palestinian peace talks fit the picture as the US gov't always seems to announce a new peace initiative just before they do something which they think is going to annoy a lot of people in the ME.

I'd guess due to Bush's lack of political capital his initial military role will be limited to supplying Israel with the tools to do the job but he will then stand by to protect Israel from the repercussions.

 

[turbo]

IIRC Bush said some time ago that he would solve the 'Iranian problem' before leaving office as it would be unfair to hand it over to the next administration.

Recent events such as Cheney's forthcoming visit to the ME region, the stationing of anti-missile ships off Lebanon, the pushing back of the Iranian funded Hezbollah from Israel's borders and the anti-Iranian rhetoric casting Iran's president as the new Hitler (Saddam being the last one awarded that particular accolade) all seem to be steps to prepare the way for what seems to be, following the resignation of Fallon, an imminent US/Israeli strike against Iran. Even the US sponsored Israel/Palestinian peace talks fit the picture as the US gov't always seems to announce a new peace initiative just before they do something which they think is going to annoy a lot of people in the ME.

Art, it would seem as if you want to take the war-mongers in the Bush administration at their word. That's a pretty good bet, and if you want to delve back a bit further to his families' participation in the financing of the Nazi party in WWII you'll find that war-mongering is a family business.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Turbo-1, while there is much to criticize President Bush for, I don't believe it is fair to criticize him for actions that his grandfather took years before he was born.

 

[russ_watters]

Recent events such as Cheney's forthcoming visit to the ME region, the stationing of anti-missile ships off Lebanon, the pushing back of the Iranian funded Hezbollah from Israel's borders and the anti-Iranian rhetoric casting Iran's president as the new Hitler (Saddam being the last one awarded that particular accolade) all seem to be steps to prepare the way for what seems to be, following the resignation of Fallon, an imminent US/Israeli strike against Iran. Even the US sponsored Israel/Palestinian peace talks fit the picture as the US gov't always seems to announce a new peace initiative just before they do something which they think is going to annoy a lot of people in the ME.

How is any of that different from the rhetoric Bush has been spewing for the past 7 years? The "axis of evil" speech was made in January of 2002.

 

[wildman]

Why do you all think the surge is working? Cooperation by Iran. Of course, if we attack them, all that cooperation will dissolve into open hostility. It would be a very easy thing for Iran to cause all kinds of trouble in Iraq.

 

[Poop-Loops]

Why do you all think the surge is working?

It's working?

 

[Art]

How is any of that different from the rhetoric Bush has been spewing for the past 7 years? The "axis of evil" speech was made in January of 2002.

Taken in the context of the first paragraph I wrote, time is running out for him to make good on his statement that it would be, "‘unfair’ to leave the task of destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities to a new president", which was originally reported by the Sunday Times based on leaked documents and reprinted here http://www.allthingsbeautiful.com/all_things_beautiful/2006/04/does_the_presid.html

If Bush does attack Iran directly or through his proxy Israel I suspect it will be an even bigger mistake with even greater negative consequences than his decision to invade Iraq. Don't you agree?

 

[russ_watters]

Taken in the context of the first paragraph I wrote, time is running out for him to make good on his statement that it would be, "‘unfair’ to leave the task of destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities to a new president"

I have no beef with that statement - just the part where you talk about seven year old "recent events".

... I suspect...

Don't you agree?

Yes, I agree that you suspect.

Art, there just isn't enough content there to actually agree or disagree with. You didn't say anything.

 

[russ_watters]

It's working?

Yes.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

IIRC Bush said some time ago that he would solve the 'Iranian problem' before leaving office as it would be unfair to hand it over to the next administration.

Yeah what's he going to do wave a magic wand?

Recent events such as Cheney's forthcoming visit to the ME region, the stationing of anti-missile ships off Lebanon, the pushing back of the Iranian funded Hezbollah from Israel's borders and the anti-Iranian rhetoric casting Iran's president as the new Hitler (Saddam being the last one awarded that particular accolade) all seem to be steps to prepare the way for what seems to be, following the resignation of Fallon, an imminent US/Israeli strike against Iran. Even the US sponsored Israel/Palestinian peace talks fit the picture as the US gov't always seems to announce a new peace initiative just before they do something which they think is going to annoy a lot of people in the ME. I'd guess due to Bush's lack of political capital his initial military role will be limited to supplying Israel with the tools to do the job but he will then stand by to protect Israel from the repercussions.

I too think they'd prefer to just fight proxy wars between Israel and Hezbollah. Less costly.

Yes.

Not that I disagree but a recent article might be nice just for interest.