Fallon quits as CentCom chief, will retire

[CommunityEditor]

An embattled Adm. William Fallon has submitted his resignation as chief of the U.S. Central Command and has requested retirement from the Navy, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced today that he has accepted that request.

Fallon, who has led the command responsible for all U.S. military operations in the Middle East since March 2007, was profiled in the current issue of Esquire magazine as an officer who challenged the Bush administration’s position on Iran.

In a Washington Post story, Fallon called the story “poison pen stuff.”

Gates said Fallon told him this morning that “the current embarrassing situation, public perception of differences between my view and administration policy, and the distraction this causes from the mission, make this the right thing to do.”

Gates told reporters at the Pentagon that he had approved Fallon’s request “with reluctance and regret.”

Fallon will be temporarily replaced March 31 by Army Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, Central Command deputy commander, until a permanent replacement can be nominated, Gates said.


Article: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/03/military_fallon_resigns_031108/

[bill_fogarty]

Wow. Regardless of what the Admiral claims, I myself would not be surprised if there was more to do with it than just the story. As the tradition of most brass, Admiral Fallon won't say anything about the 'gory' details of his disagreement of an attack on Iran...at least not until years later safe in his retirement.

Earlier, Admiral Fallon had been clear he did not support a new war against Iran. Now, it looks like POTUS will put in a CentCom that will stamp and sign any military plan for Iran attack that is handed to him.

By the way, everyone knows Wolfowitz is now back at the Pentagon, right? Funny how that works. There is talk around the blogosphere that Kagan and Keane at AEI are playing another role in activities for Pentagon planning.

In my opinion, it is even odds that Cheney and his team will be pushing hard for an attack on Iran before the end of summer. We'll see what President Bush does, and what Congress does.

[PUALLOFF]

Wow. Regardless of what the Admiral claims, I myself would not be surprised if there was more to do with it than just the story. As the tradition of most brass, Admiral Fallon won't say anything about the 'gory' details of his disagreement of an attack on Iran...at least not until years later safe in his retirement.

Earlier, Admiral Fallon had been clear he did not support a new war against Iran. Now, it looks like POTUS will put in a CentCom that will stamp and sign any military plan for Iran attack that is handed to him.

By the way, everyone knows Wolfowitz is now back at the Pentagon, right? Funny how that works. There is talk around the blogosphere that Kagan and Keane at AEI are playing another role in activities for Pentagon planning.

In my opinion, it is even odds that Cheney and his team will be pushing hard for an attack on Iran before the end of summer. We'll see what President Bush does, and what Congress does.


Oh please....what an active imagination you have.

[Quds Force Cadre]

I, for one, am appalled that POTUS could have put this Al Qaedo mole into such a position of responsibility in the first place.

Now, let the games begin. We are waiting for you. The Great Satan will drown in the sweat of a thousand--nay, two thousand and possibly several more than two thousand--camels.

wait! what's this crud on my palm? Never mind, it does not invalidate my, er, valid, er, and highly moral ethical position.

[bill_fogarty]

Oh please....what an active imagination you have.

Sure, some of post was a little overzealous.

But most people know that Bush and Cheney get rid of military brass that disagree with their belief and ideology. Look at what happened to Gen. Shinseki. Despite his other faults, he was 100% right on how many troops it would take to secure Iraq after the invasion. And he was essentially cut at the knees when Rumsfield announced his replacement well over a year before hand.

Same deal happened to Lawrence Lindsey who made a public statement to the Congress that it might cost $200 billion for the war. The numbers were too high for the President’s liking, so he fired the messenger. Mr. Lindsey was gone.

Read "Cobra II" if you want to see how Cheney's thinktank civilians (Wolfowitz, Feith, Cambone) who basically ran CentCom and told the Generals how military strategy would be run. It was an echo of suits with no military experience running targeting like in Vietnam days.

So, we have an Administration that fires those that express any concern that runs counter to their ideology. And yes, I really believe the ideology in this Administrations wants to start a unilateral, pre-emptive military strike against Iran. It may or may not happen. But we know the drum-beats of published articles and AEI thinktank continues on.

[alvarezjc]

I'm not going to go into the reasons behind his resignation.
However, please give the Admiral due credit. He served the DOD for over 40 years. He resigned! If possible please change the title of this thread to "Adm Fallon resigns as CentCom CDR, will retire"

He did not quit! You don’t quit after 40 years.
s/f
Sgt A

[Rasputin]

I'm not going to go into the reasons behind his resignation.
However, please give the Admiral due credit. He served the DOD for over 40 years. He resigned! If possible please change the title of this thread to "Adm Fallon resigns as CentCom CDR, will retire"

He did not quit! You don’t quit after 40 years.
s/f
Sgt A


A more accurate title would be: "Adm. Fallon is forced to retire for telling the truth", which is something that Bush and Co. consider high treason.

[alvarezjc]

A more accurate title would be: "Adm. Fallon is forced to retire for telling the truth", which is something that Bush and Co. consider high treason.

No. I do believe the SECDEF when he says this was Adm Fallon’s decision. When put into a position like that you serve at the pleasure of the President. You must be very political; even when it is against our nature as Military men. You should be able to discuss your ideas with the Joint Chiefs, SECDEF, and the President. These discussions should be private not public. I’m not saying he should not do interviews…just make sure your words can’t be twisted. His words were twisted to make it look like he was totally against the ideas of the Administration. Not a good place to be. Just my 2 cents.
s/f
Sgt A

[TJMAC77SP]

While not agreeing that Fallon should have been 'forced' to retire I would like to remind you all of a piece of history.

Major General Jack Singlaub and President Carter

(I bet you thought I was going to go back to Truman and MacArthur)

[FINKD]

His retirement is the result of politics played a the highest levels of the military and the government.

[Rasputin]

His retirement is the result of politics played a the highest levels of the military and the government.


Correct, and politics played in this context only show what the real interests of the politicians are, damn security or honest opinions, they will do whatever is politically expedient regardless of the consequences to the country, the soldiers or the so called national security.

There is no doubt in my mind that we was retired for his opinions, however mildly against the administration they might have been.

[alvarezjc]

New Centcom Chief Will Be a Quick Study
WASHINGTON (AP) — The abrupt departure of the four-star general in charge of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has set off a scramble within the Bush administration to fill a job that requires vast combat experience, deft diplomatic skills, and the ability to handle the prickly question of what to do about Iran.
While President Bush may pick a surprise candidate to replace Adm. William Fallon, who resigned after just one year as leader of U.S. Central Command, he's expected to choose a senior Army general who can see the big picture and doesn't need a lot of time to become familiar with the political dynamics of the volatile Middle East.
"He's looking for a guy who'll be a quick study," said retired Army Maj. Gen. Robert Scales, former commandant of the Army War College. "He's also looking for someone who can take a strategic view of radical Islam rather than just focusing on the tactical fight. And he needs to be a person who's trusted in the region."
Each of the military branches will propose candidates to succeed Fallon at Central Command. Defense Secretary Robert Gates will make his recommendation to the president.
Due to his star power, Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq since February 2007, has emerged as a leading possibility although he may be more valuable in Iraq.
Petraeus is highly regarded inside the White House and on Capitol Hill for overseeing the reduction in violence in Baghdad and other key areas in Iraq. For those reasons, Petraeus should stay right where he is, said retired Army Maj. Gen. David Grange.
"I wouldn't move Petraeus," said Grange, a former commander of the 1st Infantry Division. "I would keep continuity of command. It's too important to move someone out of there quickly."
Gates said recently that Bush had made it clear to him that he wanted to keep Petraeus in Iraq until late this year. Petraeus is likely to get a second four-star assignment after his tour in Iraq concludes.
Other possibilities include Army Lt. Gens. Martin Dempsey, Ray Odierno, Stanley McChrystal and Peter Chiarelli. All have substantial experience in Iraq.
Headquartered at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Fla., Central Command is arguably the military's most important warfighting organization. Its commander is responsible for operations in a swath of the globe that reaches from Central Asia to the Horn of Africa, a region where religious extremism has fueled al-Qaida and other terrorist groups.
The job of Central Command chief is as much about statesmanship as it is about using heavily armed forces. Fallon, like his predecessors, spent much of his time traveling throughout the region in an effort to build relationships that would produce support for U.S. interests and reduce al-Qaida's influence.
"You really need somebody who can deal with our friends in that region," said retired Navy Adm. Bob Natter, former commander of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet. "This job has more to do with understanding (leaders in) the region and being there for a while so they can get to know you."
The post is a high-profile one and the occupant has to be politically savvy. Fallon quit after an Esquire magazine article described him as being at odds with a White House eager to go to war with Iran. Titled "The Man Between War and Peace," the article cast Fallon as a lone voice against taking military action to stop the Iranian nuclear program.
The Central Command chief ostensibly is senior to Petraeus and Army Gen. Dan McNeill, who leads U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan. The arrangement, however, led to friction on Fallon's watch, especially over the timing and pace of drawing down U.S. troops from Iraq.
Central Command manages tens of thousands of soldiers, Marines, airmen and sailors, yet those troops are recruited, trained and equipped by the individual military branches. The new commander must have a solid understanding of the challenges each of the branches faces in producing a steady flow of forces.
"The job requires an officer with knowledge of the area, who hopefully is respected in the area, and who is also respected by the other services," said Mike Delong, a retired Marine Corps general who was deputy commander at Central Command from 2000 to 2003. "And he's got to hit the ground running."
Dempsey, Fallon's deputy, has been named acting commander until a permanent successor is nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Dempsey is still thought to be a contender for the Central Command post even though the Defense Department announced in early February he had been selected to head Army forces in Europe. The new assignment comes with a fourth star.
Prior to being named Central Command's deputy commander last spring, Dempsey spent nearly three years in Iraq as a battlefield commander and head of the unit responsible for training Iraq's security forces.
Odierno, until recently the former No. 2 commander in Iraq, has been nominated for promotion to four-star general and is scheduled to take over as the Army's vice chief of staff.
In March 2003, Odierno was commander of the 4th Infantry Division and led the unit during the invasion of Iraq. He has been critical of Iran for supplying weapons to Shiite militias in Iraq.
"We have no doubt they are still supporting insurgents," Odierno said of the Iranians at a recent Pentagon press conference. "If you ask me what I worry about most, I do worry about that as a long-term threat. And I think we have to, you know, constantly watch it."
McChrystal, who was just named to a top post on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, controls U.S. commandos in Iraq. As head of the shadowy Joint Special Operations Command, he typically works behind the scenes. But his name was pulled into the spotlight last year following investigations into the April 2004 friendly fire death of former NFL star Pat Tillman.
Just a day after approving a medal claiming Tillman had been cut down by "devastating enemy fire" in Afghanistan, McChrystal tried to warn Bush that the story might not be true, according to testimony from the investigation. But top Army officials concluded McChrystal did nothing wrong.
Chiarelli serves as Gates' senior military assistant and is a former senior commander in Iraq. He led day-to-day military operations before transferring command to Odierno. Chiarelli also is a former commander of the 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood, Texas.
Bush, however, could buck convention again. Selecting Fallon, a naval aviator who flew missions in Vietnam, was viewed as an unusual move because the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are being fought on the ground mostly by soldiers and Marines.
But Fallon was seen by the administration as an ideal fit because he had been head of U.S. Pacific Command and was used to dealing with thorny political problems involving China, Taiwan and North Korea.
"The job goes beyond Iraq and Afghanistan," said Rep. Bill Young, a longtime Florida congressman whose district borders Central Command's headquarters.
The color of the uniform "doesn't matter nearly as much as the experience the candidate for this very responsible position would bring to the table," Young said.

[Unregistered]

Admiral Fallon knew the deal. We have leaders in the White House and in the Pentagon who are ideologues who want to start a new war. They believe the US is a new empire and it is our job to exert hegemony over the world. Whatever you call their reasons "for democracy" it is essentially a perverted Wilsonian dream of planting America style democracy by bayonet and by barrel of gun. The report of the Pentagon today just kicked another "fact" to the ashcan - Iraq had NOTHING to link it with Al Qaeda. So, a recap of so-called justification for the Iraq invasion:

- Iraq has WMDs to attack America - lie
- Iraq has an nuclear weapons development "smoking gun in a mushroom cloud" to attack America - lie
- Iraq was involved in 9-11 - lie
- Iraq was linked to Al Qaeda - lie

All lies.
And now, here is the legacy for Bush and GOP legacy --- 4000 dead soldiers and Marines, 40,000 crippled, maimed, disabled vets, 100,000 broken marriages & families, $3+ trillion wasted.

IMO those here who really believe in their oaths to the US Constitution now really need to ask themselves if they can continue to serve in the military with this president and a national policy and military strategy which is completely anathema to the founding principles of our Republic.

[Rasputin]

Admiral Fallon knew the deal. We have leaders in the White House and in the Pentagon who are ideologues who want to start a new war. They believe the US is a new empire and it is our job to exert hegemony over the world. Whatever you call their reasons "for democracy" it is essentially a perverted Wilsonian dream of planting America style democracy by bayonet and by barrel of gun. The report of the Pentagon today just kicked another "fact" to the ashcan - Iraq had NOTHING to link it with Al Qaeda. So, a recap of so-called justification for the Iraq invasion:

- Iraq has WMDs to attack America - lie
- Iraq has an nuclear weapons development "smoking gun in a mushroom cloud" to attack America - lie
- Iraq was involved in 9-11 - lie
- Iraq was linked to Al Qaeda - lie

All lies.
And now, here is the legacy for Bush and GOP legacy --- 4000 dead soldiers and Marines, 40,000 crippled, maimed, disabled vets, 100,000 broken marriages & families, $3+ trillion wasted.

IMO those here who really believe in their oaths to the US Constitution now really need to ask themselves if they can continue to serve in the military with this president and a national policy and military strategy which is completely anathema to the founding principles of our Republic.


Right on all points, I can't wait to see the response from neocons and right wing nuts to your post.

The Bush gang not only perpetrated these lies on the country but then they proceeded to execute their "conquest" with the utmost incompetence and corruption, as shown by the billions spent on coporate favors to Halliburton and the like, while the soldiers lacked esential equipment. Adding insult to injury the soldiers had to listen to Rumsfeld telling them that you go to war with the Army you have, not with the Army you wished you had.

And now we have a GOP presidential candidate who wants to stay in the Middle East for a hundred years, nice going.

[TJMAC77SP]

I will repeat myself for those who want to paint this as an isolated incident uniquely indicative of this administration.

While not agreeing that Fallon should have been 'forced' to retire I would like to remind you all of a piece of history.

Major General Jack Singlaub and President Carter

[Unregistered]

I will repeat myself for those who want to paint this as an isolated incident uniquely indicative of this administration.

While not agreeing that Fallon should have been 'forced' to retire I would like to remind you all of a piece of history.

Major General Jack Singlaub and President Carter

I second (or, third this). Let's make sure that, when discussing issues facing the nation today, we bring up vaguely similar things that happened 30 years ago.

It is only fair to the good people of America that, when faced with the prospect of having a 3rd war shoved down our throats, they be reassured that life always sucked.

I will go even further: Hillary and Obama are going to surrender to the terrorists. AND they will fire brigadier generals (and possibly Colonels). Guaranteed.

[Into exile, go, I have]

Let's be clear about the issue here. It isn't whether the Commander in Chief has the perogative of appointing and removing his top commanders. I think we can all agree that he does.

Those of us (myself included) who find this particular personnel move challenging, take issue with it, as far as I can tell, because they don't care for the management direction of this particular CiC. I mean, we don't want a war with Iran. Can we agree on that?

A reasonable analysis of the objections would probably include the logic that a) the role of the President is to represent the best interests of the American people as a whole, b) a war with Iran is not manifestly in the best interests of anyone (outside a small click of investors in military goods & services and major oil companies), and c) a competent or concientious President would give some weight to the advice of reasonable experts in his decisions that impact the American people, rather than punishing them for differing from the views of those who seek to steer the machinery of American government to further their own narrow agendas.


Of course, my well-reasoned and, I think, more or less fair analysis, won't really stand up in the face of a lively rebuttal by the supporters of administration. Which will probably be delivered by getting me fired from my job, disgraced and humiliated, and shoved into a cell in Gitmo for further psychological experimentation.

Or, does anyone think I could stand up to that kind of rebuttal? If so, thank you for your faith, I take a bow to you.

[Eric Van Den Bosch]

One of the points I find interesting in the Esquire article is the access and engagement that the writer, Mr Barnett, had with Adm Fallon. His access through repeated intimate interviews over several months was required for an article of this depth. Here in our military education system, we are being encouraged to engage with the media. While the truth may be hard to report sometimes, delays in reporting and media isolation often encourages rumors and half-truths to become the public's 'truth'. Adm Fallon's engagement with Mr Barnett demonstrates a culture change we are working through -- from an isolationist or even an outright adversarial relationship in the past to an interdependent relationship that can benefit both parties in the present and future -- even if in this case it provided a step closer to retirement.

That being said, as a military officer, like all service members, we have taken an oath to support and defend the constitution and to obey the orders of the President of the United States. The American people elect the civil authorities, both the executive and legislative branches, and we must be resolute in following that oath and framework. As much as many service members may personally disagree with decisions made, the last thing we want is a senior military commander taking matters into their own hands. They must give their best recommendation given the facts at hand, but the civil authorities have the final national policy decisions. We made a choice to enter the service. We have a choice to stay or resign (assuming our obligation/re-enlistment is up) from our military position if we view our values being divergent from the administration's values to a point we can no longer serve with full faith and allegience . In my opinion, from reading the Esquire article, Admiral Fallon attempted to walk the line of following policy and following his personal values and beliefs. He appeared to believe that he could influence the policy without breaking his oath. However, the article portrayed him as really crossing that line and if he understood the angle Mr Barnett was taking on the article, in my opinion, he should have resigned prior to engaging further with the writer.

We have to remember also that everyone has their own interests when reading this article. The writer of the Esquire article had a particular story that he wanted to tell and many points are worth noting. But Mr Barnett sets the tone of anti-administration with his title "The Man Between War and Peace" by making Adm Fallon into a hero against the SecDef and President. However, while I don't profess to know specific information to counter Mr Barnett, often writers want to persuade a certain view point and leave other factors out that don't support their thesis. Those other factors just might muddy or cloud their desire to present a clear message to the public. And with public opinion of the war and administration policy on the war at nearly the lowest ever, the article had an audience ripe to read it.

[TJMAC77SP]

I second (or, third this). Let's make sure that, when discussing issues facing the nation today, we bring up vaguely similar things that happened 30 years ago.

It is only fair to the good people of America that, when faced with the prospect of having a 3rd war shoved down our throats, they be reassured that life always sucked.

I will go even further: Hillary and Obama are going to surrender to the terrorists. AND they will fire brigadier generals (and possibly Colonels). Guaranteed.

My post was not intended to excuse the forced retirement of Admiral Fallon (if indeed this is what happened) as being excusable simply because it is a common occurrence (for example as many did with relation to Clinton’s extramarital affairs…..”look at Kennedy…they all do it, etc….). I was merely pointing out that this situation is hardly unique and not indicative of any one administration. These forums are often used to use any issue, no matter how relevant or irrelevant) to illustrate that the Bush administration is evil and everything they do is evil. History (factual history that is) is rarely considered. It is a sad fact that high ranking military officers have become more politicized or have been the victim of those who are politicized and promoting an agenda at their expense.

And for the record, the Singlaub incident was certainly more than ‘vaguely similar’. In fact both incidences involving Singlaub and Carter were absolutely similar. The President says one thing the general says another (not supporting the President’s position).

[Unregistered]

The funny thing that I've seen no one bring up is that Fallon is not retiring because of the Esquire article at all. Word from the streets at Centcom is he's retiring because of FWA (Fraud Waste and Abuse) type allegations, to include:
His $1 million-plus personal yacht, on the gov't dime; decrying base housing there to be "unfit for a 4-star" and ordering a third story to be added, along with other trimmings.
To be clear: that is nothing more than "the word on the streets" ie - rumor. But it is directly from someone at MacDill who would be in a position to know what's going on.
If true, I would feel much better about losing someone with his experience and length of service. Regardless of how long they've served or how many good things they've done for the country, I have no tolerance for generals/admirals who think they are Kings and view taxpayers' money like it's a personal expense account. Especially when the rest of us commoners can't get enough basic supplies, enough TDY dollars to effectively do our jobs, and more importantly, when the warfighters don't get the protective equipment and offensive weapons they need to safely neutralize threats they face.