(See this Article on Fallon's resignation).

1. Did the opposition of Admiral Fallon and other high officers prevent the bombing of Iran?

2. Is a military confrontation with Iran more likely now that he has resigned?

1. Did the opposition of Admiral Fallon and other high officers prevent the bombing of Iran?

The question is several years premature. Such a question will not be answerable until memoirs are written by the joint chiefs of staff commenting on Fallon's performance. At best we can hope for a sneak peak biography book from Fallon himself detailing when he talked himself into a corner and decided to go out with a bang. Overall he conducted himself independantly of the White House and made overtures to assuage the Middle East neighbours. This type of proactive diplomacy is crucial for thwarting an aggressive tone. So for his ride behind the wheel - he prevented the politicization of intellligence which diminished the case for war.

2. Is a military confrontation with Iran more likely now that he has resigned?

Yes. However Fallon knew he was on borrowed time to begin with. The Esquire article was the path he chose. Your question rides on the premise that there has been an unquestionable drumbeat for war. For what it is worth, I support your premise though many on here will not. We might have another incident in the Strait of Hormuz but then again we might not. Most likely they will escalate the arms traffic across the border and make excursions into Iran in the name of "security".

I don't know if he did indeed do that, but if he did he was way out of line and should have resigned sooner, or faced a court-martial. Like him or not, President Bush is the Commander in Chief of American Armed forces. That is clearly defined in the Constitution. We have and have always had civilian control of the military. That's the way it is, and if Fallon didn't like that, he should never have taken his oath as an officer. Now, he can go write his book and join the talking-head circuit.


Aquilla

1. Did the opposition of Admiral Fallon and other high officers prevent the bombing of Iran?

No. The practical and logistical difficulties and the political impossibility of bombing Iran prevented any such attack. At best, Adm Fallon was merely the messenger who made this clear to the Bush administration. Tradition dictates however that messengers often get blamed for bearing bad news...


2. Is a military confrontation with Iran more likely now that he has resigned?

I doubt it since the practical, logistical and political circumstances involved have not changed.


Doesn't the constitution also forbid a standing military? Pehaps I've misunderstood something, but I thought the whole idea of the American political system was to have these much vaunted 'checks and balances' to prevent tyrant presidents from simply launching attacks against people for spurious reasons.

Since the US congress has apparently resigned its role of custodian of the right to declare war (not been done since world war two if I recall correct) then who is meant to keep the presidents in line? How many wars, or so called 'combat operations' has the USA fought in since the last decleration of war? Quoting the consititution at this late date is like reading the users manual after your computer has the blue screen of the death. The United States constitution has long since been marginalised by dodgy legal technicality's with regards to waging 'war'.

Also, any American soldier who believes he is ordered to act against International Law, and the various conventions the USA is a signatory to, is legally obliged to refuse his orders, no matter what grandiose military title the president might have been graned by an emasculated congress.

When it comes to Bush policy, nobody can win.

When earlier officials came out and told the world Bush was making mistakes, they got chastised for not coming out and saying something sooner. Now, if they come out sooner, they get thrown under the bus for being a bad soldier.

Here are the facts - Bush invaded a country because he thought they had WMD and links to Al Qaida. He was wrong. Military leaders tried to tell the administration they were not sending in enough troops. The administration did not send in enough troops and made a disaster many times worse than it had to be. Leaders complained there was no exit strategy or plan for a post Saddam Iraq. They were right, Bush was wrong.

So, people that have been put in their positions because of their qualifications try to point these mistakes out again before they happen, but they end up on the political scrap heap even though Bush has been wrong about every single facet of his war policies. He's never gotten anything right. Now, we have people trying to avoid these perpetual mistakes only to be turned into the monsters.

How can we get anything right versus repeating the same mistakes over and over? Like has been said before, if a president Clinton used our military as toy soldiers the way Bush has, they'd be out of office. Rightfully so, the republicans would not tolerate it. But even after mistake after mistake, republicans won't tolerate dissent even in the face of facts Bush has never - and I mean never - been right about anything when it comes to Iraq. Why would we believe he'd be right about anything regarding Iran? Bush seems to have a more solid strategy in his war with the Pentagon and CIA than he does foreign enemies.

Bush is fricken nuts. Somebody needs to stop him and I believe it is the duty of the military leaders to do what's best for the military when nobody else will do it.

I'm not sure how this thread has devolved into another "Bush is an idiot and a failure" thread or a discussion about the political workings of warmaking (or national security) in America, but...

1. Did the opposition of Admiral Fallon and other high officers prevent the bombing of Iran?

Fallon has publicly denied that the rift between the White House and Centcomm is as wide as is reported. He says he is retiring; he has served for over 40 years.

I think moif has it about right: we haven't bombed Iran both because we don't need to at this time and because we don't want to. I am not convinced that Bush is beating the drums of war against Iran. Yes, the Bush administration has substantive differences with Iran's policies and real suspicions about what's going on in Iran, but war isn't in the cards right now.

Here is a statement by Fallon: Link


Notice who's on the top of the list? That's right: Iran. Not Al Qaida, not Syria, not KSA.

So the answer is no, Fallon gave his input I'm sure, but we aren't prepared to take on Iran at this time so we wouldn't bomb them.

2. Is a military confrontation with Iran more likely now that he has resigned?

No. The facts on the ground haven't changed. Bombing Iran would prove a real distraction to both Iraq and Afghanistan and is not in our best interest.

After reading the Esquire article on Fallon, I can see where this could affect his working relationship with the White House. The article praised Fallon while blasting Bush, Cheney, neocons, supporters of Israel, so-called "chicken hawks" and just about everyone else in its broad brush strokes.

I do like Fallon's quote in the article regarding war with Iran:

1. Did the opposition of Admiral Fallon and other high officers prevent the bombing of Iran?
No. No one in the administration ever said they wanted to “bomb Iran” – quite the opposite in fact.


Not likely 3 months ago or now. The sanctions – even week ones will hurt Iran and in any case they are not even close to having enough centrifuges to make the enriched uranium for the nuckes we can be sure they are lusting for.

Thought I'd put in my .01 on this one.



It’s best not to use an op-ed piece as a source of information. For starters, Fallon himself never suggested that he had any hand in “preventing the bombing of Iran” let alone that he was the only one standing in the way, as the linked opinion piece implies. He didn’t like this spin in the Esquire article, and called it poison pen stuff. Well, sorry Fallon, you agreed to sit for that interview so you’re responsible for the spin.

There seems to be a false dichotomy on this thread, that there is no middle path between public dissent or simply blind following, but there is. Generals and admirals do have the option to provide candid military advice, to do so within command channels and to uphold the chain of command. We saw it when Shinseki told the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2003 that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to bring stability to Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein. The sin was not in Fallon's disagreement with the White House, it was for choosing Esquire to do so so very publicly during his command. He publicly undermined command and no president can afford to have a senior military commander flout his/her constitutional authority or freelance his own foreign policy. So though I agree with Fallon’s ideas on foreign policy, he was wrong here.

To answer the above questions, if Fallon alone was preventing the bombing of Iran, he should have stayed and done his job and continued to prevent the bombing of Iran, rather than making public statements that he knew would get him fired right smack in the middle of his tour. On the other hand, if he thought that everyone would be best served by his resignation, he should have resigned and THEN made those public statements…and lots more. The path he took sent a terrible message to the ranks, because they would likely be court-martialed for doing as he did. Furthermore, it also makes him look like a hypocrite, because I doubt that he would welcome those under his command questioning his decisions and taking their opinions to the papers…nor could the military function effectively if that were the case throughout the ranks.

Apparently paleoconservative Pat Buchan thinks the testimony of General Petraeus has set the stage for a bombing campaign against Iran. (See THIS OPINION PIECE).





What was the last "short, sharp war" this administration gave the world?

The same thing was said at Petraeus' first testimony to Congress in 2007. Nothing new here, everyone knows Iran is involved in Iraq and it has never been used as a justification for invasion of Iran. Virtually the same argument has been recycled over and over since January of 2005 (started with Hersh).



There hasn't been one. Another question. What was the last "war" this administration gave the world that wasn't authorized by Congress? (there hasn't been one) And Congress isn't going to authorize an invasion of Iran.