The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
US Mid-East Commander Resigns
[Tycho?]![[Tycho?]](https://us.v-cdn.net/5018289/uploads/userpics/934/nHG8VEMRTY5QM.gif)
As elusive as doubtRegistered User regular
As elusive as doubtRegistered User regular
Apparently over differences over Iran policy (he is against attacking Iran).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7290826.stm
So, how is this going to affect the war in the region? Is this a prelude to an attack on Iran? How will this affect the Surge? Etc.
I still dont think the US is going after Iran, but I've got to say this doesn't make me more confident about that prediction.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7290826.stm
The Esquire article suggested Adm Fallon was standing up to a president supposedly contemplating war with Iran.
He is described in the article as "the strongest man standing between the Bush Administration and a war with Iran".
Mr Gates said the idea, suggested in the article, that Adm Fallon's departure indicated that the US was planning to go to war with Iran was "ridiculous".
He said "there is a misperception" that the admiral disagreed with the Bush administration's policies towards Iran. "I don't think there were differences at all," Mr Gates said.
The Esquire article suggested Adm Fallon was standing up to a president supposedly contemplating war with Iran.
He is described in the article as "the strongest man standing between the Bush Administration and a war with Iran".
Mr Gates said the idea, suggested in the article, that Adm Fallon's departure indicated that the US was planning to go to war with Iran was "ridiculous".
He said "there is a misperception" that the admiral disagreed with the Bush administration's policies towards Iran. "I don't think there were differences at all," Mr Gates said.
His comments, such as those to al Jazeera TV last year that "I expect there will be no war", incurred the wrath of the Bush administration, says our correspondent.
So, how is this going to affect the war in the region? Is this a prelude to an attack on Iran? How will this affect the Surge? Etc.
I still dont think the US is going after Iran, but I've got to say this doesn't make me more confident about that prediction.
[Tycho?] on
0
Posts
Josh Marshall's take:
Another one bites the dust
Yeah I was shocked when I didn't see this thread, I was half-expecting this to get locked because I had somehow overlooked one already on this topic.
I really like that article you quoted, and I bolded the especially important parts (to me anyway).
Now, of course this could actually be him retiring for "personal reasons" but I dont think anyone is going to think that's likely. But look at those issues where Fallon disagreed with the administration. Those are some pretty basic, and yes, sane positions to hold. If his differences with the administration over those key issues were big enough that he had to resign, or was forced to resign, should not be taken lightly.
When they brought him over there and started moving more carriers there were rumors they were planning an air strike or some other limited engagement. Looks like Fallon said no and they canned him.
Make no mistake, Admiral Fallon is one of the finest men this country has in uniform. He has been one of the few voices of reason in the brass, and I've heard from a first hand source about what a true blue guy he is. You will be missed, sir. I, too, was quite shocked that this hadn't had a thread yet, I caught this much earlier today and was shocked by it.
Anyway here's John Soltz from Votevets on the resignation:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-soltz/admiral-fallon-a-resign_b_91003.html
It's a shame this will get buried under the "lolz spitzer peniszorz," because it's really quite important, and signal that something sketchy is definitely being cooked up over Iran.
Of course that's only until the troop deaths hit the 4000 mark, which it should in a few days given last count was 3980. /sigh
I apologize for my seeming callousness. I'm the kind of person who actively looks for news daily about troop deaths. 5 here, 10 there, 6 wounded there, the rate is quite steady, you get numb to it after awhile. What's actually depressing is that if these deaths were kept front and center, we would likely be out of their by now. Or very likely not gone in in the first place. And they should be front and center news.
Actually, Vice President Fallon has a nice ring to it, and imagine what that would do to McCain (who is basically running as an old Fallon).
That said, watching him debate, oh say.... Huckabee on national security would be a laugh riot.
EDIT-
I've know people that knew him first hand as well, and I wouldn't call him "true blue" he's pretty conservative. He's pragmatic and calls it as he sees it, regardless of personal opinions. That's why he's respected. He's seen as blue since he's pissed off a lot of people for taking the other stand, because of the information he had. He's not a yes man.
He's a man we need in command.
And he's the better man for it, go DON
It astounds me that Bush can be planning yet another war. What troops are we going to use to fight it?
Fallon is an aviator, when he was moved to centcom we moved in a carrier group in a show of force. The trick was we could use one of the most experienced air commanders we had to conduct limited air war, to take out those nukes.
Fallon left....
Our best bet is to make sure Congress knows not to authorize any further use of force.
This. They have neither the troops nor the funds. They'd need a draft which they won't get unless we get hit again (including false flags which makes me shudder.)
Not bloody likely given the current makeup of Congress and the probable amount of seats Dems will pick up.
Does Bush really need it though? Can't he just order a limited engagement without Congress' express consent?
Yes, in fact, that's the standard. Panama, for example, was never authorized; we were in and out too fast. Vietnam was a police action; that's what prompted the assertion of congressional oversight and approval.
Bush is fully entitled to launch an all-out-attack on Iran. The question is whether he's stupid enough to do it without congressional approval or not. We have no justifcation; I don't see Reid and Pelosi's very generous stand on the impeachment issue surviving an unprovoked attack on Iran.
Non yes men don't go over too well in the Bush white house
That doesn't mean squat when it comes to limited air strikes.
I'm aware and that's the real tragedy in all this. Fallon is a patriot, smart, and should be listened to. He's been on record for calling a lot of what we have done these past years as flat out dumb.