by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright March 14, 2008
All Rights Reserved.

entcom's 63-year-old commander Navy-Adm. William J. Fallon—who commands U.S. forces in the Middle East—tendered his resignation, much the same way as his predecessor Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, whose lack of enthusiasm about President George W. Bush's troop surge caused his early retirement March 16, 2007. Abizaid and former Iraq Multinational Force Commander Gen. George Casey expressed doubts whether the U.S. military could solve Iraq's “sectarian strife.” Fallon had similar problems to Abizaid and Casey, now having concerns about the U.S. attacking Iran for refusing to give up its uranium enrichment program. “Recent press report 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,” said Fallon, at with White House policy.

      Fallon spoke on the record to Esquire Magazine March 11, expressing grave concerns about engaging Iran. Some experts saw Fallon's departure as a warning about U.S. intent. Others saw Fallon's retirement as another sign of friction inside the military about U.S. Iraq policy. Iraq's Multinational Force Commander Gen. David Petraeus is currently in lockstep with the White House surge strategy. Petraeus has managed since Sept. ‘07 to dramatically reduce U.S. casualties, in part due to sequestering U.S. troops away from dangerous foot-patrols and supply routes. Bush insists that he follows the advice of his battlefield commanders, like Petraeus, not bureaucrats in Washington. Yet when Bush's battlefield commanders, like Abizaid and Casey, tell him to change strategy and get out, they're forced into early retirement. History repeats itself with Fallon's abrupt departure.

      When political pressure calls for a new course, Bush insists he listens only to his battlefield commanders. He can't have it both ways: Listen only when it suits White House policy or terminate commanders that take exception. “Over the last seven Bush years, we've seen those who toe the company line get rewarded and those who speak inconvenient truths get retired,” said Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), concerned that the Pentagon rubber stamps White House policy. “I don't think there were really any differences at all,” said Defense Secretary Robert Gates, trying to explain Fallon's sudden departure. Gates dismissed as “ridiculous,” the idea that Fallon's exit brings the country closer to war with Iran. Fallon told Esquire in “The Man Between War and Peace,” that he agreed with his predecessor Abizaid that there were other ways to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat.

      Bush frequently cites Gen. David Petraeus to justify continued U.S. deployment in Iraq. He acts as if he, as president, takes his orders from his generals, rather than acting as commander-in-chief. GOP presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) talks about his superior experience to Democratic candidates Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y,) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Il.), insisting that the U.S. stay in Iraq to neutralize Al Qaeda. McCain doesn't mention that 40 years of White House experience—dating back to Richard M. Nixon—made the blunders and miscalculations resulting in the Iraq War. McCain insists that past mistakes don't matter: Only the current strategy and commitment to win the war. Both insist that without U.S. forces in Iraq, Al Qaeda will engulf the country and cause terrorism on American streets, something not subject to proof.

      Fallon had the courage to tell Esquire that he only saw problems with White House containment strategy. Going to war with Iran would send shockwaves through the world economy, already reeling from astronomic oil and gas prices. Nobel prize –winning Columbia University economist Joseph Stigliz told the House Banking Committee Jan. 23 that the Iraq war caused runaway oil prices and the current recession. Bush can no longer ignore the Iraq War's damage to U.S. economy. Dissenting voices should help refine White House strategy, not rubber stamp obvious mistakes. Going public with his honest views with Esquire got Fallon into hot water. While the White House and Pentagon insist that Fallon was not pressured out, Fallon himself admitted his mistake: Creating the “perception” of difference, whether true or not, with the White House.

      “I don't believe there have ever been any differences about the objective of our policy in the command area of responsibility,” said Fallon, admitting to a difference in “perception.” Fallon shouldn't try to reconcile discrepancies with the White House. He should state outright, as he did to Esquire, his differences with Bush. Bush can't, on the one hand, say he listens to his generals on the ground, while, on the other hand, set policy and make his own decisions. Everyone knows that Petraeus follows White House orders and has no say in setting policy. When Abizaid, Casey and now Fallon expressed their opinions, the White House considered it insubordination. With Centcom Army Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey set to take over for Fallon March 31, he'll be expected to rubber stamp White House policy. No general really believes he can speak his mind openly without serious consequences.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.