The Political Chase

Adm. Fallon falls victim to the Decider

Adm. William Fallon, the top U.S. military commander for the Middle East (CENTCOM) resigned today. Reportedly, the resignation is the culmination of substantial differences between the Admiral and President Bush and more specifically, Iran. The tipping point was obviously a recent piece Esquire ran highlighting their vast differences on Iran.

Adm. Fallon is Gen. David Petraeus’s boss, although no one would ever know it based on White House rhetoric and media reports.

Fallon is just one of several top military commanders that have rotated through CENTCOM and been summarily dismissed by the Decider for expressing opposing views. Fallon became CENTCOM commander after Bush fired Gen. John P. Abizaid in January 2007 because he did not support Bush’s catastrophic foreign policies.

Fallon’s move to CENTCOM was not by choice nor without conflict. Prior to being assigned to what might be the worst possible command in the U.S. military, Admiral Fallon commanded the Pacific Fleet, the Navy’s crown jewel. What Admiral actively seeks to leave that sweet dish for command of the Middle East? Fallon wasn’t pleased.

“I leave this job with great reluctance and with no small sense of loss,” he said in an interview. He noted in particular the relationships cultivated throughout the Asia-Pacific region in the two years he has commanded US forces from the west coast of North America to the east coast of Africa. He had planned to stay in this assignment for another year.

After assuming command of CENTCOM, Adm. Fallon had to deal with George Bush’s and Gen. David Petraeus’s political, narcissistic, love-affair. And it created quite a kerfuffle in mid-to-late 2007.

For two hours, President Bush listened to contrasting visions of the U.S. future in Iraq. Gen. David H. Petraeus dominated the conversation by video link from Baghdad, making the case to keep as many troops as long as possible to cement any security progress. Adm. William J. Fallon, his superior, argued instead for accepting more risks in Iraq, officials said, in order to have enough forces available to confront other potential threats in the region.

The polite discussion in the White House Situation Room a week ago masked a sharper clash over the U.S. venture in Iraq, one that has been building since Fallon, chief of the U.S. Central Command, which oversees Middle East operations, sent a rear admiral to Baghdad this summer to gather information. Soon afterward, officials said, Fallon began developing plans to redefine the U.S. mission and radically draw down troops.

One of those plans, according to a Centcom officer, involved slashing U.S. combat forces in Iraq by three-quarters by 2010. In an interview, Fallon disputed that description but declined to offer details. Nonetheless, his efforts offended Petraeus’s team, which saw them as unwelcome intrusion on their own long-term planning. The profoundly different views of the U.S. role in Iraq only exacerbated the schism between the two men.

“Bad relations?” said a senior civilian official with a laugh. “That’s the understatement of the century. . . . If you think Armageddon was a riot, that’s one way of looking at it.”

I haven’t read the Esquire piece yet, but this publicized excerpt leads me to believe Adm. Fallon faithfully, honorably, and heroically served his Commander and his country. But my guess is Fallon likely reached a point where he would not let authoritarianism and ideology supersede principles and the rule of law.

If, in the dying light of the Bush administration, we go to war with Iran, it’ll all come down to one man. If we do not go to war with Iran, it’ll come down to the same man. He is that rarest of creatures in the Bush universe: the good cop on Iran, and a man of strategic brilliance. His name is William Fallon