Admirals against war?

by Colman
Mon Nov 12th, 2007 at 08:36:26 AM EST

Looks like people in the Pentagon are publically campaigning against a strike on Iran, according to the FT.
Admiral William Fallon, head of Central Command, which oversees military operations in the Middle East, told the Financial Times that while dealing with Iran was a “challenge”, a strike was not “in the offing”.

“None of this is helped by the continuing stories that just keep going around and around and around that any day now there will be another war which is just not where we want to go,” he said.

“Getting Iranian behaviour to change and finding ways to get them to come to their senses and do that is the real objective. Attacking them as a means to get to that spot strikes me as being not the first choice in my book.”

Adm Fallon did not rule out the possibility of a strike at some point. But his comments served as a shot across the bows of hawks who are arguing for imminent action. They also echoed the views of the senior brass that military action is currently unnecessary, and should only be considered as an absolute last resort.

In recent months, President George W. Bush and his top officials have made a string of tough statements that have fuelled speculation that the US was preparing to strike Iran over its nuclear programme. Adm Fallon declined to comment specifically on whether the US rhetoric was feeding the speculation, but said that “generally, the bellicose comments are not particularly helpful”.

“That said we have to make sure that there is no mistake here on the part of the Iranians about our resolve in tending to business in the region,” said Adm Fallon. “There has got to be some combination of strength and willingness to engage. How to come up with the right combination of that is the real trick.”

I don't think the debate within the US regime is settled yet - this sounds like a campaign speech to me.


Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password

Display:
He can always be fired and replaced with someone more compliantly on-message.

Unfortunately the same can't be said of Congress - at least not for a while.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Nov 12th, 2007 at 08:45:10 AM EST
I'm guessing that he's either so desperate that he doesn't care or, more likely, his position is strong enough that his firing would be impractical.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Nov 12th, 2007 at 08:47:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
...or he is spewing a smokescreen.

The struggle of man against tyranny is the struggle of memory against forgetting.(Kundera)
by Elco B (elcob at scarlet dot be) on Mon Nov 12th, 2007 at 08:49:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
One that directly insults Bolton and friends? I don't think so: they're not the types to sacrifice their egos.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Nov 12th, 2007 at 08:56:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Consider at least the possibility that he may actually have some principles. That would be my guess.
I have said before that it is ironic that in the battle to restrain the likes of Mr. "I don't do carrots" Bolton, and keep a totally out of touch administration from slipping the tracks completely, the military high command has several times been a voice for reason.

Grabbing what you can, as John Ruskin said, isn't any less wicked when you grab it with the power of your brains than with the power of your fists.
by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Mon Nov 12th, 2007 at 10:55:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Personally, I'm granting him at least the possibility of traditional patriotism and/or loyalty to his service: it's clear that a strike on Iran is very unlikely to be in the national interest of the US or good for the Navy.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Nov 12th, 2007 at 11:03:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There is near-consensus within the U.S. military that the pressure on the Army branch must be relieved. The former generals, such as Eaton, and the congresspeople with strong ties, such as Webb and Murtha, have been saying as much for at least the past year.

Two things of recent note: 1) the members of the Security Council, plus Germany, are discussing sanctions again. The result will probably be some rather weak additions, spun for U.S. domestic consumption to appear to show "progress". 2) The U.S. State Dept. continues to emphasize the "diplomatic pathway".

In addition Cheney APPEARS to be more isolated, as even George Will campaigns against neo-con policies. And the physical realignments (ethnic cleansing) of the sects in Iraq probably do equate to reduced violence. In that context it may well be that the Shiites need less aid from Iran, and my guess is that, despite all militant rhetoric, everyone there will welcome a chance to back off somewhat - including Iran. They may be playing the U.S. like a kazoo, but their tactics require the occasional break from high-adrenaline alert, too.

Doesn't mean that conditions can't evolve or change drastically in the next year. It doesn't even mean that we are not being played for suckers by an administration devising some kind of "false flag" incident. Let us hope not and continue to resist the war(s) for anti-imperialist and pro-humanity reasons.

paul spencer

by paul spencer (spencerinthegorge AT yahoo DOT com) on Mon Nov 12th, 2007 at 11:32:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Some even say the Navy could become the pawn to sacrifice in order to declare a total war Pearl Harbor- like:
The Neoconservative Agenda to Sacrifice the Fifth Fleet


"If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles." Sun Tzu
by Turambar (sersguenda at hotmail com) on Mon Nov 12th, 2007 at 07:55:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Consider at least the possibility that he may actually have some principles. That would be my guess.

That, and/or, as Colman and Paul note below, they are simply realists.

In response to ThatBritGuy above:

He can always be fired and replaced with someone more compliantly on-message.

Actually, he has been saying this for some time now, and in fact he replaced another guy who was getting off message (and again more recently and publicly about Iran.).

As I commented on Sunday, it's the military that has the sanest assessment.

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco (cowannar at gmail punkt com) on Mon Nov 12th, 2007 at 03:45:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
i ahve beent rying to calla ttention to his guy.. he si the one nc harge... he realy will give the orders.. he is the establishment and eh will not be fired.. Gates will nto touch him..a dn Bush will not tuch Gates...

I think hat if he touches Gates he will be impeached... but that's a personal poitn of view.. I do think Iran will not be attacked during the Bush administration.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Mon Nov 12th, 2007 at 08:50:19 AM EST
Well, I don't think I'd give him that much power, but he's certainly a representative of one of the factions at court. Which is sort of scary really: the military isn't meant to be a court faction in the US, is it?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Nov 12th, 2007 at 09:00:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
well.. scary.. it is actually a civilian-military mixture...

And I do think he is in charge... he will not be touched...

There is a chance Iran will be atacked if he changes his opinion.. other than that.. nope.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Mon Nov 12th, 2007 at 09:10:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree with you, but think it's down to the Bush admins own actions. By putting up the "How dare you question the man in uniform with the row of shiny medals" defence  in their interactions with other parts of the government, they've sort of painted themselves into a corner while dealing with the admiral.

The Senior admirals have watched the administration throw the army into the meatginder, with very little seeming care for the armys survival. just a desire to prove their own  military theories right. I propose that they are not willing to see the Navy go the same way.

Give a politician an inch, and he'll think he's a ruler

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Mon Nov 12th, 2007 at 09:59:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
By putting up the "How dare you question the man in uniform with the row of shiny medals" defence  in their interactions with other parts of the government, they've sort of painted themselves into a corner while dealing with the admiral.

Consistency in rhetoric has never concerned the Bush 43 administration much. They have a big echo chamber in the wingnut underground and the media, especially with regard to foreign and military policy. If the Bush admin tells them to zig, they will zig. If the Bush admin tells them to zag, they will zag. Bush is their commander in chief too! Here's the press, reporting for duty!

A man can go from hero to traitor in a day, like nothing happened.

I'd guess that this admiral has a lot of friends in the navy, and maybe one in control of the Pentagon. You can only be sure to survive if you have your own power base.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Mon Nov 12th, 2007 at 02:23:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
well it wouldn't be the first time

BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Profile: Joseph Wilson

As acting ambassador to Iraq in the run-up to the first Gulf War, he was the last US diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein, in 1991.

He very publicly defied the Iraqi strongman by giving refuge to more than 100 US citizens at the embassy and in the homes of US diplomats - at a time when Saddam Hussein was threatening to execute anyone who harboured foreigners.

He then addressed journalists wearing a hangman's noose instead of a necktie.

He later told the Washington Post newspaper that the message to Saddam Hussein was: "If you want to execute me, I'll bring my own [expletive] rope."



Give a politician an inch, and he'll think he's a ruler
by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Mon Nov 12th, 2007 at 04:23:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
he's certainly a representative of one of the factions at court. Which is sort of scary really: the military isn't meant to be a court faction in the US, is it?
The US doesn't operate the way it's "supposed" to be any longer. People don't talk about "the end of the Republic" on a whim.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 12th, 2007 at 09:45:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Besides being a great phrase, let me underscore Mig's point here.  The system is unravelling, to the point of weirdness.  Points of power seem to be continually shifting, making it harder to affect decision-making.  There have been media reports, including Sy Hersh, indicating several power enclaves within the military as well.  I would doubt that the good general is part of the born-again apocalypsters team.

Given the irrational nature of administration play on Iran, it's refreshing to hear a semblance of sanity from a power center.  But it's probably just a voice, albeit one which might mount a counter-coup if it came to that.

Skennah Kowa

by Crazy Horse on Mon Nov 12th, 2007 at 10:26:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ending republics on a whim does not have that great a history,

perhaps someone should point out the precedents to george

Give a politician an inch, and he'll think he's a ruler

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Mon Nov 12th, 2007 at 10:43:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think you misunderstand. I mean that people are not being whimsical when they use highly dramatic phrases such as the End of the Republic. See also the following article, which appears unintentionally prescient.

Parameters, US Army War College Quarterly: The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012 by Charles J. Dunlap, JR. in Winter 1992

The letter that follows takes us on a darkly imagined excursion into the future. A military coup has taken place in the United States--the year is 2012--and General Thomas E. T. Brutus, Commander-in-Chief of the Unified Armed Forces of the United States, now occupies the White House as permanent Military Plenipotentiary. His position has been ratified by a national referendum, though scattered disorders still prevail and arrests for acts of sedition are underway. A senior retired officer of the Unified Armed Forces, known here simply as Prisoner 222305759, is one of those arrested, having been convicted by court-martial for opposing the coup. Prior to his execution, he is able to smuggle out of prison a letter to an old War College classmate discussing the "Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012." In it, he argues that the coup was the outgrowth of trends visible as far back as 1992. These trends were the massive diversion of military forces to civilian uses, the monolithic unification of the armed forces, and the insularity of the military community. His letter survives and is here presented verbatim.

It goes without saying (I hope) that the coup scenario above is purely a literary device intended to dramatize my concern over certain contemporary developments affecting the armed forces, and is emphatically not a prediction. -- The Author



We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 12th, 2007 at 11:45:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Some days this place does make me feel monsterously underread.

Give a politician an inch, and he'll think he's a ruler
by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Mon Nov 12th, 2007 at 12:08:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I recall that Colin Powell gave some sort of tribute to Dunlap for this article.
by de Gondi (publiobestia aaaatttthotmaildaughtusual) on Mon Nov 12th, 2007 at 03:43:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, the article won an essay competition, or something.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Nov 13th, 2007 at 03:03:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There have been media reports, including Sy Hersh, indicating several power enclaves within the military as well.  I would doubt that the good general is part of the born-again apocalypsters team.

Those people are generally in the air force, or so I've heard. Good to see that the navy is non-crazy. You can't do an end-run around the navy if you want to strike Iran.

Battling, corrupt factions with their own power structures was also the way certain fascist governments were organised, and part of the reason they were so dysfunctional. But of course we can't make any comparisons because such comparisons, however apt, apparently trivialise the suffering caused by these governments.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Mon Nov 12th, 2007 at 12:55:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
For some reason, the crazies are always in the Airforce.

Probably is some kind of mix of being the "new" service (which could be filled with political people... at least when it was new 50 years ago) and the hubris aquired by soaring around in the sky, untouchable, and dropping bombs on people.

Godlike.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Mon Nov 12th, 2007 at 07:25:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I beg your pardon! Paul Spencer and I were both in the Air Force.  Well, maybe I shouldn't have mentioned that I was.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Mon Nov 12th, 2007 at 11:41:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
When I was in basic training in 1962, the propaganda films were about the commie threat in 'Indochina'. In 1966, my brother was in Navy Basic Training and was giving me a hard time about my misgivings about the war in Viet Nam. I tried to enlist in the Army, but, fortunately, the AF reserves were so slow in sending my records, I had time to reconsider. Decided that I didn't need to see it firsthand to know that we didn't belong there.

paul spencer
by paul spencer (spencerinthegorge AT yahoo DOT com) on Tue Nov 13th, 2007 at 12:52:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"The Crazies are always in the Airforce" is not the same thing as "The Airforce consists of Crazies".

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Nov 13th, 2007 at 03:01:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Exactly.

And I was actually thinking more of the WW2 Luftwaffe than the US Air Force, even if that organization had had its fair share of crazies. Like General Curtis LeMay.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Tue Nov 13th, 2007 at 08:30:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thank you for elucidating.  The AF has had its share of "crazies" for sure but as a service it is hardly alone.  Some would say quite a few of the old Stategic Air Command Generals like Curtis Lemay and Selmon Wells were crazy, but they didn't start wars.  No, the responsibility for that lies elsewhere. Look to the civilian politicos in control for that honor and then look a little further and you'll find the careless individuals who put them in office.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Tue Nov 13th, 2007 at 11:17:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sorry..

I mean I think this guy is the one really giving the orders... and I think he is for real.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Mon Nov 12th, 2007 at 09:09:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
How is he different from his predecessor, Abizaid? Or is he?

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 12th, 2007 at 09:43:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Strangely, he was sending signals about the difficult situation of the Army before he was promoted. However, he was making somewhat aggressive-sounding remarks about the role of the Navy in the Persian Gulf. Makes it difficult to peg his stance. Best hope is that the overview role has shown him the difficult position of the ground forces occupying Iraq in the event of an enlarged war.

One good thing might be that he has no 'ownership' of the debacle. The whole thing was engineered by the Rumsfeld acolytes - the neo-Blitzkrieg crew. Apparently, they ignored the Navy altogether. It may have been a giant miscalculation on the part of the Cheney cabal: they thought that the Navy would be the spearhead for the Iran attack, so best to get them involved. (Of course, there may be a master plan: get the supplemental budget passed, build the super-bunker-busters, wait for a propitious event, go for it.)

Best hope is that things have evolved somewhat in the last few months. The Turkey/Kurd situation was tense, but not explosive. The Russians had not shown their exasperation with U.S. saber-rattling (maybe their SAMs are better than we know). Even the money crisis may be playing a role, by weakening the U.S. hold on 'allies' and trading partners.

paul spencer

by paul spencer (spencerinthegorge AT yahoo DOT com) on Tue Nov 13th, 2007 at 01:20:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
When I wrote that Fallon made "somewhat aggressive-sounding remarks about the role of the Navy in the Persian Gulf", I had forgotten the context. The Pentagon was leaking plans to send a third carrier group to the Persian Gulf. Fallon stopped the move, and, in doing so, said something to the effect that he could handle attacks by Iran with what was there (two carrier groups).

At the time I took it to be a challenge to the Iranians. Later I read that he was essentially stiffing the administration's plans. In fact he was alleged to have said that he was trying to "put the crazies back in the box". If true, this bolsters the point-of-view that he opposes military action against Iran - at least for now. Only caveat is - why did the administration follow through with the promotion, given his alleged remarks?

paul spencer

by paul spencer (spencerinthegorge AT yahoo DOT com) on Wed Nov 14th, 2007 at 10:22:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]