Fears of strike on Iran rise

March 12, 2008 Mideast
Commander Retires After Irking Bosses
By THOM SHANKERWASHINGTON —NYT
Adm. William J. Fallon, the commander of American forces in the Middle East whose outspoken public statements on Iran and other issues had
seemed to put him at odds with the Bush administration, is retiring early, the Pentagon announced Tuesday.
Admiral Fallon had rankled senior officials of the Bush administration in recent months with comments that emphasized diplomacy over conflict in dealing with Iran,
that endorsed further troop withdrawals from Iraq beyond those already under way and that suggested the United States had taken its eye off the military mission in
Afghanistan.
A senior administration official said that, taken together, the comments “left the perception he had a different foreign policy than the president.”
Admiral Fallon, 63, took over the Central Command only a year ago, becoming the first admiral to become the top officer there. In a statement issued by his
headquarters, he acknowledged that “recent press reports suggesting a disconnect between my views and the president’s policy objectives have become a distraction
at a critical time and hamper efforts” across his region.
His premature retirement was announced by his civilian boss, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who said he accepted the admiral’s request to retire “with
reluctance and regret.”
The White House issued a statement from President Bush that, while complimentary, was pale by comparison to other messages of farewell for senior officials with
whom Mr. Bush has worked more closely. The statement said Admiral Fallon had served his country with “honor, determination and commitment” and deserved
“considerable credit” for the progress in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In his statement, Admiral Fallon said, “I don’t believe there have been any differences about the objectives of our policy” in the Middle East. Indeed, many of his
public statements have fallen within the range of views expressed by Mr. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
But there was no question that the admiral’s premature departure stemmed from what were perceived to be policy differences with the administration on Iran and
Iraq, where his views competed with those of Gen. David H. Petraeus, the American commander in Iraq, who is a favorite of the White House.
During a news briefing to announce the retirement of Admiral Fallon, a man hailed by the defense secretary as one of the most brilliant strategic minds in the military,
Mr. Gates was asked whether the unexpected departure could be seen as a prelude to preparation for a war with Iran.
“It’s just ridiculous,” Mr. Gates responded.
Across the officer corps, a large number of senior military leaders share Admiral Fallon’s broad assessment that a war with Iran would bring unexpected and,
perhaps, unmanageable, risks elsewhere in the Muslim world and around the globe.
But many said they agreed that once it became clear he had lost the confidence of his civilian bosses, it was the responsibility of the four-star admiral to retire. That
was especially so, they said, as it became obvious that no great effort was being made by civilian leaders to persuade him to remain in command.
At the same time, some younger officers who have been critical of senior commanders for not speaking up about the risks of invading Iraq now see a senior officer
who did speak his mind publicly being prompted to choose early retirement.
A number of officials said the last straw came in an article in Esquire magazine by Thomas P. M. Barnett, a respected military analyst, that profiled Admiral Fallon
under the headline “The Man Between War and Peace.”
The article highlighted comments Admiral Fallon made to the Arab television station Al Jazeera last fall, in which he said that a “constant drumbeat of conflict” from
Washington that was directed at Iran was “not helpful and not useful.”
“I expect that there will be no war, and that is what we ought to be working for,” Admiral Fallon was quoted as saying. “We ought to try to do our utmost to create
different conditions.”
Readers of the Esquire article who are among the admiral’s supporters said they did not believe after reading it that the admiral had made comments that could be
viewed as insubordinate to the president. But the cast of the lengthy article put him at odds with the White House.
“If, in the dying light of the Bush administration, we go to war with Iran, it’ll all come down to one man,” the article begins, referring to Admiral Fallon. “If we do not
go to war with Iran, it’ll come down to the same man.”
Mr. Gates and Admiral Mullen have maintained an unwavering public line that disagreements with Iran should be resolved diplomatically, and that any military option
was only the last resort. That view is frequently expressed by Mr. Bush, although some White House officials are said to hold far more hawkish views on dealing with
Iran.
Mr. Gates said Tuesday that Lt. Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the Army officer who is No. 2 at Central Command and has served two tours in Iraq since the invasion of
2003, would temporarily take Admiral Fallon’s place when the admiral retires at the end of this month, and would serve until a permanent replacement was
nominated and confirmed by the Senate.
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader, pounced on the retirement announcement, calling it “yet another example that independence and the
frank, open airing of experts’ views are not welcome in this administration.”
When Admiral Fallon was nominated in January 2007 to be the commander of American military forces across a region where they are engaged in two ground wars,
the choice struck many analysts as odd.
Admiral Fallon replaced Gen. John P. Abizaid of the Army. At the time, a range of senior Pentagon civilians and military officers said Mr. Gates had recommended
that Admiral Fallon move from his post as commander of American forces in the Pacific to bring a new strategic view — as well as maritime experience — to the
Middle East.
Although known for being tough on his subordinates, he also developed a reputation for nuanced diplomatic negotiations with friendly nations, and with some with
whom the United States has more prickly ties.
Steven Lee Myers and David Stout contributed reporting.

Fears of strike on Iran rise as admiral quits
Admiral William Fallon: Article ‘has made my job impossible’
View GalleryBy Chris Stephen in New York THE head of the US forces in the Middle East abruptly resigned last night after a magazine claimed he was at odds with the Bush administration over its hardline
policy on Iran.In a move likely to sharpen concern that America may be planning military action against Tehran, Admiral William Fallon, head of central command, quit with
immediate effect.
Last night he denied he was out of step with the White House, but said the "embarrassment" from the article made it impossible to do his job.
Robert Gate, the defence secretary, denied there was a rift with the admiral, but said: "I believe it was the right thing to do, even though I do not believe there are in
fact significant differences between his views and administration policy."
Admiral Fallon was the subject of an article in Esquire magazine that portrayed him as opposed to President George Bush's Iran policy. It described him as a lone
voice against taking military action to stop the Iranian nuclear programme.
Admiral Fallon, who is travelling in Iraq, issued a statement through his US headquarters in Florida.
He said: "Although I don't believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the central command area of responsibility, the simple
perception that there is makes it difficult for me to effectively serve America's interests."
There was speculation the admiral had been forced out after clashing repeatedly with his Pentagon bosses over how to deal with Iran.
Democrats said the affair showed the gulf between the US government and its own military over Middle East policy.
Harry Reid, Democrat senate majority leader, said: "It is a sign that the administration is blind to the growing costs and consequences of the Iraq war."
When he was appointed in January last year, the admiral told Senate confirmation hearings that all options for diplomacy must be exhausted before military action
could be considered.
It was reported to be a veiled criticism of the Pentagon's willingness to back the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq in 2003 without giving time for inspectors to
assess whether there were the claimed weapons of mass destruction.
Last summer, as Washington, backed by London, accused Iran of trying to build nuclear weapons, the admiral went public to denounce the "constant drumbeat of
conflict".
Last December the admiral's caution over Iran appeared to be vindicated when a US intelligence report concluded there was no evidence Iran had a nuclear
weapons programme.
But the news, and the loss of momentum by America and Britain for new sanctions against Tehran, seemed only to sharpen the knives in the Pentagon.
Esquire, which was granted extensive access by the admiral to follow him across the Middle East, concluded that he was "the strongest man standing between the
Bush administration and a war with Iran".
It speculated that Fallon, 63, would be sacked this summer because he was thought to be standing in the way of a threat of possible military action.
Certainly, his resignation comes as an embarrassment to the White House as it tries to build support for fresh sanctions against Iran.
The Bush administration continues to argue that, while there is no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons, the only guarantee that such a programme will not
begin is a tough inspection regime. And it argues that regime can only be installed under the pressure of sanctions backed by military force.
But last night Mr Gates described as "ridiculous" any notion that Admiral Fallon's departure meant the US was planning to go to war with Iran.
And he said there was "a misperception" that Admiral Fallon disagrees with the administration's approach to Iran.
He insisted: "We have tried between us to put this misperception behind us over a period of months and just have not been successful in doing so."
'SOFTLY SOFTLY' EX-TOP GUN
ADMIRAL Fallon began his 41-year career as a fighter pilot and flew missions in Vietnam.
He took over a year ago as head of central command, the regional headquarters that oversees military operations in the Middle East, including Iraq.
He was installed in the job to counter criticism that the White House had made a political appointment in selecting General David Patreus to command the war in Iraq. The admiral clashed with Patreus over the general's "troop surge" in Iraq, advocating
instead a troop draw-down to allow forces to be concentrated in Afghanistan.
In his previous job, as Pacific commander, Fallon had extended contacts between US officers and their opposite numbers in China, calling for a greater understanding
between the two powers.
And he repeated his "softly softly" stance in his new position, convening for the first time a summit of Gulf-region defence chiefs at his HQ in Tampa, Florida.
He will retire early at the end of the month and his deputy, army Lt Gen Martin Dempsey, will take charge of central command until a long-term successor is chosen.
Last night, President George Bush said Fallon deserved "considerable credit for progress that has been made in Iraq and Afghanistan".
The full article contains 856 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.Last Updated: 11 March 2008 11:33 PM