of being stuck between Iraq and a hard place (W's head).

I sorta feel for the guy--having to report to numbskulls like these in the Pentagon and WH would be enough to age any otherwise healthy man into early retirement.....that, or an asylum.

-5.75,-4.05
"We're all fucked. It helps to remember that." --George Carlin

Someone's happy with their handiwork right now.

the plan to maintain the Presidency in Republican hands? Start a war with Iran and then say This is no time to be entrusting the White House to a Democrat.

Bush: Cheney to prod, 'reassure' on Middle East trip

WASHINGTON (AFP) — US President George W. Bush said Monday he was sending Vice President Dick Cheney to the Middle East next week to help push for an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal before they leave office next year.

"His goal is to reassure people that the United States is committed to a vision of peace in the Middle East, that we expect the relevant parties to uphold their obligations," said Bush, whose term ends in January 2009.

FACTBOX-New Central Command head trained Iraqi forces

11 Mar 2008 20:38:58 GMT
Source: Reuters

March 11 (Reuters) - Army Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey was named on Tuesday to take temporary charge of Central Command, the U.S. command overseeing the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, until a permanent successor is found for Adm. William Fallon. Fallon stepped down as head of Central Command after a magazine article portrayed him as challenging President George W. Bush on Iran policy.

Here are some facts about Dempsey:

* He has been in the military since 1974 and became deputy chief of Central Command in May 2007.

* Since August 2005 he had headed the Multi-National Security and Training Command, Iraq, becoming the most recognized U.S. face on the effort to build an Iraqi army and police force.

* Known for his candor, Dempsey told a House Armed Services Committee panel in 2007 that the Iraqi forces showed improvement but remained hampered by 'lack of depth' and a shortage of qualified leaders.

* Iraqi generals took to calling his orders related to troop training "Dempsey fatwas."

* Has said the United States and the Iraqis need a "transition scheme" so they can plan for when U.S. troops start to leave and Iraqis take command of the war.

Sources: U.S. Department of Defense, nationaljournal.com (Compiled by World Desk, Washington)

Fallon was a public voice for moderation and against outright bombing. No telling, though, whether something else is going on. There are some NATO allies who have endorsed military action against Iran, France among them, and Fallon could have been seen as out of step not just with U.S. policy.

His resignation, on the other hand, might have something to do with being upstaged by Petraeus, who is his subordinate, or by arguments over how much more the military can take of Iraq, the Surge, and never-ending rotations. Iran may only be part of it.

Can Cheney still engineer his bombing campaign? At least one major roadblock is now out of the way. Still, you would think this White House in particular would be acutely sensitive to the reaction of the oil market to a bombing campaign and temporary cessation of Iranian oil exports.

the anti-Illuminati sites broke the story weeks ago.
Forced out because of his reluctance to attack Iran.

Commander Rejects Article of Praise

Navy Adm. William Fallon, commander of U.S. Central Command, left, with Navy Adm. Eric Olson at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, is the focus of a profile in the April issue of Esquire. (By Melina Mara -- The Washington Post)

By Thomas E. Ricks

Washington Post - Thursday, March 6, 2008; Page A03

The top U.S. commander in the Middle East is the subject of a glowing magazine article describing him as the only person who might stop the Bush administration from going to war against Iran.

Esquire magazine's forthcoming profile of Adm. William "Fox" Fallon portrays the chief of the U.S. Central Command as "brazenly challenging" President Bush on Iran, pushing back "against what he saw as an ill-advised action."

Written by Thomas P.M. Barnett, a former professor at the Naval War College, the article in the magazine's April issue predicts that if Fallon leaves his position at Central Command, "it may well mean that the president and vice president intend to take military action against Iran before the end of this year and don't want a commander standing in their way."

The article is written in an admiring fashion, praising Fallon as "a man of strategic brilliance" whose understanding of the tumultuous situation in Pakistan "is far more complex than anyone else's."

Asked about the article yesterday, Fallon called it "poison pen stuff" that is "really disrespectful and ugly." He did not cite specific objections.

Barnett said he has not heard from Fallon about the article. ...

But its Pakistan not Iran that is literally blowing up in peoples faces. Its reasonable that there has been much discussion/debate even this morning. Perhaps that more than Iran precipitated the resignation.

"...cunning, baffling, powerful."

Time is getting late for BushCo to lie us into another war before the election. Fallon had to go, because he was too likely to spill the beans about the upcoming campaign of propaganda that will smear Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (not that this particular idiot needs much help to look bad) and the rest of the Iranian leadership.

The smartest thing Iran's ruling mullahs could do now is to make Ahmadinejad STFU. His bellicose rhetoric merely invites BushCo to use their "terrorists everywhere" propaganda yet again to persuade America that Iran is the next grave and urgent threat.

Who will be the first to take a deep hit on the Mushroom Cloud bong?
.
"Adapt or perish." Murphy's Law? Nope, Darwin's Guarantee.

Thomas P.M. Barnett wrote an article that has many pointing to it as the proverbial camel back breaking straw. Fallon, and Gates in the presser, cite distractions and the their inability to diffuse them as reasons for Fallon's departure. This doesn't strike me as a "spend more time with the family" type explanation, though on the face of it seems insufficient a reason to cause him to retire at a time when CENTOM is engaged in two wars. Regardless of the total reasons, it is reasonable to think the Esquire article was more than just not helpful.

If that's the case, and if Barnett indeed went to some lengths to write with a "poison pen" as Fallon has said, what are we to think of Barnett? Will his role in this be scrutinized more than just feigning journalistic duty with the requisite 15 min of fame to follow? Was it a poison pen that brought 40 years of outstanding service to an end in a time of war?

Does Barnett hate America?

"...cunning, baffling, powerful."

Expect the Dems to be voted in in droves.

I don't think America wants another war on the plate right now.

Bush and Cheney really better not do anything that stupid.

Really.

U.S. commander for Middle East resigns

Adm. William Fallon stepped down after an article in Esquire magazine portrayed his views on Iran as being at odds with those of President Bush.

By Gordon Lubold | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

from the March 12, 2008 edition

snip........

Fallon was thought to have disliked Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq. Although some believe the rift between them was exaggerated, most defense officials close to the men say it was clear that the two weren't close.

Senate majority leader Harry Reid said Fallon's resignation is another example that "independence and the frank, open airing of experts' views are not welcomed in this administration."

The surprise announcement put some Washington military analysts at a loss to know what it all meant initially. "I can't clearly see what the reason would be for why he resigned," says Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington. He notes Fallon's reasonably good relationship with the president and the fact that he was a recent arrival to the job. Fallon was assigned to Central Command about a year ago.

Fallon, who had occupied several senior jobs across the military, may simply be fatigued, Mr. O'Hanlon says, and given the controversy, this may have been as good a time as any to leave.

Although Fallon oversees the Middle East region, the success that General Petraeus has had in Iraq may overshadow his ability to be effective in the job, O'Hanlon says.

Fallon ends a 42-year career in the Navy. Before he was assigned to Central Command, he was the commander of US Pacific Command. There, he often "leaned forward" on engaging with China, arguing that US-Chinese relations were too important to ignore.

Some conservative critics believe he was too friendly with the Chinese, whose military buildup and global ambitions are unclear.

See this article from 2007:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/15/1212/

Quote:

"A source who met privately with Fallon ... quoted Fallon as saying that an attack on Iran "will not happen on my watch."

Asked how he could be sure, the source says, Fallon replied, "You know what choices I have. Im a professional."

Looks like today he exercised that option, and resigned.

Couple this with events off Lebanon's coast, assassination of Mughniyah, ... and my friends, things are a happening ...

I guess their editor didn't catch the title error

6 Signs the U.S. May Be Headed for War in Iraq
March 11, 2008 06:52 PM ET | Permanent Link
US News and World report

Is the United States moving toward military action with Iran?

The resignation of the top U.S. military commander for the Middle East is setting off alarms that the Bush administration is intent on using military force to stop Iran's moves toward gaining nuclear weapons. In announcing his sudden resignation today following a report on his views in Esquire, Adm. William Fallon didn't directly deny that he differs with President Bush over at least aspects of the president's policy on Iran. For his part, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said it is "ridiculous" to think that the departure of Fallon -- whose Central Command has been working on contingency plans for strikes on Iran as well as overseeing Iraq -- signals that the United States is planning to go to war with Iran.

Fallon's resignation, ending a 41-year Navy career, has reignited the buzz of speculation over what the Bush administration intends to do given that its troubled, sluggish diplomatic effort has failed to slow Iran's nuclear advances. Those activities include the advancing process of uranium enrichment, a key step to producing the material necessary to fuel a bomb, though the Iranians assert the work is to produce nuclear fuel for civilian power reactors not weapons.

Here are six developments that may have Iran as a common thread. And, if it comes to war, they may be seen as clues as to what was planned. None of them is conclusive, and each has a credible non-Iran related explanation:

1. Fallon's resignation: With the Army fully engaged in Iraq, much of the contingency planning for possible military action has fallen to the Navy, which has looked at the use of carrier-based warplanes and sea-launched missiles as the weapons to destroy Iran's air defenses and nuclear infrastructure. Centcom commands the U.S. naval forces in and near the Persian Gulf. In the aftermath of the problems with the Iraq war, there has been much discussion within the military that senior military officers should have resigned at the time when they disagreed with the White House.

2. Vice President Cheney's peace trip: Cheney, who is seen as a leading hawk on Iran, is going on what is described as a Mideast trip to try to give a boost to stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. But he has also scheduled two other stops: One, Oman, is a key military ally and logistics hub for military operations in the Persian Gulf. It also faces Iran across the narrow, vital Strait of Hormuz, the vulnerable oil transit chokepoint into and out of the Persian Gulf that Iran has threatened to blockade in the event of war. Cheney is also going to Saudi Arabia, whose support would be sought before any military action given its ability to increase oil supplies if Iran's oil is cutoff. Back in March 2002, Cheney made a high-profile Mideast trip to Saudi Arabia and other nations that officials said at the time was about diplomacy toward Iraq and not war, which began a year later.

3. Israeli airstrike on Syria: Israel's airstrike deep in Syria last October was reported to have targeted a nuclear-related facility, but details have remained sketchy and some experts have been skeptical that Syria had a covert nuclear program. An alternative scenario floating in Israel and Lebanon is that the real purpose of the strike was to force Syria to switch on the targeting electronics for newly received Russian anti-aircraft defenses. The location of the strike is seen as on a likely flight path to Iran (also crossing the friendly Kurdish-controlled Northern Iraq), and knowing the electronic signatures of the defensive systems is necessary to reduce the risks for warplanes heading to targets in Iran.

4. Warships off Lebanon: Two U.S. warships took up positions off Lebanon earlier this month, replacing the USS Cole. The deployment was said to signal U.S. concern over the political stalemate in Lebanon and the influence of Syria in that country. But the United States also would want its warships in the eastern Mediterranean in the event of military action against Iran to keep Iranian ally Syria in check and to help provide air cover to Israel against Iranian missile reprisals. One of the newly deployed ships, the USS Ross, is an Aegis guided missile destroyer, a top system to defense against air attacks.

5. Israeli comments: Israeli President Shimon Peres said earlier this month that Israel will not consider unilateral action to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. In the past, though, Israeli officials have quite consistently said they were prepared to act alone -- if that becomes necessary -- to ensure that Iran does not cross a nuclear weapons threshold. Was Peres speaking for himself, or has President Bush given the Israeli an assurance that they won't have to act alone?

6.Israel's war with Hezbollah: While this seems a bit old, Israel's July 2006 war in Lebanon against Iranian-backed Hezbollah forces was seen at the time as a step that Israel would want to take if it anticipated a clash with Iran. The radical Shiite group is seen not only as a threat on it own but also as a possible Iranian surrogate force in the event of war with Iran. So it was important for Israel to push Hezbollah forces back from their positions on Lebanon's border with Israel and to do enough damage to Hezbollah's Iranian-supplied arsenals to reduce its capabilities. Since then, Hezbollah has been able to rearm, though a United Nations force polices a border area buffer zone in southern Lebanon.

Defense Secretary Gates said that Fallon, 63, asked for permission to retire. Gates said the decision, effective March 31, was entirely Fallon's and that Gates believed it was "the right thing to do." In Esquire, an article on Fallon portrayed him as opposed to President Bush's Iran policy and said he was a lone voice against taking military action to stop the Iranian nuclear program. In his statement, Fallon said he agreed with the president's "policy objectives" but was silent on whether he opposed aspects of the president's plans. "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 in the Centcom region," Fallon, said in the statement issued by Centcom headquarters in Tampa, Fla. "And 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," he said. Gates announced that Fallon's top deputy, Army Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, will take over temporarily when Fallon leaves. A permanent successor, requiring nomination by the president and confirmation by the Senate, might not be designated in the near term.

--Terry Atlas

posted under fair use

Adm. Fallon spent a lot of time shuffling across the ME from Egypt to Pakistan doing what the State Department and Secretary of State should be doing. He is an extraordinarily brilliant and experienced hand, and his exit bodes disaster for the US in the region, since the Bush administration fails miserably in both strategic thinking and diplomacy. Without Fallon, the whole region will look very different.

The neocons do not plan "war" with Iran. They want to do another shock and awe on Iran as the next move in the game of disaster capitalism. I don't think that plan a boots on the ground phase, but rather to destroy Iran's military and infrastructure, basically setting it back decades. If there is an invasion, it will only be with the Brits to secure the oil fields. This was part of the original plan. However, there may not be the means available to accomplish it now.

I suspect the administration knows the consequences for starting a war with Iran or anybody else prior to leaving office.

1) If Republicans win, the hawks war plans get a big boost in new territories.

2) If the attack occurs before the election, early victories might be seen as bolstering the Republican chances, as people might want seasoned warriors at the helm.

3) If the Democrats win, they don't want to be seen as weak on national security. They might seek an early exit, but either they adopt the war as their own, in which case long-term war fatigue hits them, or they break off and are seen as surrendering. America doesn't hit and run. "You break it, you fix it."

I can not imagine a new administration totally abdicating responsibility for any new war Bush might start as a parting gift. Iranian backlash would almost certainly guarantee any new president would support the expansion of the war and struggle mightily to find the means to make it successful. Just what the hawks want. Whoever wins, just hand them a new war to pre-occupy them and sink any progress they might otherwise have pursued.

You have penetrated inside the neocon brain.

Of course they will start a new all-out war in Iran before the elections. It is McCain's best shot at winning. And it will force closet-hawks like Nancy Pelosi and Hillary herself to have to come out all macho and stuff in support of the war.

Any voice of reason will drummed out. Any domestic programs will be put (yet again) on the eternal backburner. They contractors are already salivating for more after the windfall of the second Iraq War.

The key thing here is what I have said since 2000 about predicting Bush policy: if it is the worst, most unthinkable policy that kills the most people and cuts outs America's innards, then that is the preferred option of the Bush Administration.

It rings true here too: War with Iran is the most disastrous, deathly, and earth-destroying option available to the Bushies. It is also the one most destructive to America.

Those facts alone mean it is the option they will pursue.

If Americans tolerate them doing that, then the conclusion is inescapable: it's our fault.

It will be too late then to hide behind "I didn't vote for Bush." It's our country, and we will have failed ourselves, failed our responsibility to the world, and failed as a nation, let alone an empire.

From what I see, I don't think Americans understand just how devastating the repercussions are going to be for the average American.

If they do that, the absolute smartest thing a Dem Pres could do is end it immediately, get the hell out of the M.E., and start rebuilding America from the inside out.

Also, from what I have seen, the Dems, Obama included, are not up to the task.

I see darkness coming. A lot of it.

I find it un-f%&king-believable that this story isn't even mentioned on CNN's frontpage but atleast I know Mary-Ann from Gilligan's Island has been arrested for possession again. I know I shouldn't be surprised but it's still frustrating ...

"If I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph:
The only proof he needed for the existence of God was music."
-Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without A Country

Commander's Resignation Shows a New Era of Micromanagement
Alan Arkin

On the surface, the early retirement of Adm. William Fallon appears to be another instance of the Bush administration's contempt for military advice and a mark of potential war with Iran.

Fallon's "views on strategy in the region have put him at odds with the Bush administration," says The Post. 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" says the New York Times.

Yet we are not going to war against Iran, and Fallon's leaving is not going to change anything in Iraq. The issue is that we have entered a new era of micromanagement and control, where the view of the "commander" in the field is secondary to the needs of Washington.

Fallon, the commander of the U.S. Central Command, which oversees military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, abruptly resigned yesterday, asking for and receiving permission from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to seek early retirement. Known as "Fox" Fallon, he had taken over the job from two failed Iraq commanders just last year.

The "reason" for Fallon stepping down is ostensibly a profile in this month's Esquire magazine where Fallon is portrayed as challenging President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over a potential war with Iran. In the article, written by a military expert and former War College professor, Fallon says a war with Iran would be ill-advised. Last year, he also said that "bellicose comments" from Washington about Iran were "not particularly helpful," an admonition that many saw as a direct criticism of the president.

In a statement issued by his headquarters yesterday, Fallon 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 theater. "I don't believe there have been any differences about the objectives of our policy" in the Middle East, Fallon said.

Many senior military officers were quick yesterday to point out that Fallon's views were in line with both Gates and Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Yes, perhaps Fallon had been forceful in his opinion, and didn't believe that war with Iran made sense or was winnable. But that is not a sufficient explanation for his resignation.

Previously the commander of Pacific Command, perhaps the most powerful and expansive posting for any American military officer, Fallon took up the Middle East post and soon found himself having to contend with a losing war in Iraq, a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and a White House seemingly intent on confrontation with Iran. What is more, though Fallon was the new "combatant commander" with the authority to direct day-to-day dealings and tactics of the Iraq war, he instead found himself largely marginalized.

Fallon was a naval officer commanding in a ground-forces theater that had only seen Army and Marine Corps commanders. And with the anointment of Gen. David H. Petraeus as savior of Iraq, he was made secondary in terms of directing the war effort there.

Then came an odd phenomenon associated with the surge and the American political debate about support for the troops. The armed services, which are supposed to raise and train the forces, were pitted against the "needs" of the commander, who is supposed to determine requirements and strategy to fight and win (under the law, the combatant commander, and not the services, is supreme). For political and domestic reasons, the Army and Marine Corps' views regarding how many troops they could afford and the health of the services became paramount.

What is more, when President Bush said he was listening to his "commanders," even if it were indeed true, the impression was that he was listening to Petraeus and not Fallon. So the supreme commander for the Middle East became more adviser and kibitzer than commander.

Relegated to handling the Iran portfolio, military strategy and approaches regarding Tehran soon became a point of friction between Fallon and the White House. In the end, it was Fallon's strange and untenable position as commander-but-not-commander that doomed him.

In Esquire and in the news media, Fallon is characterized as speaking out on Afghanistan and troop strengths in Iraq and Iran, as if somehow he was stepping out of line or "meddling." Some will find it worrisome that the administration only makes a pretense of listening to its military commanders. I find it much more worrisome that there is nothing particularly "military" associated with most of the decisions we are making regarding Iraq, Afghanistan or Iran, and yet we continue to make a fetish of according the brass some superior understanding of the nation's needs.