CDRUSCENTCOM Resigns

[Baildog]

WASHINGTON — Admiral William Fallon, the head of U.S. Central Command, which leads U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, is stepping down, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced Tuesday.
Fallon claimed ongoing misperceptions about differences between his ideas and U.S. policy are making it too difficult for him to operate, Gates said, agreeing. He added that the differences are not extreme, but the misperception had become too great.
"I don't know whether he was misinterpreted or whether people attributed views to him that were not his views, but clearly there was a concern," Gates said.
The misperceptions relate to an article published last week in Esquire magazine that portrayed Fallon as opposed to President Bush's Iran policy. It described Fallon as a lone voice against taking military action to stop the Iranian nuclear program.
"I think this is a cumulative kind of thing," Gates countered. "It isn't the result of any one article or any one issue."
Fallon has had a 41-year Navy career. He took the Central Command post on March 16, 2007, succeeding Army Gen. John Abizaid, who retired. Fallon previously served as commander of U.S. Pacific Command.
<!-- QUIGO --><!-- QUIGO -->
It was often reported that he and Gen. David Petraeus butt heads about troop levels in Iraq, which the two denied, but was an ongoing dispute that simmered below the surface within the Pentagon. Fallon is responsible for not only Iraq and Afghanistan. The article noted that the troop numbers were so taxed in Iraq that it was hurting operations in Afghanistan.
Centcom's second-in-command Gen. Martin Dempsey will now take over Fallon's post.

<!-- QUIGO --><!-- QUIGO -->

[Baildog]

Link to the Esquire article
http://www.esquire.com/print-this/features/fox-fallon#

[CDRODA396]

Centcom's second-in-command Gen. Martin Dempsey will now take over Fallon's post.

Interesting stuff fur sure...Anyone know if this guy is the actual pic, or an interim fill and anyone know what his background is...just curious?

[Frog]

For this abrupt and unplanned move, Dempsey is just a gap filler. I suspect Gates either fired him or the ADM just plain got tired of it all and quit. With 41 years of service he will retire with over 100% of his pay. I know Fallon, he is a good guy.

[Silverbullet]

Adm Fallow is a good guy but with 2 ground wars taking place in his AOs he was at constant odds with others who were more ground orientated.

I suspect he was asked to move on to make room for General Petraeus.

[Jimbo]

I suspect he was asked to move on to make room for General Petraeus.

That may be the end result, and one that is ultimately best for our strategic interests, but I doubt that he was asked to step down. The Esquire article is pretty remarkable. Fallon may be a great guy, but he was a fool for letting that article get published.

[HoosGhost]

That may be the end result, and one that is ultimately best for our strategic interests, but I doubt that he was asked to step down. The Esquire article is pretty remarkable. Fallon may be a great guy, but he was a fool for letting that article get published.

The Admiral's candor in an on-the-record article was not likely "in line with policy". It is however refreshing to note the author's remark: And so Fallon, the good cop, may soon be unemployed because he's doing what a generation of young officers in the U. S. military are now openly complaining that their leaders didn't do on their behalf in the run-up to the war in Iraq: He's standing up to the commander in chief, whom he thinks is contemplating a strategically unsound war.

Had the Admiral been an anonymous source, the article would not have carried a great deal of weight nor would it have been attributed to many people in the highest reaches of government.

I'd wager he saw few other options and stuck to his own integrity; one of the few available options was to have this interview published (likely without 'approval' from DC), knowing full well he would tender or be 'asked' to tender his resignation afterwards. I say bravo for that.

[SN]

Fallon may be a great guy, but he was a fool for letting that article get published.

Agree.

The article also implies he was soft (IMO) on the Chinese threat, and denigrates Gen Petraeus.

[Silverbullet]

I'd wager he saw few other options and stuck to his own integrity; one of the few available options was to have this interview published (likely without 'approval' from DC), knowing full well he would tender or be 'asked' to tender his resignation afterwards. I say bravo for that.

So he thought that deep into it and decided to to it with that specific magazine?

His comments afterward about the article and magazine fly in the face of what you just posted.

I have no issues with him having his own ideas, however wrong they may be. He shouldn't have accepted the job if he was going to take those ideas into the public domain. The way it works is you make you objections known in private. You carry out your orders when the decision is made and don't complain in public. If you have serious objections to the policy, you don't accept the appointment to the position, resign and then make all the public statements you want. It's the same exact procedure the Adm would expect out of any of his subordinates.

The reality is he had 2 ground campaigns under his command. He couldn't get along with the ground commanders or be on the same page, publically, with his boss.

Like I stated, he's a good man but he wasn't the guy for this job.

[glassiam]

Adm Fallow is a good guy but with 2 ground wars taking place in his AOs he was at constant odds with others who were more ground orientated.

I suspect he was asked to move on to make room for General Petraeus.

I don't know enoght about the Admiral's 41 year service record to make a sound judgement, but.....Like SB eluded to, this may be a bit out of his lane, considering the ground experience of those under him.

He definately shouldn't disagree publicly while still in command. Resign, then say whatever the hell you wish. Just MHO.

[Scotty]

Welcome to Iran, boys! The Admiral was one of the most vocal proponants for diplomacy with them rather than calling their bluffs. I'm interested to see what happens there next...

Scotty

[JRB11]

I doubt he was hands on with tactical ground decisions. I think he believes that the US may be headed for a fight with Iran, and he didn't think now was the time, and I happen to agree.

[Scotty]

I don't think it's the time either, but he was one of the most vocal against it period.

[Baildog]

Ironically, I seem to recall the conspiracy theory du jour when AMD Fallon took over CENTCOM was that putting a Navy guy in CENTCOM signalled a coming fight with Iran because we would need carriers to project air power into Iran.

[Jimbo]

I think he believes that the US may be headed for a fight with Iran, and he didn't think now was the time, and I happen to agree.

When I hear or read sentiments like this, I often think 'if war is the answer, what is the question'? I am further curious if the writer/speaker considers proxy war, low intensity conflict or economic restrictions part of their definition of 'war' and, if not, what the writer/speaker considers the threshold for 'war'. I would ask this same question of the author of the article and ADM Fallon.

If the speaker/writer does indeed consider proxy war, low intensity conflict or economic restrictions 'war', then they must acknowledge that the US has been in a fight with Iran since before 1979.

With that semantic issue out of the way, the question then becomes, "Now that we are in a 'war', what is the best way to fight it?" Personalities and policies aside, there seem to be many who think that ADM Fallon did not have the best answers to that question.

[Silverbullet]

I doubt he was hands on with tactical ground decisions.

All informed sources point to the fact he was. In fact they point to that he did not agree with the surge and also was pushing for a draw down of forces regardless of the tactical situation on the ground. He wasn't shy about this subj.

I don't see anyone pushing for a fight with Iran. That's a boogie man made up by the press. The reality is that a strong position is understood and respected by Iran. The same strong position he seemed to be so offended by was more of determent than his conciliatory position ever would have been.

[JRB11]

I would agree that we have been in conflict with Iran since 1979, but I would say this level of conflict falls very short of war, even proxy war. My opinion is that we ended with 1979 because of actions we took many years earlier involving the Shah. SOme call this blow back, some say watch what you wish for.
There's obviously some bad mother fuckers in Iran who wish they could watch us die a slow death, and it would be nice to take them out. I also remember being amazed at the anti-terrorist marches in Tehran on 9-12-01. I think most Iranians also want those bad mother fuckers gone, but they may change their minds if we go from a conflict to a war, and I honestly get the feeling that this admin. is pushing all the right buttons to make that happen.
I have no doubt we could bomb them into the stone age, but what would come after? How would the Muslim world react and what would the consequences be, and in the end, would it be worth it? If Iraq had gone as predicted by the "great theorists" in Wa., I may have a different take on it, but right now my Bullshit meter is pegged out. Thats my take, and I'm stickin to it. As for Fallon, never heard of him until he resigned, all I know is what I've read recently.