U.S. Middle East Commander Checks Out
“The commander of US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, Admiral William Fallon, is to retire from his post early.
He cited the “embarrassing situation and public perception of differences between my views and administration policy” as the reason for retiring.
He was the subject of a recent article by Esquire magazine, which said he was opposed to the use of force against Iran over its nuclear programme.
The 63-year-old admiral became head of the US Central Command a year ago.”
This sort of thing happens when Administrations fail to listen to their senior military officials. It has been that way since the pre-war planning stages. Neo-Cons like Paul Wolfowitz, who was U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense during the planning stage and retained his post until 2005, envisioned Iraq as an opportunity for industrial development and privatization. Wolfowitz’s policy coupled with Rumsfeld’s privatization en mass philosophy helped foster the strategy of a light foot in the sand, which lead to the creation of the defunct CPA and the promotion of flunks like Paul Bremer and a massive privatization campaign which sold off giant private contracts to corporations like Blackwater, Halliburton, and DynoCorp, for jobs ranging from diplomat security, green zone construction, or even attack/patrol augmentations.
This strategy has obviously proved inadequate. The failure of mild-troop level occupation, incidents like the Blackwater scandal late last year, and the continuing horror stories of crumbling infrastructure has required a change in strategy that has come too little, too late. It seems as if America’s time frame for workability is running out. American credibility is nearly shot, and the current situation seems to have taken its toll, even on the most formidable.
Even more ludicrous is the continuous talk of possible military confrontation with Iran. This has had obvious ripples through the U.S. military command. Talks of uses force to coerce policy shift in Iran could have some harmful consequences to the U.S. military leadership. In a late 2007 article, the Times hinted that some of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defense and intelligence sources.
“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”
How many red flags must be flown before some sort of self-actualization process occurs? Perhaps the actualization process never really occurs, just a shift in personnel come next year.
There won’t be any self-actualization. This administration refuses to learn from its mistakes, no matter how bad the consequences are and no matter how many analysts disagree.
Ratcheting up tensions with Iran is probably the second biggest foreign policy disaster that the Bush administration is cooking. The other is obviously Iraq. We need to be warming up to Iran and engaging them more openly, not shunning them, isolating them, and threatening them.
Perhaps the Bush administration postulates Iran as a real threat because it is good geopolitical leverage. I suppose it is a good leverage tool and a decent deceiving tactic.
Despite the late 2007 N.I.E. report that Iran has abandoned their nuclear weapon program they still actively pursue an Uranium enrichment program; that, apparently, is enough to raise eyebrows at the IAEA and a cause for concern for nations in the immediate region, like Russia. Still,the benefit derived from the apprehensiveness and war-talk from the U.S. does nothing but hamper U.S.-Iranian relations and serve as a reason to distrust the U.S.
Since we’re going to listen to our senior military officials, its okay to listen to Admiral Fallon but not General Petraeus?
Chris, I didn’t say anything about not listening to Petraues. In fact, I think my post does some justice to the General. Certainly, the General, who strongly urged for a surge in troops would not have agreed with the initial “light-footed” strategy in Iraq. It’s people like Petraues who were ignored during the pre-war, execution, and occupation planning stages. I’m sure if Petraues had the option, he would have never disbanded the Iraqi military, let alone let someone like Paul Bremer run the CPA. The point was that too little has probably be done too late. When an eminent leader, such as Adm. Fallon, resigns, it means that something is/has gone wrong.
As to the issue of Iran, the call for military intervention is a military and political non-starter. Say Petraues wants to invade Iran (which he’s never said, but probably isn’t far from the back of his mind). The proposal would never get off the ground; there’s just no political capital for such a move. Neither Congress nor many of the U.S.’s top military officials believe invading Iran is a viable option. Petraues says Iran is a problem to stability in Iraq. Yes, that has been the case since the get-go; however, is a military intervention into Iran going to make the Iranian situation better or worse? I, and many others, including top military officials, say worse.
If that doesn’t satisfy your comment Chris, perhaps you could elaborate a bit further as to what you meant by “not listening to Petraues”?