Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
doc Page 1 of 8
The abrupt resignation yesterday of the top U.S. commander in the Middle East,
Admiral William J. "Fox" Fallon, has sparked a new round of speculation that President
Bush and Vice President Cheney have some sort of plan in the works to attack Iran
before their time is up.
Fallon's resignation -- or firing -- was apparently precipitated in part by a recent Esquire
profile that depicted him as brazenly pushing back against the White House hawks
eager to launch another war.
Now it turns out that what Thomas P.M. Barnett, a former Naval War College professor,
wrote in that profile was eerily prescient: "How does Fallon get away with so brazenly
challenging his commander in chief?
"The answer is that he might not get away with it for much longer. President Bush is
not accustomed to a subordinate who speaks his mind as freely as Fallon does, and the
president may have had enough.
"Just as Fallon took over Centcom last spring, the White House was putting itself on a
war footing with Iran. Almost instantly, Fallon began to calmly push back against what
he saw as an ill-advised action. Over the course of 2007, Fallon's statements in the
press grew increasingly dismissive of the possibility of war, creating serious friction
with the White House.
"Last December, when the National Intelligence Estimate downgraded the immediate
nuclear threat from Iran, it seemed as if Fallon's caution was justified. But still, well-
placed observers now say that it will come as no surprise if Fallon is relieved of his
command before his time is up next spring, maybe as early as this summer, in favor of
a commander the White House considers to be more pliable. If that were to happen, 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.
"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."
Thom Shanker writes in the New York Times: "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.' . . .
53407132.doc Page 2 of 8
"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. . . .
"[T]here 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. . . .
"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."
Yochi J. Dreazen writes in the Wall Street Journal (subscription required) that Fallon's
departure "could make it easier for the Bush administration to maintain troop levels in
Iraq and adopt a tougher approach to Iran.
"Adm. Fallon had favored a significant withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, arguing that
the open-ended deployment of 140,000 military personnel there was causing growing
manpower strains throughout the armed forces. That position sparked tensions with
Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq and a White House favorite.
"Adm. Fallon has also long appeared to question the administration's Iran policy,
arguing publicly that the White House's hard-line rhetoric and implied threats of
military force against Iran were dangerous and unproductive. In interviews with a
variety of media outlets in recent months, Adm. Fallon played down the possibility of
an American strike on Iran and indicated that he thought such an attack would be a
mistake.
"The resignation made Adm. Fallon one of the first high-ranking military officers to
leave active duty amid tensions with the White House since President Harry Truman
fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur at the height of the Korean War. . . .
"The Esquire profile was published on the Internet last week and sparked an immediate
furor within the White House and the Pentagon. Senior Bush administration officials
saw the article as a sign that Adm. Fallon was trying to publicly undercut Mr. Bush and
limit the president's hand, according to two White House aides familiar with the
internal discussions.
"'It was seen as a form of insubordination,' one of the White House officials said."
On the NBC Nightly News, Jim Miklaszewski reported: "Sources say that, in the end,
under pressure from the White House, Defense Secretary Gates refused to take Fallon's
calls, making it clear he had to go."
Thomas E. Ricks writes in The Washington Post: "Fallon is expected to step down at the
end of the month, after barely a year in his position, and just eight days before
Petraeus is scheduled to testify before Congress about conditions in Iraq. . . .
"Several Democrats were quick to accuse the administration of not tolerating dissent.
'It's distressing that Admiral Fallon feels he had to step down,' said Sen. Edward M.
Kennedy (Mass.). 'President Bush's oft-repeated claim that he follows the advice of his
53407132.doc Page 3 of 8
commanders on the ground rings hollow if our commanders don't feel free to disagree
with the president.' Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) asked whether Fallon's
resignation is a reflection that the administration is hostile to 'the frank, open airing of
experts' views.'"
Janine Zacharia and Ken Fireman write for Bloomberg: "Admiral William Fallon's
resignation as U.S. commander in the Middle East provoked criticism that President
George W. Bush won't tolerate dissent and fed speculation his Iran policy could
become more confrontational. . . .
"Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, a U.S. senator from New York, called
Fallon a 'sensible voice' that supported 'engaging Iran.' She urged her colleagues to
back a bill requiring Bush to get congressional approval before taking any military
action against Iran.
"Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska lamented Fallon's departure, saying in
an interview with Bloomberg Television that he was 'very concerned to see him go.'"
On the CBS Evening News, David Martin narrated Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates's
unscheduled news conference, where Fallon's resignation was announced
Martin: "Secretary Gates insisted Fallon had not been pressured to resign."
Gates: "Admiral Fallon reached this difficult decision entirely on his own."
Martin: "He also insisted Fallon was not the odd man out when it came to war with
Iran."
Gates: "We've all talked about all options being on the table, but we've also focused on
the importance of pursuing economic and diplomatic pressures against Iran. So I don't
think that there really were differences at all."
Martin: "Gates has made no secret he, too, is opposed to war with Iran. But Fallon all
but ruled it out, telling Al-Jazeera, 'I expect there will be no war.' So does Fallon's
departure clear the decks for another war?"
Gates: "The notion that this decision portends anything in terms of a change in Iran
policy is . . . ridiculous."
Martin concludes: "Virtually every senior military officer is opposed to war with Iran.
But from now on they might be more cautious about how they say it."
Terry Atlas blogs for U.S. News and World Report with "6 Signs the U.S. May Be Headed
for War in Iran." They are: Fallon's resignation, Cheney's trip to the Middle East, the
Israeli airstrike on Syria, U.S. warships off Lebanon, Israeli comments and Israel's war
with Hezbollah.
Atlas explains each one. Why the Israeli airstrike on Syria, for instance? Atlas writes:
"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."
The Cheney Factor
Cheney leaves Sunday for a trip to the Middle East. In yesterday's column, I suggested
that reporters try to find out what he tells the Israelis about Iran. That's even more
important today.
53407132.doc Page 4 of 8
ideological interests ahead of the national interest,' Perino said in a statement. She
criticized the provision calling for the creation of a bipartisan commission to examine
the administration's warrantless surveillance activities. 'We can only draw one
conclusion from this -- House leaders are more interested in playing politics with past
efforts to protect the country than they are in preventing terrorist attacks in the
future.'"
Does that kind of language stiffen Democrats' spines? Or does it frighten them into
submission? Stay tuned.
Iraq Watch
Sheryl Gay Stolberg writes in the New York Times: "President Bush delivered a rousing
defense of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on Tuesday, mixing faith and foreign policy
as he told a group of Christian broadcasters that his policies in the region were
predicated on the beliefs that freedom was a God-given right and 'every human being
bears the image of our maker.' . . .
"The speech, coming a week before the fifth anniversary of the American invasion of
Iraq, is the first of three talks on terrorism and war policy that Mr. Bush will give before
next month's Congressional testimony by the top American military commander in
Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, and the senior diplomat there, Ambassador Ryan C.
Crocker."
Michael Abramowitz writes in The Washington Post: "Over the next several months,
Bush must decide how many troops in the two major theaters of U.S. military
operations to leave his successor, a decision that could influence the fall elections and
help shape his legacy. On Iraq, Bush indicated Tuesday, he will be guided solely by his
determination of the troop strength necessary to maintain stability.
"'The politics of 2008 is not going to enter into my calculation. It is the peace of the
years to come that will enter into my calculation,' Bush told a friendly audience of
religious radio and television broadcasters. . . .
"The president showed little self-doubt about the crucial choices he has made over the
past five years, especially the decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein. He has made
this point before, but on Tuesday he appeared especially animated in declaring: 'The
decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision early in my presidency; it is
the right decision at this point in my presidency; and it will forever be the right
decision.'"
Meanwhile, James Glanz and Eric Schmitt write in the New York Times: "Newly
declassified statistics on the frequency of insurgent attacks in Iraq suggest that after
major security gains last fall in the wake of an American troop increase, the conflict has
drifted into a stalemate, with levels of violence remaining stubbornly constant from
November 2007 through early 2008."
About Billy Graham
In his speech to the religious broadcasters, Bush paid homage to Billy Graham: "[E]ach
of us has had doors opened to us by the same man. He led the way for America's
religious broadcasters. He brought the Gospel to millions, and many years ago he
helped me change my life. And today this good man is recovering from surgery in
North Carolina -- and please join me in sending our love and prayers to Billy Graham."
Jacob Weisberg, in a Slate excerpt from his book, writes that Bush's famous story about
"a soul-searching conversation with the Rev. Billy Graham that prompted him to re-
evaluate his life, accept Jesus, and give up drinking" does not appear to be precisely
true. "[O]n closer examination, this story too turns out to be a parable, crafted to
convey an idea about the subject rather than to relate the literal truth of what
53407132.doc Page 7 of 8
happened. Like almost every other detail about his spiritual life that Bush has chosen
to reveal, it shows evidence of being shaped and packaged."
Signing Statements Watch
One of the most underexplored aspects of Bush's unprecedented use of signing
statements has been the practical consequences.
A year ago, the Government Accountability Office found that, indeed, federal officials
had not complied with at least some of the provisions that Bush objected to in signing
statements.
In testimony to a House committee yesterday, GAO general counsel Gary L. Kepplinger
announced the results of another study, this one of provisions in the 2008 defense
authorization, which found more of the same. The GAO examined how 21 agencies
executed 29 different provisions of the law that Bush asserted his right not to follow --
and found that in nine cases "the agencies had not executed the provisions as written."
As with the earlier study, the specific examples are less than compelling -- the
investigation, for instance, avoided "a close examination of provisions involving
national security, intelligence, or foreign relations matters, because of our limited
access to such information and the time constraints on our work."
Nevertheless, it does seem like there's some fire under the smoke. And Kepplinger
recommended "careful" Congression oversight of the provisions to which Bush has
objected.
What was the response from the Bush administration at yesterday's hearing? There
wasn't any.
Megan Scully wrote in CongressDaily yesterday that senior Bush administration officials
"refused invitations to testify Tuesday during a House Armed Services Oversight and
Investigations Subcommittee hearing examining President Bush's signing statement on
the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill."
Star Wars Watch
Tom Raum writes for the Associated Press: "Borrowing a theme from the presidential
contest, Vice President Dick Cheney said Tuesday that the possibility of a 3 a.m.
emergency call to the White House is all the more reason for the next commander in
chief to follow through on President Bush's plans for a national missile defense.
"'It's plain to see that the world around us gives ample reason to continue working on
missile defense,' Cheney told the conservative Heritage Foundation at a dinner
recognizing the 25th anniversary of President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative, a
proposed network of rockets capable of shooting down incoming intercontinental
ballistic missiles."
A Cheney Deposition?
George Merrit writes from Denver for the Associated Press: "A federal magistrate
indicated Tuesday he will order Vice President Dick Cheney to give sworn testimony in
a lawsuit by a man who claims he was wrongly arrested after approaching Cheney.
"Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer did not issue an order but said Cheney is a key
witness whose deposition appears to be crucial to the case."
Bush on Tape
Finally, there's audio of Bush's off-tune singing performance at the Gridiron Club dinner
on Saturday.
53407132.doc Page 8 of 8
Blogger dday approvingly quotes MSNBC's Chris Matthews, who said last night of
Bush's performance: "Well, that was quite a hoot. All that joking from the President
about Brownie, that guy in charge of the New Orleans disaster, and of course Scooter
Libby, the guy involved in the CIA coverup. If there's one thing I can't stand, it's
reporters, the best of them, laughing at events and political acts that warrant anything,
I mean, anything but laughter. There is nothing, nothing funny about Bush's reference
to Brownie, that disastrous appointment followed by that catastrophic handling of the
Katrina horror in New Orleans. Nothing funny about a war fought for bad intelligence,
and a top aide, Scooter Libby, who committed perjury and obstruction of justice to
cover it up. Nothing funny about a President, who commuted that sentence to keep the
coverup protected. Otherwise, I'm sure it was an enjoyable get-together between
journalists and the people they're charged with covering."
Live Online
I'm Live Online today at a special time: Noon ET. Come join the conversation.
Froomkin Watch
The column is going dark for two days -- it will resume on Monday. Tonight, I'm
attending an I.F. Stone 100th birthday party (and panel discussion) at New York
University. (Read more about I.F. Stone commemorations here.) And then over the
weekend I'll be at the Nieman Conference on Narrative Journalism in Boston.
Late Night Humor
Jay Leno, via U.S. News: "Well, here's a very scary story. Prescription medications have
been discovered in the drinking water supplies of at least 41 million Americans."
President Bush "calls that the Republican healthcare plan."
Cartoon Watch
Larry Wright on Bush's economic advice.