On Tuesday, the Pentagon announced that Admiral William Fallon, the 41-year navy veteran and commander of US Central Command (CentCom) requested permission to retire, and that Secretary Gates approved his request. Last week, Thomas Barnett of Esquire Magazine published a revealing piece speculating that Fallon might be pushed out because he “was the strongest man standing between the Bush Administration and a war with Iran.”
Gates was quick to call a press conference to announce the retirement and dispel the notion that there were any policy differences between Fallon and the administration. We have been following this story all day, and a few different theories are percolating inside the beltway about what this all means.
Though there are plenty of reasons to see this development suspiciously, Fallon’s history with conventional wisdom suggests that the truth may yet be unknown.
When Fallon was named to the CentCom post on January 5th, 2007, it was widely viewed in anti-war circles with trepidation. After all, CentCom had never had a naval officer as a leader, because the area under its purview is dominated by land. From the Sahara in the West to Kashmir in the East and the Caucus mountains in the North, this is an area with two active theatres of war (Afghanistan and Iraq) and half-a-dozen conflict zones.
Furthermore, Fallon was to replace General Abizaid, who had opposed the Iraq surge and advocated for a regional approach to Iraq; so it was natural for many policy analysts to be worried that he was being brought in to command a naval-based war with Iran from the Persian Gulf. This conventional wisdom was fully turned on its head a mere two months later when Fallon opposed a military build-up in the Persian Gulf, and was even quoted saying, “There are several of us trying to put the crazies back in the box,” referring to Iran-war hawks.
Since March 2007, Fallon has been seen by many within the DC policy community as one of the main obstacles to a White House-led pre-emptive military strike on Iran. Then on December 3, 2007, when the Iran National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) was released, the conventional wisdom inside the beltway (except for a few notable exceptions) changed dramatically to believe that a war with Iran would be improbable. (As recently as last week, Steve Clemons dismissed “premeditated attack on Iran”.)
Then last week, a six-part Esquire piece was published. When asked about the possibility that Fallon was going to leave before his tenure was up, White House press spokes person Dana Perino attacked the “rumor mills that don’t turn out to be true.” Yet today it seems the ‘rumor mills’ have been justified.
One disheartening byproduct of this resignation is that Fallon was an advocate for an “Incident-at-Sea” agreement that NIAC has also called for. This agreement, if pursued, could help prevent an all-out war being sparked by relatively insignificant incidents, like the one that occurred in January of this year. According to reports, these types of ‘brush-ups’ occur regularly in the narrow and heavily-trafficked Strait of Hormuz.
Thus, it is easy to view Fallon’s ‘retirement’ as an internal power struggle between the more hawkish elements of the administration in the Pentagon and the Vice President’s office, and those trying to pull the ‘crazies’ back from the brink of war.
There are other plausible explanations.
In a personal conversation between NIAC and someone close to the CentCom commander, it was suggested that he is retiring intentionally to provide himself with a cushion of distance in order to be brought back (in a policy role) by a future administration. Another informed opinion close to Fallon has indicated that he may be leaving because he is confident enough that an attack on Iran will not occur.
Whatever the case may be now, Fallon’s role in the complicated US-Iran relationship has been consistently misinterpreted. This may be yet another occasion where there is more going on than meets the eye. Or, it could be the first indication of an imminent policy shift on Iran. We will keep you updated as we uncover more information.
March 12, 2008 at 7:36 am
Lots of links, I know – but be sure to read the Esquire piece at least. It was quite an amazing bit of journalism.
I am personally quite upset about the implications of this resignation – I really dont think it bodes well.
i’m curious what you all think this might mean. Have you read any other explanations?
March 12, 2008 at 7:37 am
This was an interesting analysis from January I came across – be sure to read it if you can.
http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=93#more-93
March 12, 2008 at 8:38 am
Here is another article which is well argued with a very different take. It basically fleshes out the official line that Gates and the White House are arguing.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JC13Ak03.html
March 12, 2008 at 8:59 am
Fallon will be Secretary of Defense under the Obama administration.
March 12, 2008 at 10:18 am
The Fox is the brother of Jackle.
March 12, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Much of the analysis on Fallon’s resignation has focused on his views regarding war with Iran. However, Professor Juan Cole provides an alternate perspective:
“My guess is that the real reason for moving Fallon out is not Iran but Iraq, and that he is being made to step down for the same reason that Donald Rumsfeld was. He does not agree with the long-term troop escalation or ’surge’ in Iraq. He doesn’t believe that counter-insurgency will work in Iraq in the medium term. And as an admiral, he has his eye on potential trouble spots such as Taiwan and North Korea, and is frustrated that the hands of the US are tied as long as it is bogged down in the Iraq quagmire. Having such a big dissenter as CENTCOM commander is inconvenient for the Republican Party at a time when John McCain is admitting that if he fails to convince the American people that the surge is succeeding, he will lose the presidency. That is, Fallon may have run afoul not of Cheney on Iran but McCain on Iraq. This may be Bush’s first favor to the Republican nominee, who after all had a career as a naval officer himself.”
March 14, 2008 at 11:26 am
Mark – it seems the CW in DC is moving in that direction.
But the fact remains that he was an important voice in the Iran-War issue. I hope he starts going public about some of this stuff – but I’m not going to hold my breath.