Fallon Resigns - War with Iran more likely?

[Kopji]

Centcom Commander Admiral Fallon just resigned.
Everyone is denying this means war with Iran is more likely.

http://fieldnotes.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/11/754424.aspx

[WildCat]

There is not going to be a war with Iran. Anyone who thinks so is, frankly, an idiot.

[Kopji]

I must complement you on your concise application of fallacy in educating us. :P

[WildCat]

I must complement you on your concise application of fallacy in educating us. :P
Sorry, but it ain't gonna happen. There's no reason to, no one is advocating it, no one wants it.

You have to be paranoid on par with 9/11 truthers or Ron Paul supporters to even think it's a possibility.

[Beerina]

Even with 9/11, it took months of buildup and persuasion to go into Iraq. Given the struggles there, the troubles with truthfulness (at worst) and incompetency (at best), and the net results, barring a direct attack by Iran, nothing is going to happen.

Even the political motive -- re-election -- is not in play this time. Remember Bush's dad lost his election because of both Perot and also because he had his war "too soon" for it to be a major issue in the election.

So it ain't gonna happen.

[dudalb]

I think saying that Fallon is the only think standing between the US and War With Iran is a gross journalistic overstatment.
I get the feeling that some people want a war with Iran to start in the next few months because that would help defeat the GOP in November. That is another reason why it won't happen in the near future.

[skeptical]

Sorry, but it ain't gonna happen. There's no reason to, no one is advocating it, no one wants it.

You have to be paranoid on par with 9/11 truthers or Ron Paul supporters to even think it's a possibility.

No reason? A known state sponsor of terror acquiring nuclear weapons = no reason? How do you figure that? That was the sine qua non for invading Iraq.

As for "no one" advocating it:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/10/ftn/main2908476.shtml

And, while Cheney doesn't explicitly say we should bomb Iran, it is hard to interpret his "Iran will not get a nuclear weapon" in any way other than advocating military action. Sanctions alone will not stop Iran from getting a nuke.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/21/cheney.iran.ap/index.html

No rational person may want war with Iran, but that is often beside the point.

As for the possibility of war, we have ships in Hormuz that have _already_ come close to firing on Iranian ships. Do you really think that an incident like that could not escalate into war, especially given the US accusations that Iran is supporting terrorists in both Iraq and Afghanistan and with the cloud of a nuclear threat looming?

Unlikely I will give you, but to say it is paranoid seems to grant far too much rationality to the powers that be.

[Darth Rotor]

I must complement you on your concise application of fallacy in educating us. :P

Fallons' direct boss is/was the Secretar of Defense, Robert Gates. Gates has been scaling back the Rambo rhetoric on Iran since he became Sec Def.
The retirement of Admiral Fallon, 63, who only a year ago became the first Navy man to be named the commander of the United States Central Command, was announced by his civilian boss, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who said that he accepted the admiral’s request to retire “with reluctance and regret.”

President Bush said Admiral Fallon had served his country with “honor, determination and commitment” and deserved “considerable credit” for the progress in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I don't see any evidence that Gates is leaving, do you?

Chicken Little, put your umbrella away. The sky is not falling.

ETA: It might be that Admiral Fallon is tired of having a subordinate commander, Patraeus, get direct access and possibly make end runs around the chain of command, given his position as ground commander in Iraq.

Admiral Fallon, of course, has too much class to say this.

At the moment.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

No reason? A known state sponsor of terror acquiring nuclear weapons = no reason? How do you figure that? That was the sine qua non for invading Iraq.
And Iraq is not Iran.

Care to make a relevant point?
And, while Cheney doesn't explicitly say we should bomb Iran, it is hard to interpret his "Iran will not get a nuclear weapon" in any way other than advocating military action. Sanctions alone will not stop Iran from getting a nuke.
Given that time is a critical factor against Iran getting a nuclear weapon before Cheney hits the road, how is this relevant?

No rational person may want war with Iran, but that is often beside the point.
True enough.
As for the possibility of war, we have ships in Hormuz that have _already_ come close to firing on Iranian ships.
We had ships in the Persian Gulf that not only fired on Iranian ships, one shot down an Iranian airliner, other ships shot up a variety of Iranian patrol craft and oil platforms in the 1980's (Earnest Will / Praying Mantis) and other sundry fun.

Still no bombing Iran.

Still no war with Iran.
Do you really think that an incident like that could not escalate into war, especially given the US accusations that Iran is supporting terrorists in both Iraq and Afghanistan and with the cloud of a nuclear threat looming?
Given our history, I am certain it would not escalate into a war unless the Iranians upped the ante after any number of short, sharp actions.
Unlikely I will give you, but to say it is paranoid seems to grant far too much rationality to the powers that be.
In Iran, Washington, or both?

DR

[WildCat]

The whole story line that Fallon is at oddss with the Bush Administration is because of one thing, what he said at his Senate confirmation hearing (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/03/11/fallon.resigns/index.html):

The perception that Fallon has opposed a drive toward military action against Iran from within the Bush administration dates to his confirmation hearings in January 2007, when he told the Senate that the United States needed to exhaust all diplomatic options in its disputes with the Islamic republic.
But he also has said that the United States would be able to take steps if Tehran were to attempt to block the Strait of Hormuz, the outlet of the Persian Gulf and a choke point for much of the world's oil.
And he recently told CNN that the United States is looking for a peaceful settlement to disputes "in every case."
"We're trying to encourage dialogue and find resolution," he said. "In fact, that's our message to the Iranians out here, given that everybody is nervous and anxious about their activities, is to come forth and explain what they are doing with all the people in the region."
And since the Democrats and media just know that Bush is itching for a war with Iran, that must mean they are at odds with each other. The whole thing is a myth made up by the Dems and dutifully reported by their media water-carriers.

In fact, the Dems still can't let it go:
But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Fallon's resignation showed that independent views "are not welcomed in this administration."
To Harry Reid and his ilk, partisan politics is far more important than actual facts when it comes to national security.

[Ateius]

I honestly don't understand this "War with Iran" thing. Where are they going to get the soldiers? Aren't the majority of their assets already tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq?

[Kopji]

This is the Esquire article that seems to have precipitated the resignation:
http://www.esquire.com/features/fox-fallon

I took time to read this today, I thought it was well written. I'd agree that there is probably a broader Bush administration dislike for Fallon than his position on Iran. My cynical side notes that the incompetent are the natural enemy of those who got it together.

The article does relate in a rather epic sense that the military is doing the diplomacy that the administration should be doing.

Was the magazine subtly positioning Fallon for a political future? I could believe that, and if so that would be enough for Bush to want him out earlier. Could be as simple as that.

The 'being Petraeus's boss' angle is curious. If Petraeus were moved up now I'd put more stock in that analysis. (The one where he was a Bush asskisser). Humm, colorful.

[a_unique_person]

There is not going to be a war with Iran. Anyone who thinks so is, frankly, an idiot.

I thought that just because they invaded Afghanistan, it wouldn't lead on to anything worse.

[a_unique_person]

I honestly don't understand this "War with Iran" thing. Where are they going to get the soldiers? Aren't the majority of their assets already tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq?

You don't need ground troops to just stand off at a safe distance and fire off long range projectiles.

[Radrook]

I honestly don't understand this "War with Iran" thing. Where are they going to get the soldiers? Aren't the majority of their assets already tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Tied up? Not to the extent of rendering those assets immobile. You have to remember that today's wars are fought via quick air-strikes that can be over in a few hours. Ground troops are only sent in when the ground has been secured of most opposition. As was done during he Gulf War. Since the USA has complete control of the skies due to superior technology, it's airstrikes are virtually unopposed. Missiles launched can be detected from space via satellites and their trajectory info relayed to ground personnel. So its this economy of power that makes a conflict with Iran seem to be within the USA's capabilities despite its present military situation in that region.

IMHO

[President Bush]

Anyone who thinks so is, frankly, an idiot.


I forget if the term indicates mild, moderate, severe, or profound retardation.

[skeptical]

And Iraq is not Iran.

Care to make a relevant point?

Sure. My relevant point is that there is _always_ a reason for war with a state sponsor of terrorists that has or is extremely likely to get nuclear weapons. The reason Iraq was relevant is that the threat of a nuclear Iraq was probably the single most important reason that so many people accepted the initial invasion. This was an example illustrating the weight this carries in most peoples calculations of the value of war with a given nation, so therefore it seems relevant.


Given that time is a critical factor against Iran getting a nuclear weapon before Cheney hits the road, how is this relevant?

Because WC said "no one" is proposing it. Dick Cheney is not "no one". Neither is Lieberman. Therefore, its relevant.


We had ships in the Persian Gulf that not only fired on Iranian ships, one shot down an Iranian airliner, other ships shot up a variety of Iranian patrol craft and oil platforms in the 1980's (Earnest Will / Praying Mantis) and other sundry fun.

Still no bombing Iran.

Still no war with Iran.

Different times, different circumstances. If you follow the thread of accusations being made in various administration circles, it looks a lot like "building a case for war". Congressional testimony about Iran weapons supplying insurgents in Iraq. Accusations of Iranian support in Afghanistan. Saber rattling insisting we will not let them get nukes. All of this demonstrates a pattern of events that I am not aware existed in the 80's. And of course, "9/11 changed everything".

I am not saying it is _likely_, but saying it is paranoid to think its possible seems quite a stretch.


Given our history, I am certain it would not escalate into a war unless the Iranians upped the ante after any number of short, sharp actions.

Who is to say they wouldn't? The only thing predictable about Iran, is that it is unpredictable. It's certainly not unreasonable to think that Iran might escalate the situation.


In Iran, Washington, or both?

DR

Both.

[BenBurch]

I honestly don't understand this "War with Iran" thing. Where are they going to get the soldiers? Aren't the majority of their assets already tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq?

The thought, I believe, is that nuclear weapons make large amounts of manpower unnecessary.

And they would have to be insane to want to do that.

[WildCat]

You don't need ground troops to just stand off at a safe distance and fire off long range projectiles.
And that doesn't constitute a "war with Iran".

Anything more than a one-off strike on nuclear sites would require Congressional approval. But I don't see even that (a one-off strike) happening for at least several years, when it will be the next President's problem. It certainly won't be Bush doing so.

[WildCat]

Because WC said "no one" is proposing it. Dick Cheney is not "no one". Neither is Lieberman. Therefore, its relevant.
Should I hold my breath waiting for you to show where Cheney advocated going to war with Iran?

[skeptical]

Should I hold my breath waiting for you to show where Cheney advocated going to war with Iran?

No need, I'll just repost what I said in post #7:

And, while Cheney doesn't explicitly say we should bomb Iran, it is hard to interpret his "Iran will not get a nuclear weapon" in any way other than advocating military action. Sanctions alone will not stop Iran from getting a nuke.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/....ap/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/21/cheney.iran.ap/index.html)

The key points are "doesn't explicitly say" and "hard to interpret [his comments] in any other way". This is either complete bluster, or an advocation of military action. Sanctions alone will not prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

If you disagree with my reasoning, fire away.

And by the way, even if I am completely wrong about Cheney, Lieberman is perfectly clear that he _is_ advocating military action, so your statement about "no one" advocating it is incorrect.

[Mister Earl]

Also bear in mind that we spent more than ten years for a diplomatic solution with Iraq from start to finish. We've just begun that with Iran and sanctions. Open conflict is a last resort, not a first one. Sanctions are waay ahead of conflict on that list.

[ravdin]

I agree, war with Iran is very unlikely. Whatever else one might say of the hawks in the Bush administration, we have yet to attack anyone without warning. The fall of Baghdad was preceded by over a year of preparation- testimony in front of the UN (remember the aluminum tubes?), sanctions, and ultimatums. It came as a surprise to no one when the war finally started.

While I have no love for the mullahs in Iran, they seem to be content to repress their own people and have no history of aggression towards their neighbors (in contrast to Saddam). The Iranians hate Al Qaida almost as much as we do. They also have three times the population of Iraq. I think even the Bushies know it will be best to use containment and diplomacy. I doubt it will escalate further before the end of his term.

[WildCat]

If you disagree with my reasoning, fire away.
Ah, so you have to read between the lines, did he wink and nod when he said that? :rolleyes:

And by the way, even if I am completely wrong about Cheney, Lieberman is perfectly clear that he _is_ advocating military action, so your statement about "no one" advocating it is incorrect.
Let me know when Lieberman gets elected POTUS.

Even Obama is on record saying he isn't taking military options off the table if diplomacy fails to get Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program.

And need I point out again that a strike on a nuke plant doesn't constitute a war? By that standard, we are at war in Somalia now (we bombed a terrorist safe house there a few weeks ago) and during the Clinton Admin. we were at war with Afghanistan and the Sudan.

[Garrette]

You have to remember that today's wars are fought via quick air-strikes that can be over in a few hours. Ground troops are only sent in when the ground has been secured of most opposition. As was done during he Gulf War. 3ID and 1MEF would differ greatly, I think.


Since the USA has complete control of the skies due to superior technology, it's airstrikes are virtually unopposed.Air superiority is undoubted but not unchallenged. Do you know how many friendly aircraft have been lost due to hostile fire in Iraq?


Missiles launched can be detected from space via satellites and their trajectory info relayed to ground personnel.You speak in broad strokes with much optimism, kemo sabe.


So its this economy of power that makes a conflict with Iran seem to be within the USA's capabilities despite its present military situation in that region.How many higher ranks in the military agree with you?

[Garrette]

And, while Cheney doesn't explicitly say we should bomb Iran, it is hard to interpret his "Iran will not get a nuclear weapon" in any way other than advocating military action. Sanctions alone will not stop Iran from getting a nuke.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/....ap/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/21/cheney.iran.ap/index.html)

The key points are "doesn't explicitly say" and "hard to interpret [his comments] in any other way". This is either complete bluster, or an advocation of military action. Sanctions alone will not prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. It is neither hard to interpret in another way nor complete bluster nor necessarily an advocation of military action.

It is part and parcel of political posturing. Whether or not it is effective political posturing is irrelevant.

[Darth Rotor]

3ID and 1MEF would differ greatly, I think.
In spades.

Since the USA has complete control of the skies due to superior technology, it's airstrikes are virtually unopposed.
Air superiority is undoubted but not unchallenged. Do you know how many friendly aircraft have been lost due to hostile fire in Iraq?
Rad exposes a fine breed of clueless here. Air superiority is not in question, Air Supremacy is not in place, and Air Dominance, a bit of Air Force Hyperbole on Red Bull, is a relative condition.

The existence, still, of large caliber AAA weapons, RPGs, small arms, some hand held SAMs, and the willingness to use them, has created significant altitude, and thus operational, limitations on American tactical fixed wing aircraft and transports. Helicopters, which tend to operate very low, are still taking damage from AAA, and some are being downed.

"Virtually unopposed?"

@Rad: That phase of the war ended in June of 2003. It is irrelevant to operations since then, which are a mixture of a civil war, nation building, peace enforcement, and an all around goat rope. (The real term I will not use, with any eye toward Rule 10.)
You speak in broad strokes with much optimism, kemo sabe.
He speaks out his backside, loyal scout. :)
How many higher ranks in the military agree with you?
Somewhere, there is a general in powder blue who is virtually agreeing with him, and that is what drives me to distraction about the silver bullet crowd.

*takes deep cleansing breath*

OK, better now.

DR

[Garrette]

Somewhere, there is a general in powder blue who is virtually agreeing with him, and that is what drives me to distraction about the silver bullet crowd. Ghosts of Douhet and Mitchell (though I think it's easy to overstate Mitchell's blinders), no doubt.

Aah, the Zoomies haven't gotten over the fact that they are children of the Army and the Army still has more planes.

[skeptical]

Ah, so you have to read between the lines, did he wink and nod when he said that? :rolleyes:

If sanctions won't stop Iran from getting Nukes, then what else does his statement mean. What is your interpretation?


Let me know when Lieberman gets elected POTUS.

Now your just being silly. You said "no one" is advocating war with Iran, that certainly seems inaccurate unless you were just using hyperbole.


Even Obama is on record saying he isn't taking military options off the table if diplomacy fails to get Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program.

And need I point out again that a strike on a nuke plant doesn't constitute a war? By that standard, we are at war in Somalia now (we bombed a terrorist safe house there a few weeks ago) and during the Clinton Admin. we were at war with Afghanistan and the Sudan.

Ahhh, I see now. If by "war" you mean a large scale invasion of Iran, then yes that is far fetched in the extreme.

If by "war" you mean something a little more than isolated strikes, such as concerted actions on a small scale around the Iran/Iraq or Iran/Afgahanistan border, that is not far fetched at all as a response to air strikes. Iran is not going to sit idly bye and be bombed like Somalia or Sudan, especially when there are US troops within easy striking distance literally on its doorstep.

I would agree that isolated strikes, standing alone, are probably not "war", but its seems strange to think that Iran would not retaliate when it has the means to do so and targets in two neighboring countries close at hand. Concerted actions by one or several divisions in response to strikes I would classify as "war".