ADM Fallon done

Is it just me or was Admiral Fallon on TV much less than one of his predeccesors, General Schwartzkopf? (sp?)

My favorite part of his press conferences was when he was explaining how they had a tank with a blade on the front. If the Iraqi troops wouldn't surrender they would be buried in their trenches.

A reporter asked if that wasn't an inhumane way to kill the enemy. The General's response; "Is there a humane way to kill someone in a war?"

The luckiest guy in Iraq was pretty cool also.
 
I apologize if anyone thought I meant to demean Admiral Stockdale or Ross Perot by saying: "They looked like Bufoons." I have nothing but respect for the Admiral and his service. I know it's splitting hairs, but I should have said the situation made them look bad, and not imply that I actually thought they were "Bufoons."

We knew exactly what you were saying. It was the next step that was totally irresponsible and completely out of hand.
 
Awful lot of posts in here make it sound like ADM Fallon's departure is loss- but read the Tom Ricks article I quote below. I believe that the departure of Adm Fallon just rectifies the mistake the administration made in appointing him anyway. Fallon should never have been appointed to CENTCOM to begin with. The country is involved in not one but two ground wars in the AOR and yet they appointed Admiral Fallon as the regional CINC based on his accomplishments as CINCPAC - although it's hard to see what relevance his command in a "show the flag" region of the world brings to the demands of a theater with bullets flying and soldiers dying on the ground. Virtually everyone I know believes that Petraeous strategy in Iraq is the correct and prudent one, was a long overdue correction to the situation on the ground there and is bearing slow but steady progress- yet it's an approach that Fallon would have apparently ditched based on his "expertise". With Fallon as CINCCENT they put the wrong guy in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is fortunate that he is gone now, and unlike Sen Webb- I submit that the decision to accept Fallon's resignation is actually a rare example of the administration listening to senior military advisors in Iraq and Afghanistan - fortunately advisers other than Fallon.

"On Iraq, Fallon butted heads with Petraeus over the past year, arguing for a more rapid drawdown of U.S. troops and a swifter transition to Iraqi security forces. Fallon even carried out his own review of the conduct of the war -- a move that surprised many Pentagon officials, in part because Odierno and Petraeus had already revamped U.S. strategy in Iraq and, with Bush's approval, had implemented a buildup of about 30,000 additional troops, moving them off big bases and deploying them among the Iraqi population.

In the Esquire article, Fallon contends that Iraq was consuming excessive U.S. attention. In a part of the world with "five or six pots boiling over," he is quoted as saying, "our nation can't afford to be mesmerized by one problem."

The article was "definitely the straw that broke the camel's back," a retired general said, especially because of its "extraordinarily flip, damning and insulting" tone. He noted that since it appeared last week, it has been the talk of military circles, where it was expected that Fallon would be disciplined"
 
Virtually everyone I know believes that Petraeous strategy in Iraq is the correct and prudent one

It would certainly seem that the results support those opinions.

Considering some of the remarks attributed to ADM Fallon regarding the General, I can't help but wonder if what we have here is a case of sour-grapes jealousy...
 
bruno said:
Virtually everyone I know believes that Petraeous strategy in Iraq is the correct and prudent one, was a long overdue correction to the situation on the ground there and is bearing slow but steady progress- yet it's an approach that Fallon would have apparently ditched based on his "expertise". With Fallon as CINCCENT they put the wrong guy in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Maintaining the chain of command has never been a big priority with this administration. This is just another example. I think Admiral Fallon was placed in this position solely to prepare for war with Iran and was to leave Iraq to Petraeous. Therefore, in fact, they became competitors. Competitors for the very limited assets with which we are now facing. Limited assets that would not allow three pots to boil over at the same time. Admiral Fallon saw that he was in an untenable position and resigned.
 
Maybe Admiral Fallon, to which he alluded several times in the Esquire article, had reservations about three pots boiling at the same time and this was one of his reasons. From an Army Captain in the Sunday Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/14/AR2008031403390.html

I'm a captain in the U.S. Army, an institution I love and respect, and one that has made me a better man. The Army has taught me how to relate to people of various ethnic backgrounds and socioeconomic classes. It has taught me how to stay calm under fire and in other stressful situations (an especially handy lesson as my fiancee and I plan our wedding). It has taught me how to exact discipline and how to approach people with different personalities in different ways.

All these lessons will, I'm convinced, make me a better friend, a better husband and, one day, a better father.

But after four years, I've decided to resign my commission and leave the Army.

Read why.
 
A year ago when Adm Fallon was assigned to head up CentCom, I beleive that the administration fully intended to take on Iran. Fallon was tapped to do the job.
We had to get Iraq under control first - hence the troop surge, which has worked well.

Many people were hesitant to support the troop surge for fear that it would backfire. Adding more troops to the region would infuriate the insurgency and bring about more violence. Perhaps Adm Fallon had this fear as well. Perhaps Fallon was brought in - for that reason. IF the surge backfired and the war spilled over into Iran we would be ready.
Fortunately, the troop surge has worked and worked well. Perhaps better than anyone expected. The situation with Iran has cooled as well. Fallon is out of a job.

The Washington Post editorial illustrates first hand the fallout from the troop surge. I had read an article talking about why Army Captains are leaving the army in droves and family seemed to be the #1 reason.
All Army officers know what is expected. They know they are going to be deployed, the want to be deployed. They know they will see combat. What they don't know when they are commissioned is that they will be gone for 3-1/2 of the first 4 years they serve and the toll that will take on their personal life. They are going for 15 months and coming back for weeks only to be redeployed. The shortage of Army officers is severe and will only get worse.
Hopefully the situation with Iran will not escalate because there is no way we can get troops on the ground to finish an air war that the Navy might start.
 
The Fallon/Petraeus saga continues....
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/03/military_petraeus_031908/

Contradicting the conclusions published last week in a controversial magazine article, the top U.S. ground commander in Iraq said today he has the support of soon-to-be-ex-U.S. Central Command chief Adm. William Fallon and that the two leaders have had a “very, very good” relationship.
“There was friction in the beginning,” Army Gen. David Petraeus told CNN. “He has a different job than I have. There can be understandable differences of your take, if you will, on a situation.

While there was initial friction between the two men, Petraeus told CNN, “Over the last six months or so, our relationship was really very, very good. ... I just made the latest recommendations [on Iraq] to the Joint Chiefs and, as one of the participants in there told me later, [Fallon] could not have been more supportive. And that has characterized the relationship
 
Fallon's successor at CENTCOM assumes command

Dempsey To Succeed Fallon at CentCom:

http://www.military.com/news/article/032808/dempsey-to-succeed-fallon-at-centcom.html

One of the Army's most Iraq-savvy generals is taking charge, at least temporarily, of arguably the most important command in the U.S. military, with responsibility for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In a ceremony Friday at MacDill Air Force Base, Fla., Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey is to assume command of U.S. Central Command from Navy Adm. William J. Fallon, who announced unexpectedly on March 11 that he was quitting. Fallon cited press reports that he was at odds with President Bush over Iran policy.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who has denied that Fallon was out of step on Iran, and Navy Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are scheduled to attend the ceremony.

Dempsey, whose field experience in the early stages of his 34-year Army career was largely in Europe, has been deputy commander at Central Command since August 2007. He will serve as the acting commander until Bush chooses a permanent replacement and gets that person confirmed by the Senate.

Fallon was the first Navy officer to head Central Command since it was created in 1983. It typically has been commanded by an Army general - John Abizaid prior to Fallon, and Tommy Franks before Abizaid.

Dempsey takes charge at a particularly sensitive time, not only because of heightened concern about relations with Iran and the uncertain outlook for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also because of the approach of the November elections and the prospect of policy shifts by a new president.

One of Fallon's final acts was to advise Bush and Gates on how to proceed in Iraq after July, when the last of the troop reinforcements that Bush ordered in 2007 are to have returned home. At points during his 13 months in charge at Central Command, Fallon was perceived as being at odds with Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, on how soon to end the troop surge.

Dempsey has extensive experience in Iraq. He earned high marks as commander of the 1st Armored Division in Iraq in 2003-2004. For nearly two years prior to taking the Central Command job he served in Baghdad as head of the command that is training and equipping Iraqi security forces.

Bush is not expected to nominate a successor to Fallon until after Petraeus reports to Congress April 8-9 on his assessment of conditions in Iraq and his recommendations for how to proceed.

It is possible that Dempsey could get the job, but there are several other candidates, including Petraeus.

When Gates disclosed Fallon's decision to quit he noted that Dempsey would fill in on an interim basis but named no candidates to be the permanent successor. Gates said Fallon's departure would "leave a hole" but he denied an Esquire magazine report that if Fallon were to leave prematurely it would mean Bush was going to war against Iran. The magazine said Fallon had fallen out of favor with the White House for public comments suggesting that war should not be an option in Iran.

Andrew Bacevich, a professor of international relations at Boston University, said he does not foresee significant changes in U.S. policy toward Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan or Pakistan as a result of Fallon's departure.

"Those who believe that Fallon was the only person preventing the administration from going to war against Iran are wrong, in my view," Bacevich wrote in an e-mail exchange. "When Secretary Gates describes the prospect of such a war as 'ridiculous,' we should take him at his word."

The job of Central Command commander is part war fighter, part strategist and part diplomat. The commander answers to the secretary of defense and is responsible for U.S. military relations with countries stretching from the Horn of Africa, through the Middle East and across Central Asia. That region is at the center of the administration's war on terrorism.

In addition to his years in Iraq, Dempsey headed a U.S. program in Saudi Arabia to modernize the kingdom's National Guard, which is an elite force designed to protect the royal family, from September 2001 to June 2003.

Dempsey graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and attended the National War College in 1995-1996.
 
Back
Top