H16959
Headlines : "War on Terror"Admiral William Fallon quits over Iran policy
While the mainstream and “alternative” medias obsess over the sexual indiscretions of the Governor of New York forcing his resignation, far too little attention has been given to the resignation of the CENTCOM Commander Admiral William Fallon.
While in the minds of many, the imminent possibility of war with Iran has become the proverbial “boy who cried wolf,” the resignation of Admiral Fallon is reason enough to revisit the issue and the possible implications of U.S. military action against Iran, both international and domestic.
Has push come to shove regarding military action against the Iranians?
Following a successful U.S. demonstration in space and revealing the dual purpose of the U.S. ABM capability, is the Bush administration now in the process of making its overt threat for the use of force against the Iranian regime a reality prior to leaving office?
While still embroiled in the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, a “hot war” with the Iranians would almost certainly pave the road to the White House for Republican hopeful U.S. Senator John McCain.
Sometimes no Peace
[Posted By GWHunta]Republished from Timesonline
Admiral William Fallon, the head of US Central Command, left his post a week after a profile in Esquire magazine portrayed him as a dove opposed to President’s Bush’s Iran policy.
The article, entitled The Man Between War and Peace, described Admiral Fallon as as a lone voice against taking military action to stop the Iranian nuclear program.
Announcing the resignation, Robert Gates, the US Defense Secretary, dismissed as “ridiculous” any notion that the departure signaled that the US was planning to go to war with Iran. He said there was a “misperception” that Admiral Fallon disagreed with the Bush Administration’s approach to Iran. “I don’t think there were any differences at all,” Mr Gates insisted.
Pentagon insiders said that Admiral Fallon’s departure was more the result of a turf battle between him and General David Petraeus, the US ground commander in Iraq. Admiral Fallon was General Petraeus’s commanding officer but for months Mr Bush has deferred to General Petraeus, against the objections of Admiral Fallon, who is believed to have been advocating a speedier withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.
Posted by GWHunta
Small town, working class from Michigan's Upper Peninsula. 1990 went to work for the MDOC; the very forefront of the U.S. Prison / Industrial Complex. Learned there, the hard way, that if I wasn't one of them; "they" would be pit against me. ...
RELATED ITEMS
- U.S. Mid-East commander steps down
Posted by antiguanoctane on Tuesday, March 11th 2008 - Phase III of Bush's War
Posted by GWHunta on Saturday, September 1st 2007 - Cheney, Lieberman and the Iran War Conspiracy
Posted by Heatscore on Sunday, August 19th 2007 - U.S. Threats Against Iran: War Plans & Pretexts in Place
Posted by ShiftShapers on Sunday, March 4th 2007 - Bamford: Iran: The Next War
Posted by anthony on Thursday, July 27th 2006
Certainly suggests an intense push for war by CheneyCo.
But by the logic of Iraq we must invade Iran
And to those who say we lack troops; y’all are insane.
We have a multinational huge force in Iraq that can appear anywhere in Iran in minutes.
Air support aplenty
Nato fully developed air base and operations centers in Afghanistan
(Pincer special)
An Iranian populace even less fond of its ayahtollahs than Iraq was of Saddam, and better educated.
A irresistable choke hold on China should they hold iraq and iran.
And, best of all, all opposition is bogus.
Scary times. Not the logistics of attacking Iran where the U.S. has the upper hand, but for the global economy.
Oil topped $110 a barrel today. The Chinese are looking forward to their summer games and the international prestige gained in hosting them.
A stopper on the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf would be rain on that parade that all the anti-aircraft artillery in China couldn’t impact.
Sometimes no Peace
the dollars apparent decline means that most of the rise in oil after $60 is just the decline of the dollar
we made the world pay for the iraq war
and we lowered the cost of our repayment, brilliant! evil, but brilliant
Interesting take on the matter.
What then of war with Iran?
How will the “world pay for” that?
What exactly would Bush & friends gain from bombing Iran?
The End of the Empire?
The end of the military’s ‘invincible’ PR?
$200 a barrel oil?
A collapsing US economy?
Millions in the streets calling for their lynching?
Do they think it would whip America into nationalistic fervor, maybe make Americans forget their other crimes?
I must say, as an American, I will tell you that the mood here does not strike me as “impending nationalistic fervor.”
Heh, “choke hold on China,” that’s a good one.
What exactly would Bush & friends gain from bombing Iran?
Your list of possibilities that follows this question consists of inevitabilities.
Is the Bush agenda best served by going out with a bang or a whimper?
Roll back five years. Americans were traveling to Iraq to volunteer as human shields and the world was outraged at the onset of “shock and awe.”
Only Saddam and company got “lynched.”
Heh, “choke hold on China,” that’s a good one.
The oil that flows through the Straits of Hormuz goes east my friend.
Remember as well that the Chinese have invested heavily in the coming summer Olympic Games and would be extremely reluctant to do anything (Assassin’s Mace) to jeopardize their opportunity to showcase their achievements to the world.
Sometimes no Peace
PRC Plays it Cool, as U.S. Tries to Amp Up Pressure on Iran
the dollars apparent decline means that most of the rise in oil after $60 is just the decline of the dollar
we made the world pay for the iraq war
and we lowered the cost of our repayment, brilliant! evil, but brilliant
Aha…connect the dots…follow the money…