Promoted by Steven D. Jeff makes the very sound point that we don’t need an Admiral in command at CENTCOM to fight a land war in Iraq, but Bush just might want one if the real purpose for his appointment is to prepare and then lead an air and naval assault against Iran.
Also at Kos.
The “new way forward” team is taking shape. Robert Gates is in as Secretary of Defense. John Negroponte will move from Director of National Intelligence to Assistant Secretary of State. Retired Vice Admiral Michael McConnell will take Negroponte’s old job as DNI. Raw Story reports that Lieutenant General David Petraeus, the former day-to-day commander in Iraq, to replace General George Casey as the overall commander of U.S. forces in that country.
The news that has everyone a bit agog is that the head of Central Command, General John Abizaid, will be relieved by Admiral William J. Fallon.
ABC reports that “Fallon, who is in the Navy, is currently head of Pacific Command; he will be overseeing two ground wars, so the appointment is highly unusual.”
I think ABC is missing the point.
It seems highly unusual for a navy admiral to take charge of CENTCOM until you consider two interrelated things. First is that Bush needs a senior four-star in the CENTCOM job who hasn’t gone on record as opposing additional troops in Iraq. Second is that Fallon’s CENTCOM area of responsibility will include Iran.
A conflict with Iran would be a naval and air operation. Fallon is a naval flight officer. He flew combat missions in Vietnam, commanded an A-6 Intruder squadron, a carrier air wing and an aircraft carrier. As a three-star, he commanded Second Fleet and Strike Force Atlantic. He presently heads U.S. Pacific Command. His resume also includes duty in numerous joint and Navy staff billets, including Deputy Director for Operations with Joint Task Force Southwest Asia in Riyahd, Saudi Arabia.
If anybody knows how to run a maritime and air operation against Iran, it’s “Fox” Fallon.
No Check, No Balances
The legislature’s options for keeping Mr. Bush from sending more troops to Iraq is limited, but if he decides to unilaterally attack Iran, there’s virtually nothing Congress can do to stop him.
Bush and his legal beagle Alberto Gonzales could probably claim that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) from September 2001 gives the executive power to exert armed force against Iran, especially given the echo chamber’s recent rhetoric about Iran being responsible for the violence in Iraq. And if you’ve been listening closely enough, you’ve heard the subliminal message associating Iran with the 9/11 attacks.
But Bush and Gonzales have a fallback position that’s darn near bulletproof. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 gives a president up to 90 days to commit forces to combat without permission from Congress. Ironically, the resolution was passed in the wake of the Vietnam conflict to prevent a president from waging extended conflicts without a declaration of war or “specific statutory authorization” from Congress, but today it gives Bush all the ammunition he needs to start a war with Iran (or anyone else, for that matter) on his own say so.
It’s doubtful the Supreme Court could stop him; and even more doubtful that it would if it could.
The only chance of checking whatever aggressive ambitions Bush may have on Iran would be a passive coup by the senior members of the administration’s civilian and military security team through a group resignation, and hoping for that is, well, hopeless. After the latest round of musical deck chairs is complete, everybody still on board will have signed on to the program in blood (somebody else’s, of course).
What’s even more frightening is that the escalation strategy–that includes more troops in Iraq, an expansion of the military and use of armed force against Iran–comes from the core neoconservative cabal headed by Bill Kristol and supported by Dick Cheney that got us into our Middle East miasma in the first place.
#
Commander Jeff Huber, U.S. Navy (Retired) writes from Virginia Beach, Virginia. Read his commentaries at Pen and Sword.
Great diary !
SD,
Thanks for the promote. I think it’s real, real important that folks understand why Fallon is going to CENTCOM, and what it means regarding Bush’s foreign policy ambitions.
It was my pleasure. I think you nailed it, frankly (and unfortunately). Bush seems to be purging the US officer corps of all the folks who won’t immediately jump through his flaming hoops without asking why they should do something so incredibly stupid.
Jeff, Pajamas Media is linking to you.
It’s the worst news I’ve heard in weeks. The word America is about to get a whole lot uglier than any of us could have ever imagined and it will all happen from high high high in the sky where there are no worries and you hear no cries.
What can be done to stop him?
Seriously. Shouldn’t we be massing in the streets right about now saying NO WAR WITH IRAN?
If we don’t, and it happens again, as I fully expect it will – who will we blame? Do we not bear some responsibility here?
fact that average Americans aren’t able to read the signs and see the writing on the wall and CNN isn’t really helping them much either with any of it.
The real problem is that the media won’t tell us even though they can read the tea leaves better tnam most of us can. We all live in crazytown now.
Lisa,
I don’t know. I just don’t know. The elections seemed to have bounced off Bush like paper bullets.
Are we living in a dictatorship already? Do the elections really mean so little? Btw – I quoted you in my diary today. You and Larry Johnson and Scott Ritter and Sy Hersh. When the four of you speak as one, I think it’s time we all paid attention.
Yes, Lisa, I think we are living in a dictatorship, or something quite close to it.
well, we can start marching in the streets in DC on the 27th!
If Jeff is correct that there is virtually no legal way to stop Bush from taking this action against Iran, then I think impeachment should not only be back on the table but should be microwaved to blazing hot and served forthwith.
I’m starting to think that too.
He must have some kind of plan. If he’s thinking about bombing Iran, he has to be contemplating the possibility of impeachment against him.
What would bombing Iran accomplish? Does eh think republicans would regain popularity for 08? He must know that bombing Iran is foolish and “winning” in Iraq is not possible.
Does he think he’s lost and is attempting some kind of “Hail Mary” thing?
The game theory of this whole thing escapes me…
All he has to do is bomb Iran in one big action, and we’ll be committed there for years. That’s the American way. We don’t “cut and run” – we don’t “lose.” That’s why this is so dreadful. All he has to do is light the match, and the fire will be out of control before we can yelp.
Btw – Kennedy was willing to “lose,” three times, and I think that’s what got him killed. He refused to authorize military support when the Bay of Pigs floundered. He refused to invade Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He refused to escalate the war in Vietnam and in fact drafted plans to start a phased withdrawal, to be completed by 1965.
From my meager understanding, game theory assumes that you’re dealing w/ a mostly rational party, that you know most of their goals or think you do, and then that you can assume that they will do the same regarding YOU.
Bush and his cronies don’t fit. They don’t recognize other people’s legitimate concerns or interests. There is no interaction of interests. Per that famous Suskind quote: “We make our own reality” or whatever that was. Coming from that perspective, there is NO reason for them to moderate their decisions or actions in the hopes of finding a proper resolution of the “game”. They think they OWN the game, the rules of the game, and that they can change those rules at will. The play Calvinball on steroids, and NOBODY is going to be able to stand against them or combat them without first recognizing the nature of the conflict. Expecting Bush to act rationally is as crazy as it would have been to assume Stalin, Hitler, Napoleon or Alexander would act “rationally”.
Recommended for the phrase “Calvinball on steroids”.
By “game theory” I meant: you have x interests and you recognize that other actors have y and z interests. You act in a way that you think will get you x, taking into account the actions that other players, if rational, will do to achieve y,z etc.
In the case of Bush, it is very hard to infer a goal from his actions, or to see a strategy where he recognizes the goals of others.
It is possible that Bush is mad, but when you call your enemy “mad” you have given up on the task of trying to understand him.
Also, if the governments actions were born of madness, many people, like Cheney, Rice etc would have to be mad, not just Bush.
The only goal I can think of is the goal of bankrupting and destroying the US government in the name of corporatism. But that’s quite crazy.
It’s difficult to explain game theory to the guy who’s always owned the ball, and always knew his daddy would buy him a new one if he lost it.
well, you can call it crazy, or you can call it a form of zealotry. He seems prone to that tendency.
Your x,y,z description was pretty much what I was trying to say … thanks for making it make more sense.
Actually, other than that I like Calvin, Bush is kind of analogous to him. He lives in a fantasy world, motivated totally by his own wants and desires. The comparison breaks down because he seems to lack Calvin’s ability to suddenly find empathy, like in the old comic where he finds the dead bird (can’t find it!), not to mention lacking a conscience like Hobbes to try to set him straight.
…Hobbesian war on his hands in Iraq.
very true, and soon to be “all against all” in Iran, too …
… gonna go curl up in a fetal position now.
I continue to think Impeachment is the ONLY way to stop Bush from further damaging our country and planet.
Great post, and I believe your analysis is right on.
But a question: Why is there nothing that Congress can do? If Congress can pass a bill, Congress can revoke a bill. Are you saying there’s nothing constitutionally? Or nothing politically?
Very strong, legal pressure must be put on this administration today! I am watching the House floor as I write, and there is the will to effect change there.
But I am reminded of a very good elected official I once knew who was relatively ineffective because he couldn’t imagine that certain executives could actually be that bad. Now’s the time for imagination.
.
You are so very right on this one.
Naval incidents:
Pearl Harbor – Cuba – Cuba (2) – Tonkin – USS Liberty – Hormuz – Hormuz (2)??
USS Vincennes"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Good image, and good reminder.
Does that mean that there is literally NO Army or Marine four-star general or higher who does NOT oppose this so-called “surge” of troops in Iraq? Good lord. If ALL the senior military command oppose a policy, you’d THINK that it would be obvious that it was a INSANELY BAD IDEA?
But you’re frighteningly probably right… the real point of the surge has nothing to do with Iraq, just as the troop and ordnance build-ups originally intended for Afghanistan somehow never made it there, but ended up going to Iraq instead….
Impeachment seems to be the only hope left…. let’s hope that enough in the Congress can see the danger here as well, before it’s too late.
All the sane generals got fired…
Suppose we “beat” Iran, then what?
Rambo Foreign Policy: believing one wins by killing enough bad guys
thanks so much for this, and thanks to Steven for elevating it.
I’m not much to concentrate on one area, I sort of graze lots of different kinds of news, and when I heard the Admiral’s name yesterday I got that itch in the back of my head that says, “hmmmm, I can’t remember why, but this is BAD.”
Did a little googling, found some articles and interviews by/with the Admiral, and found a Rumsfeldian lover of technology and lots of neocon rhetoric about global conflict with darker-hued fanatics. LOTS of love for over-the-horizon delivery of death. ALL of that screams IRAN.
Anyway, like I said, I’m no expert, just a know-it-all who skims a lot. It’s both encouraging to see more and more people with some expertise verifying my thoughts, and also very, very frightening. A friend has emailed me several times that “only a coup can save us now”, and anybody so inclined, anybody of honor or sanity is or has been shuffled off. Couple that with the increasing infection of the nation’s military, police forces and corporate mercenary forces with religious zealots, and I truly fear we’re too far gone.
It is so hard for me to fully comprehend that we have gone SO far off the rails that all the powers of Congress AND the Supreme Court combined, could still be powerless to stop an out of control President from not only wrecking this country, but causing global chaos as well, even if they DID want to. What horrendouls awful rabbit hole have we fallen into?
sadly, I think this is a natural result of some very ugly parts of the American character. We never faced the cancers of racism, of our crimes commited while building and expanding this nation, let alone the ones outside our borders when we became an imperial power. We don’t own our responsibilities. We don’t like to share with each other, respect one another. We prefer parties over participation, and cults-of-personality over healthy parties.
Bush is a reflection of a sizable portion of the American population, and most of the rest of us weren’t paying attention.
Like Han Solo in Star Wars, I’ve got a bad feeling about this.
Your analysis of the situation rings true. And it ties in perfectly with this bit:
scary.
We must stop this maniac at all costs. He is begging for the rapture.
One nitpic…can we stop calling it a “surge” and please call it what it really is? ESCALATION.
I continue to worry about the implications of the Mayan calendar ending in 2012. They claimed civilization would end then.
If Bush continues, that may yet prove true.
well, it’s my understanding that it’s more complicated than that, that THAT cycle, THAT civilization would end, but the Mayans thought that existence was a wheel or something, and that something knew would be born on the next turn.
I’m reading “1491” as soon as I finish the “Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norris” (my sis bought it for me for Xmas) … maybe I’ll learn more in there.
And of course, I’m not literally worrying about the world ending in 2012. It’s just a joke that may prove, horrifically, true!
sorry, was reading at work, and I get VERY literal minded at work!
Anyone having left margin problems in the comments sections? I have checked on 3 computers and the left side is cut off on each.
What browser are you looking at it through? Looks fine here. I’m using IE. I know, I know.
Firefox looks good here.
Important scary diary. And with Seymour Hirsch, also saying it’s a done deal … ?
try clearing your cache … sometimes the ads in that margin screw me up if I haven’t cleared it in a while.
I went to IE7 a week or so ago, and since then. I know, I know. No problems on other sites however.
Switch to Mozilla’s firefox.
LOL! I use Firefox at home, but IE at work. Yesterday I went to IE7 and the left side of all the posts was cut off. It annoyed me so much I switched to Firefox. Yippee! Much better program.
Firefox is the cure for that problem.
Or perhaps it means nothing. There doesn’t seem to be any particular logic to the appointment of CinCs. In fact, currently, Marines are the CinCs of Strategic Command in Omaha, and European Command. Last I checked, the marines had no ICBMs, and no troops in Europe. A navy admiral is sitting in NORAD headquarters in charge of homeland defense.
Although I find the idea intriguing, I wouldn’t assume that the appointment of a carrier admiral to run CentCom means that CentCom is going to fight a carrier war.