William Fallon, the commander responsible for the Middle East region, announced his resignation. He had recently been profiled by Esquire as an independent voice in the military and notably told Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak that the US would not attack Iran, presumably upsetting Cheney et al. back home.
The take at TPM:
The resignation of a CINC is a big deal, under almost any circumstance. But considering the Bush Administration’s seven-year effort to put the Pentagon under its thumb, the resignation of a commander like Fallon, who by most accounts was willing to exercise his independent military judgment, is another setback for the professional officer corps as an institution.
Make no mistake. None of the Bush Administration’s efforts in this regard has been about re-asserting civilian control over the military in some constitutional sense. The effort has been focused on degrading the autonomy, independence, and institutional authority of the Pentagon in order to further the narrow ideological and partisan aims of this particular White House.
Fallon was considered by many to be the one man standing between Dick Cheney and bombing Iran.
According to the 9/11 report, I believe it was Cheney who authorized shootdown authority while Bush was either airborne or in a bunker–at any rate, he was not incapacitated or out of contact. I cite this not as a perfect analogy but as a case where perhaps true colors came out in a pinch–Cheney briefly took control directly, even though normally he acts through Bush.
And if there have been many situations where Cheney didn’t get his way when in conflict with another administration official (e.g. Powell or Rice), it hasn’t really come out; he has a widespread image as the power behind the throne, if not something even bigger.
If Cheney agitates strongly for military action against Iran after a replacement general has been installed who agrees with him, do you think that Bush will resist him? I don’t.
I think that perhaps the wording of the TPM piece is overdone regarding the degree to which the Pentagon should be independent of the President. However, the Pentagon is supposed to be independent of politics, and the record of this administration is very poor when it comes to respecting branches of government that are supposed to be nonpartisan (Alberto Gonzales and the DOJ, for example). That said, Fallon had to realize he was whacking the hornet’s nest when he told Mubarak that there would be no attack on Iran, and if he didn’t, it’s kind of a wonder that he rose as high as he did.
I think that an attack is significantly more likely now. Cheney’s rhetoric has been very aggressive and perhaps what this is is the removal of a squeaky wheel before letting things roll. I don’t think Cheney previously ordered an attack on Iran, but I would not be surprised if he’s been agitating for one, and this may be a sign that he will soon get his way. It could also be that they decided this guy was a loose cannon and had to go, but in that case I have trouble understanding how he got to this high a position in the first place.
Pending Fallon’s replacement, it may also be that this is an attempt to replace an independent thinker with a yes-man. If there is a suggestion that Fallon committed insubordination, I haven’t seen it; being willing to express an independent opinion should be a useful trait in a top-level commander, as he is supposed to bring up considerations that the president, a man with limited military experience, may not have thought of. This does not impinge on civilian control of the military, but rather the likelihood of the US armed forces going off on another poorly planned, half-baked misadventure.
