Falling All Over Fallon

September 2007, there were reports about Fallon and Petraeus exchanging not very nice words right before Petraeus and Crocker went to DC in March. Fallon allegedly dissing Petraeus directly as a sycophant (paraphrasing), saying that he (Fallon) "hates people like that". Later, Fallon denied that it was anything more than sharp arguments, in the best spirit, over important matters.

According to the Army times, Petraeus got the go ahead from the Chiefs of Staff on the surge (the source of Fallon's "sycophant" comment? kissing up to Fallon's superior could only be a few choices; among them the JCS). Fallon later said he supported it fully, but he didn't have much choice. It was either support the operation approved by JCS or resign then and there.

Barnett goes on to portray the disagreement over Iran as between Fallon and the White House, but Fallon's appearances on Al Jazeera and interviews in other media didn't just appear counterpoint to White House or DoD remarks on Iranian support for terrorists. They also often appeared directly after reports from Odierno about the appearance of Iranian ordinance such as EFPs, the announcements of IRGC Qods arrests and various other MNF-I reports implicating Iran.

Those first appearances of Fallon's words on Iran (as well as his anti-surge stance), were often followed up by Fallon either "explaining" his remarks or retracting them in some manner. It seems likely that Fallon's comment on Iran were a direct counter to what he might have considered was the Petraeus-Odierno drum beat to war with Iran.

Fallon also resisted placing third Naval Carrier group in the Persian Gulf, right after the 15 British Sailors were kidnapped last year, while simultaneously exhorting other Gulf states to unite against Iranian hegemony in the region. Other Naval commanders were echoing some of Fallon's fears that a build up of naval ships in the gulf might lead to even greater risk of confrontation and a potential incident that would lead to war. While Fallon won that round, many felt that Iran was already committing some form of proxy war againt the United States and its allies, that it needed some additional show of strength to remind it to keep its nose clean.

The final straw might have been the Esquire article which Fallon now calls "poison pen", but it's hard to say that Barnett would write "poison pen" about Fallon whose apparent strategies closely resemble Barnett's opinions on making nice with China amongst other ideas. This has all the characteristics of Fallon catching the "morning after" regrets. Again.

However, I might point out another two or three recent lead up features to this resignation. On the recommendations of Petraeus, again, the DoD and White House announced in February a freeze on troop withdrawals from Iraq, leaving the same pre-surge numbers in place throughout the summer and not restarting withdrawal again until fall. Fallon was pressing, once again, to reduce troops even further, closely resembling major Democrat policy projections to have forces down again by half or less by 2009 and minimum force by 2010. DoD and White House also announced that there would be a significant and long term presence of US forces in Iraq. Finally, on the same day that Fallon announces his resignation, President Bush gave a speech in Tennessee:

"I want to assure you -- just like I assure military families and the troops -- the politics of 2008 is not going to enter into my calculation, it is the peace of years to come that will enter into my calculation," he pledged to a Christian broadcasters association.

Bush made no mention of just-begun talks in Baghdad aimed at forging a long-term security partnership deal between the United States and Iraq by July, well before the US president's term ends in January 2009.

Fallon was in charge of CentCom, but he wasn't the one making strategic decisions. Fallon wasn't shaping his area and kept running a-fowl of greater policy. He may have resigned in protest, a la Shinseki, however, it doesn't mean that Gates wasn't telling the truth and there was no direct pressure from the Pentagon or White House. It also doesn't mean that he was protesting a possible war with Iran so much as the situation in the whole command, including Iraq.

Is Fallon the "good guy" "speaking truth to power", even resigning in protest, because he felt he wasn't allowed to run his command, the wrong strategy was continuing to be pushed, feared for the future of the military and his ability to secure the region? Or, is Fallon the "bad guy", constantly bucking DoD and White House policy for his own ideas, causing policy headaches, unable and unwilling to taking a subordinate roll to anyone else or any other plan, talking above his pay grade and talking poorly about subordinates and his superiors?

Fallon's motivations may seem unclear, but it's an interesting coincidence that he sent his resignation in the middle of a tour of Iraq, not only right after the Esquire article came out, but on the same day that Bush makes a speech on the future of forces in Iraq. If nothing else, it's a pretty savvy political move that definitely over took and led most national news casts, above and beyond even the politics.

Who's pushing the Iran-Esquire connection? A good publicist. Whose publicist? is the question.

Will Fallon appear at the Democrat Convention or hook up with Obama or Clinton? That's definitely a "wait and see."

All the while, the "surge" is considered a success, with cautions, even by usually conservative generals on the ground. As the press falls all over Fallon, Fallon's resignation got more press than the success in the surge has for months.