...Senator Webb has been trying to arrange public testimony by Admiral Fallon at least since last September.  According to published reports, Admiral Fallon seems like the kind of man who would tell us exactly what he believes to be true.

See: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/...

Congress would do well to consult with Fallon.  Additionally, I think that this development (Fallon's resignation early) is very troubling.  

I was almost ready to buy into the notion that we didn't need to worry much about Iran in 2008 -- since the Iranians weren't making much progress on their enrichment program (centrifuges keep breaking down) and the 'adults' in the Republican establishment (Rice, Gates, etc) seemed to have retaken some of their influence in the Bush administration.

Now I'm not so sure...

Once Adm. Fallon is out of uniform and free to speak his mind, I hope Sen. Webb et al invite him to testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee... soon.

Iran will always be a country that we have to worry about as long as its reactionary theocratic leadership remains in power. During the time of the Shah Iran's oil money was utilized for public development of infrastructure and even furthering the rights of women and minorities through the establishment of a multitude of governmental agencies. Now the United States is faced with a country that tortures all dissidents (the Pahlavi government only focused on Communists and Islamists), silences writers and poets, represses its women (women could be judges and generals before the revolution...now they cannot leave the country without the permission of their husbands), AND finances  terrorist groups. I am definitely NOT advocating for war, but the United States must deal with Iran before it further brings instability to the Middle East. 1979, the year of the Iranian Revolution, will always be marked in history as a grim year for the United States. It was when the most populous, pro-American, pro-Israeli (Iran was actually the 2nd country after the United States to recognize Israel), western-friendly country in the region was transformed into a state which preaches pure hatred against the wishes of the Persian people.

Hopefully, the US can deal with the Iranian situation in a way that liberates the Iranian people (Sunday's Washington Post stated that 86% of Iranians want a true republic) and brings stability to the Greater Middle East without war. This is why I have always respected Senator Webb. He knows that the 70 million people who constitute the Iranian nation will never agree to occupation and definitely will not agree to being attacked if the human rights abuses which they have encountered are not cited as a reason.

It is tempting to think that the U.S. can do something, such as bomb Iran, assassinate its leaders, send out special forces, etc. to quickly fix the problem that Iran represents.

But judging by our track record with these kinds of actions in the region, it would be better to give up on these fantasies of quickly fixing the area with enough force and black bag tactics.

U.S. leaders simply don't understand the area enough to make sound decisions. The experts that we have who do understand the area seem to be consistently ignored.

The Shah was placed as a U.S. puppet there by the CIA, and that was a great reason why the Iranian Revolution was triggered. for most Americans this incident is a footnote, but  Iranians know it too well.

Any direct attempts to remove the current Iranian theocracy will create more support for it. Any success in removing the current Iranian theocracy will probably unleash another complex web of built-in conflict that will come to a surprise to most of us.

And any direct military action against Iran will upset the oil flow, making those prices even higher than what they current are.

Let's start actually playing so that we will win the chess match rather than just overreacting to bothersome pawns on the board.  

The loser-in-chief was too -- slipping into technical jargon here -- stupid to bother responding to Ahmadinejad's personal letter.

Yet the Republicans worship their sainted Ronald Reagan, who overcame a political life of anti-Communist bluster and met one-on-one with the head of the Evil Empire.   And this was at a time when thousands of fire ready nuclear-tipped ICBM's were on launch pads targeted at America.  Speak of your wmd's and mushroom clouds!  Perhaps it's apocryphal, but amidst all this, supposedly Reagan and Gorbachev began their meeting by sharing photos of their grandchildren and agreeing to try to do what would be right for them.

If you're human, you inherently have some common ground with other humans.  Start talking, find the common ground and work from there.

The Iranians are a proud and capable people, an ancient civilization astride one of the world's great cultural crossroads.

Now if it were me that were president, or, if I couldn't make it because of current work commitments, so say someone with Senator Obama's community organizer mindset were president, and got a handwritten letter from Ahmadinejad, well, what you'd want to do is reply, as cordially as you were capable.  Agree to disagree on some things, agree on some other things and say, hey, thanks for breaking the ice with the note and let's keep talking.  And then you might follow up a couple days later with a phone call.  You know, ask the White House operator to get the president of Iran on the line.  And once that was set-up with all the translators and you were both on the line, and you got the hello how-are-you's out of the way, you'd say, you know I've been to a bunch of places, but I've never been to Iran.  And that's too bad, 'cause ever since I was a school kid, ancient Persia fascinated me.  Oh, and by the way, back home, we've got the most beautiful Persian Qashqa'i tribal rug in the study.  And then he'd be flip and say, well, why don't you come on over here for a state visit?  And I would surprise him and agree and even suggest I might bring along the wife and daughters.  And then we'd go and he'd invite us to his home for dinner with his wife(ves?) and kids and we'd joke around with each other's kids and then we'd sit down and break bread over some delicious food and we'd start talking and, well, one thing would lead to another and ...

Or we could just keep threatening to bomb the crap out of them.

Thanks for lecturing me about the country I've traveled to during last 4 summers and in 1999 during the student protests. Iran is not Iraq, it is a country with 2,500 years of history and the remaining core of the Persian Empire. In fact, many Iranians within Iran look to the time of the Shah as an imperfect time but one which they never truly cherished (within taxis you'll always here about "ghabl az enghelab" which translates to before the revolution and how everything was so much better; how women were free; how the dollar was only 7 tomans, not the 800 it currently is) I'm not a hawk, but a country that provides millions each year to Hamas and Hezbollah is much more than a "bothersome pawn." Also, if you knew anything about the Iranian identity, it is at total odds with the theocratic system. Iran was the country that in 450 BC granted paid maternity leave to the women engineers that helped build Persepolis. It was the country with women generals and an Empress. Now it appears to be one of the US's biggest adversaries. The US was wrong to put in place Mossadeq through the 1953 coup but within Iran you still hear people saying that they hope the US can somehow free them from their barbaric government (even though there is a united consensus against an invasion). My point is not that the US should bomb Iran or assassinate its leaders. It is that the US cannot simply ignore the Iranian situation as it has been doing for the past 29 years.

Are you studying the Middle East?  You're obviously very knowledgeable about Iran...

When you say that the U.S. should do something, it sounds like you are actually advocating for bombing, an invasion, or an assassination.

Asking for these is overreacting. We have lived with it for the last 29 years, and I don't see why it has become so urgent to force change right now.

If the people of Iran were really that upset with the regime, they would change it. Obviously there are enough people who can put it with it. The 20th century has many examples of dictatorships being brought down, so there there have material  to work on it.

Why don't you clarify what that vague something that the U.S. should do?

"If the people of Iran were really that upset with the regime, they would change it."

I'm not at all advocating that the United States get involved in Iran's internal affairs, but I am under no illusions about the repressive nature of the Iranian regime.  By the way, not to pick on Iran particularly, but you could make the same comment about China, Burma, Uzbekistan, or any number of repressive countries, and it wouldn't be true there either.  The people would be tortured, massacred, repressed...just as they were in Tienanmen Square or outside the Buddhist monasteries of Burma.

Growing up during the Cold War often makes us forget this, but most dictatorship are not just random acts. There is a reason why countries got there in the first place.

This topic interests me a lot since independent Mexico has been governed by dictatorships for most of its independent peaceful life. The exception has been long periods of civil wars. :)

Dictatorship are a kind of political compromise. There is an exchange of political liberty for peace, stability, and some mechanism of corporate participation. Often the dictatorship manages to contain radically different factions that otherwise would be openly warring each other. For it to work, the dictatorship must count with the agreement of the majority of the population to remain in power.

Peaceful transition to democracy seems to be a necessary step for the different factions to learn how to work out differences in a peaceful manner. Interrupting this process seems to have a tendency to flair up past problems and bring the country back to square one with civil wars.

Now this is the interesting part. Historically, countries that transition from dictatorship to a democracy through a peaceful process tend to remain democratic, such as Chile.

Countries that get rid of their dictatorships through violence often get another dictatorship in its place, such as Cuba or Nicaragua during the 1980s.

My understanding is that Iran is already going through a process that may eventually lead to an open democracy. Violent action, such as military action or assassinations will cut whatever move towards an open society there is, if they fail to change the regime, or it may bring up violence and chaos, if it does succeed.

This is really an Iranian issue that should be solved by Iranians. Why? Because we Americans wouldn't like it either if foreign countries tried to force us to go in a certain direction either. It is a matter of dignity and sovereignty.

Iraq should be a lesson to us: removing Saddam, an obviously terrible man, unleashed forces that we were not prepared to deal with. I want to make sure that we don't end up doing the same in Iran, even if we do it with the best of our intentions.

I advocate a strong diplomatic and economic "carrot and stick" approach, hopefully leading to the "grand bargain" advocated by Flynt Leverett.  

It doesn't have to be military. But when people say that "something" must be done about a dictator without spelling out what that something is, it often is a tacit request for violence. :)

If that "something" is sending copies of "How to bring down a dictatorship," that is fine with me.

If that "something" is planning a coup, I am opposed to it.

Then I will see if I can agree or disagree with it.

That is why I am requesting clarification on this "something."

The US was wrong to put in place Mossadeq through the 1953 coup but within Iran you still hear people saying that they hope the US can somehow free them from their barbaric government (even though there is a united consensus against an invasion).

One eighty that.  The U.S. and Brits overthrew the democratically elected Mossadegh over -- are you sitting down? -- oil.    

It portrays a highly intelligent, thoughtful, and forceful individual who isn't afraid to speak truth to power, yet who in one instance is quoted as having given a toast thanking the wife of his Chinese commander host for her sacrifices as a military wife.  The woman apparently cried over the first acknowledgment she'd received in forty years.  You have to like a guy like that, someone who sees the big picture but is still capable of seeing the pixels which make it up.

His resignation is a tremendous loss.  Let's hope we see him speaking to the Armed Services Committee sometime soon.  I'm sure Senator Webb and he will have plenty to discuss in the coming months.

This is a Golden egg served up to Jim Webb--a couple of subcommittee hearings and Bush's war policies are spread out for all to see (if they aren't all ready).
True justice cause this soldier can speak his mind now--he may be the John Dean of Iraq!

The Esquire piece by Barnett is a good article.  It provides a pretty good summary of the day-to-day diplomatic job of a Combatant Commander.

Fallon did a good job of engaging in a wide range of security cooperation initiatives, such as military-to-military exchanges, with the Chinese when he was the Commander, U.S. Pacific Command.  His interactions with China was initiatlly viewed skeptically, but praised by Congress at the end of his tenure.  Many of his programs were continued by his relief, Admiral Tim Keating.

In the end, being the head of U.S. Cental Command is a very tough job right now.  You have responsibility for Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Horn of Africa, Central Asia ('stans), and portions of the Middle East.  Plus, having a subordinate 4-star commanding general at MNF-I in Iraq is trouble due to the equivalent rank.  Its always awkward when the CG, MNF-I, reports directly to Congress, POTUS, SECDEF not necessarily to his boss at CENTCOM.

There's going to be an interesting dance going on in DoD in 2008 to see what is done with the Combatant Commanders.  Gen. Petraeus is due to rotate out of Iraq later in 2008, and needs somewhere to land, most likely as Commander, U.S. European Command/NATO SACEUR.  A key job b/c he'd be charged with getting NATO back on track in for their ISAF mission in Afghanistan.  It'll be interesting to see what happends.

is even more troubling--- not that it came after the intriguing Esquire article, but that it came when he visited the ground in Iraq. This is the man who said "we are not going to 'do' Iran on my watch." Now, his watch is over, over early in fact.  Brr.

Time after time we have heard that top officials who disagree with whatever current policy is being implemented, should state their case to their boss and, if ignored, then resign. How rarely they actually do stand on principle and resign.

We have always had political generals, that is, flag officers; it's hard to be promoted above Colonel, certainly above Brigadier, without being to some degree political, even in wartime, but the Bush Administration has politicized absolutely every phase and level of government to such an extent I frankly am amazed Fallon made it to his current lofty position.  Sec. Def. Gates claims talking about attacking Iran is "ridiculous," but I am increasingly nervous, notwithstanding (too many times Bushies deny something just before doing it).

Do you wonder if Adm. Fallon will take part in the debate or otherwise get involved in the election on purpose? Does he know something about Bush's plans for a national security crisis timed to help Republicans? Is he worried about McCain's bellicose stand, promising endless wars, and wants to be free to add his perspective publicly?  

I think if you were the U.S. commander in the Middle East it probably would be a huge asset if the countries in the region view you as a departure from the current W/H policies!

In the last few weeks, Fallon and Gates reluctantly agreed to a 'pause' in unwinding the surge.  Petraeus was for keeping more troops in Iraq through the summer, whereas Fallon wanted to start pulling combat brigades out sooner.  

I think military action against Iran is not even a remote possibility b/c there's no desire among Gates, Admiral Mullen, and company to go into Iran, they are rightly focused on diplomacy.  Besides, I'm not sure what Army those who advocate military action are going to use because we've got half of our brigades in Iraq and the other half back on rest or getting ready to ship out again.  Our people and equipment are flat out beat up and need a break.

to attack Iran, as most observers agree (including observers in Russia and China), but the Air Force is... or so Mr. Bush seems to think.  And so does Mr. McCain. ("Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran"). Using Air Power is the obvious fallback position, and would probably, God help us all, require some form of nukes to be effective. Or, so it is said. So, no matter what Gates thinks, or anyone else, if Bush decides to go ahead, probably it will again be Shock and Awe and bunker busters and the works. Stupid, incoherent, unrealistic, inhumane, imprudent, and cruel? What else is new?

....our military is beat up, tired and needs some R and R. If Bush instigates something in Iran now, he would really show his insanity on the way out. America better pray that during Bush's last year he doesn't make more major blunders that will hurt us more. By now we all know that going into Iraq was the biggest mistake since Hitler went into Russia in WW II--if not bigger. I still can't under stand why America puts up with this loser SOB president as much as they have. As I have said many times before, "Where's the outrage?" The guy is INSANE. He's run this country down, the economy, the military, the view the world has of us. I think it's very patriotic to call Bush an SOB.

Is this another example of a competent person not being able to conform to or stand by as Bush makes another ruinous decision?

I agree with Sen. Webb about the abrupt resignation of Admiral Fallon during war raising serious questions. I think this is Webb's way of saying that the resignation should be troublesome to all of us. Perhaps Admiral Fallon could not be a part of something terrible that Bush might be planning.

When someone believes in diplomacy and opposes Bush, that person seems to be out of a decision-make position.

says "Stop Hyperventilating: Fallon Fired but Iran War Not Back On." I agree.  I also agree with this analysis:

But the pieces are not there to support a full conflict with Iran, or even a near term military strike. That is not where Bush is headed -- but he felt he needed to remove someone who was undermining his authority and direction.

As one source told me shortly ago, "if there was a real chance we were flipping into war mode, there would be six Fallons commenting -- and six fired."

This source said "Fallon's real mistake was going public with what was common banter among many of the senior military officials about America's engagement in the Middle East and with Iran. His views are not atypical -- no matter what the Esquire article asserts -- but he made the mistake of being publicly vain and indulgent about his own take on this."

From my reading of the situation, Bush had to fire Fallon for his comments. I admire Fallon's sense of America's strategic situation -- but the sad thing about this incident is that the combined efforts of Gates, Rice, Hayden, McConnell and others to bring a new direction to America's national security course had worked. Bush had bought in. Fallon had to brag about it -- and that was a mistake.

That's why Steve Clemons is one of the best bloggers and foreign policy analysts around -- he has excellent sources and provides consistently intelligent and level-headed ("progressive realist") analysis of what's going on.  I strongly recommend his blog>

For the next time that we are thrown the talking point "let's let generals run military operations."

Obviously the White House feels this way only when the generals happen to match their own policies.