CENTCOM's Commander Resigns

Statement by Admiral William Fallon:

Recent press reports suggesting a disconnect between my views and the President’s policy objectives have become a distraction at a critical time and hamper efforts in the CENTCOM region,” Fallon said in a written statement.

“And although I don’t believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command Area of Responsibility, the simple perception that there is makes it difficult for me to effectively serve America’s interests there.” Fallon’s statement read. “I have therefore concluded that it would be best to step aside and allow the Secretary and our military leaders to move beyond this distraction… and focus on the achievement of our strategic objectives in the region. I have submitted my request to retire to the Secretary of Defense.”

The "recent press reports" Fallon is referring to have to do with this article that appeared in Esquire magazine.

Although that profile makes it seem as if Fallon was the only military man publicly disagreeing with the White House saber rattling about Iran, SecDef Robert Gates and the chair of the Joint Chiefs of staff have also advocated diplomacy and Fallon's quotes in Esquire don't appear to make him out to be a peacemonger either:

Fallon is in no hurry to call Iran's hand on the nuclear question. He is as patient as the White House is impatient, as methodical as President Bush is mercurial, and simply has, as one aide put it, "other bright ideas about the region." Fallon is even more direct: In a part of the world with "five or six pots boiling over, our nation can't afford to be mesmerized by one problem."

And if it comes to war?

"Get serious," the admiral says. "These guys are ants. When the time comes, you crush them."

I think the bottom line is that Fallon was simply seen as being expendable and that he was pressured to resign. Surely, he could have just come out and clarified what appeared in the Esquire article while continuing in his role as CENTCOM commander, thus making this "distraction" yesterday's news.

When Gates was asked during today's press conference whether this resignation meant that war with Iran is on, he dismissed that assertion as being "ridiculous". We'll see, I suppose.
 

Random News & Views Roundup

- The Bombing of Nagasaki August 9, 1945: The Untold Story

At 11:02 am, Nagasaki Christianity was boiled, evaporated and carbonized in a scorching, radioactive fireball. The persecuted, vibrant, faithful, surviving center of Japanese Christianity had become ground zero.

And what the Japanese Imperial government could not do in over 200 years of persecution, American Christians did in 9 seconds. The entire worshipping community of Nagasaki was wiped out.

Take a moment to remember all of the victims.

- Musharraf has called off declaring a state of emergency after getting his hand slapped by Bush and Condi.

- As the British prepare to leave Basra:

"Basra's residents and militiamen view this not as an orderly withdrawal but rather as an ignominious defeat," according to a report by the Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG) on Basra published in June. "Today, the city is controlled by militias, seemingly more powerful and unconstrained than before."
[...]
The outlook for the two million people in Basra, Iraq's second largest city, is not good. According to the ICG report, violence in the city has little to do with sectarianism or anti-occupation resistance but involves "the systematic misuse of official institutions, political assassinations, tribal vendettas, neighbourhood vigilantism... together with the rise of criminal mafias that increasingly intermingle with political actors."

- Bush...press conference...Iran...blah blah blah...yawn. This was the highlight:

Bush downplayed reports from Tehran that al-Maliki and Ahmadinejad appeared warm and friendly, including pictures of the two men smiling and holding hands as they appeared at a news conference.

"You want to be cordial with the person you're with. You don't want to be duking it out," said Bush, who jokingly posed in a boxing stance at his podium. "I'm not surprised there's a picture showing people smiling."

Just call him Boxer Guy

- Meanwhile, Darth Cheney has reportedly been pushing for "airstrikes at suspected training camps in Iraq run by the Quds force...according to two U.S. officials who are involved in Iran policy." Another handy WH leak to put more pressure on Iran, no doubt.

- How's that "spreading democracy" thing going for you, Bush?

The paradox of American policy in the Middle East — promoting democracy on the assumption it will bring countries closer to the West — is that almost everywhere there are free elections, the American-backed side tends to lose.

Lebanon’s voters in the Metn district, in other words, appeared to have joined the Palestinians, who voted for Hamas; the Iraqis, who voted for a government sympathetic to Iran; and the Egyptians, who have voted in growing numbers in recent elections for the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood. “No politician can afford to identify with the West because poll after poll shows people don’t believe in the U.S. agenda,” said Mustafa Hamarneh, until recently the director of the Center for Strategic Studies at the University of Jordan. Mr. Hamarneh is running for a seat in Jordan’s Parliament in November, but he says he has made a point of keeping his campaign focused locally, and on bread-and-butter issues. “If somebody goes after you as pro-American he can hurt you,” he said.

- Simon Jenkins in The Guardian:

It takes inane optimism to see victory in Afghanistan

This war against the Taliban is part of a post-imperial spasm. The longer it is waged, the graver the consequences
[...]
Iraq is post-imperialism for fast learners, Afghanistan for slow ones.
[...]
In the provinces, the Americans are running a guerrilla army out of Bagram, trying to kill as many "Taliban" or "al-Qaida" as possible, while the British heroically re-enact the Zulu wars down in Helmand. Neither takes any notice of President Hamid Karzai, whose deals with warlords, druglords, Iranians and Taliban collaborators are probably the best hope of stabilising Afghanistan when the foreign occupation is over. But since that is claimed by Britain to be virtually never, the only certainty is a rising tempo of insurgency.

read the rest...

Who's Really Supplying Weapons to Iraq's Insurgents?

On the same day that the US is holding talks with Iran and blaming that country once again for supposedly supplying weapons to Iraqi insurgents...

The United States says Iran is fomenting unrest in Iraq by supporting Shi'ite militias and supplying weapons such as armor-piercing bombs used to kill U.S. troops. Iran denies it is responsible for violence and blames the United States for unleashing sectarian strife after its 2003 invasion.

...the Washington Post reports:

The Pentagon has lost track of about 190,000 AK-47 assault rifles and pistols given to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005, according to a new government report, raising fears that some of those weapons have fallen into the hands of insurgents fighting U.S. forces in Iraq.

The author of the report from the Government Accountability Office says U.S. military officials do not know what happened to 30 percent of the weapons the United States distributed to Iraqi forces from 2004 through early this year as part of an effort to train and equip the troops. The highest previous estimate of unaccounted-for weapons was 14,000, in a report issued last year by the inspector general for Iraq reconstruction.

Not only that, Bush's new war hero was in charge at the time:

The United States has spent $19.2 billion trying to develop Iraqi security forces since 2003, the GAO said, including at least $2.8 billion to buy and deliver equipment. But the GAO said weapons distribution was haphazard and rushed and failed to follow established procedures, particularly from 2004 to 2005, when security training was led by Gen. David H. Petraeus, who now commands all U.S. forces in Iraq.
[...]
Iraqi security forces were virtually nonexistent in early 2004, and in June of that year Petraeus was brought in to build them up. No central record of distributed equipment was kept for a year and a half, until December 2005, and even now the records are on a spreadsheet that requires three computer screens lined up side by side to view a single row, Christoff said.

And:

The GAO is studying the financing and weapons sources of insurgent groups, but that report will not be made public. "All of that information is classified," said Joseph A. Christoff, the GAO's director of international affairs and trade.

Right. So they can continue to claim that Iran's government is the bad actor here while not providing any actual proof because that's "classified". How convenient.

And let's not forget Iraq's Missing Billions (documentary). No one's been able to figure out where that ended up yet either. But hey, why not blame that on Iran too? Might as well. What has the Bush administration got to lose?
 

Quote du Jour: Lieberman's Denial

In the midst of this warmongering editorial about scary Iran, AIPAC shill Joe Lieberman (who's not ruling out backing a Republican for president in '08) writes:

Iran's actions in Iraq fit a larger pattern of expansionist, extremist behavior across the Middle East today.

Memo to Joe: you misspelled the United States'.

The United States' actions in Iraq fit a larger pattern of expansionist, extremist behavior across the Middle East today.

And did someone ask for a side order of fearmongering? Coming right up:

Our objective here is deterrence. The fanatical regime in Tehran has concluded that it can use proxies to strike at us and our friends in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestine without fear of retaliation. It is time to restore that fear, and to inject greater doubt into the decision-making of Iranian leaders about the risks they are now running.
[...]
The threat posed by Iran to our soldiers' lives, our security as a nation and our allies in the Middle East is a truth that cannot be wished or waved away.

And just how are you going to "restore that fear", Joe? By bomb, bomb, bombing Iran? Also, perhaps you could explain to me in 25 words or less how Iran is a threat to your "security as a nation"? I assume you're talking about the US there, right? Sometimes I get confused because you seem to advocate on behalf on your adopted country of Israel more than your actual country of birth (not unlike the neocons, I'd add).

You see Joe, Iran is not a threat to the security of the United States any more than Saddam was. Then again, you were a big cheerleader for that war too (and still are, obviously), so I guess your delusions are too firmly entrenched to change at this point. Fearmonger away. Just don't expect it to work this time.
 

Video: McCain Sings "Bomb Iran"

To the tune of "Barbara Ann".



I wonder if he sang that when he went for his leisurely stroll through that Baghdad market.

Campaign spokesman Matt David said the question was asked somewhat in jest and that the Arizona senator was adding some levity to the discussion.

liberal catnip spokesherb catnip said the Arizona senator's chances of becoming the next US president just rose 1000% among those who love dubya.