UPDATE: Fred Kaplan says Fallon brought it on himself, and "To the extent that policy disputes are behind the move, they are much more about Iraq."

NYT: "Adm. William J. Fallon, the top American commander in the Middle East whose views on Iran and other issues have seemed to put him at odds with the Bush administration, is retiring early, the Pentagon said Tuesday afternoon."

The article that is said to have caused him problems: "[I]n spite of recent war spasms aimed at Iran from this sclerotic administration, Fallon is in no hurry to pick up any campaign medals for Iran. And therein lies the rub for the hard-liners...it's left to Fallon--and apparently Fallon alone--to argue that, as he told Al Jazeera last fall: 'This constant drumbeat of conflict . . . is not helpful and not useful. I expect that there will be no war, and that is what we ought to be working for. We ought to try to do our utmost to create different conditions.'"

Comments

[James]

I still have a half-dozen friends in high places in the military. They are each seriously worried about the lunatic in the White House. Specifically, the process of early retirements, firings and marginalizing dissenters has led to a dearth of actual leadership at the top echelons of the armed forces. Over the past six years, Bush has effectively weeded out the best and the brightest officers, leaving behind a literal army of Bushbots who share the view that war is good business.

This is some scary stuff. It's okay to have hawks in the military OR hawks in the White House . . . but "both" is a dangerous and volatile combination.

[Debra]

They don't want anyone in their way as they charge toward Iran...

[Ged Maheux]

"They don't want anyone in their way as they charge toward Iran..."

As much as even I have believed that in the past, as we continue to move forward towards the end of 2008 and the elections, I think the likelihood of this happening grows exponentially smaller. I mean the Bush administration is arrogant, stubborn and stupid when it comes to military allocation and strategy, but I have to believe that even he would not start a conflict this close to the end of his term.

If it turns out he does, then I will be left completely and utterly speechless. He'll surprise even me, and at this point I don't think he can act any worse than he already has in regards to foreign policy, unless he attacks Iran and leaves it to the next president to mop up.

[RBM]

Ged,
If the "leaves(ing) it to the next president to mop up" is your bottom line,
think about this: George already has set a precedent - it's called Iraq.

I was raise by a man, in whose mind, the government could do no wrong. His employment was as a civilian to a DOD contractor for ~20 years and them civil service for another +- 17 years.

I argued often as an adult with him about military/USA issues.

Your view, I suspect, is way too rational, to accurately speculate how this is likely to play out.

I'm just glad I'm getting up in years;)

[James]

Ged, I hope you're right, but I don't have much confidence that you are. W's in the legacy business right now. He has bet the Bush family name on the correctness of his insane war and a conflict with Iran would simply reinforce how "right" he was all along ... even if he has to start it based on trumped up intelligence. Doubling down is pretty much the only way he gets to preserve the illusion of having done anything of value.

[Fred Gregory]

Max Boot in the LA Times:

" By irresponsibly taking the option of force off of the table, Fallon makes it more likely, not less, that there will be an armed confrontation with Iran"

Fallon Didn't Get It

Last night on Fox News' Special Report, Brit Hume asked " This is being attacked by Democrats as a sign that the administration will not listen to contrary voices on policy. What about it ? "

Fred Barnes answered " This is so ridiculous. If this was somebody in a Democratic administration, somebody in the Pentagon, a major figure, who didn't want to carry out the president's policy and that became known pblicly, and spoke out against him, they would say , wait a minute, we have civilian control. They would be saying the opposite thing "

[Fec]

From anywhere but the far right, the Max Boot piece smells. BushCo surgically retired the entire human infrastructure of Iraq permanently to Syria. Then he creates at least 2 million refugees and displaces that many again. He scares the bejesus out of the Saudis by surrendering all of southern Iraq to Iran and starts making love to Turkey.

And Fallon was the problem? Patreaus is a chicken-hawk toady.

[Fred Gregory]

"By contradicting the President in public the Admiral exceeded his autority and was right to step down"

Lincoln sacked McClellan and Truman chastened McArthur, thus there is nothing unprecedented about the
The Fall of Fallon

[Fec]

You forgot O'Neill, Whitman and Powell. That's a lot of canaries. Rummy and his A Teams failed to learn the lessons of Mogadishu. Plan B was civil war. And when al Sadr finishes university, there will be hell to pay. The Navy is running low on CAGs like Fallon.