CentCom Nominee Refuses To Endorse Bush’s Escalation Strategy
CentCom Nominee Refuses To Endorse Bush’s Escalation Strategy
Admiral William Fallon — Bush’s nominee to replace Gen. John Abizaid as head of U.S. forces in the Middle East — yesterday refused to endorse Bush’s escalation strategy in Iraq. In questioning during his confirmation hearing, Fallon rebuffed repeated attempts by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) –an avowed proponent of escalation — to solicit his endorsement of the new Iraq plan:
GRAHAM: And you would support sending more troops to accomplish that goal?
FALLON: I don’t know how many troops are going to be necessary to effect the outcome that we want. But General Petraeus, in my conversations with him, indicated that he believes he needs these troops now, to get moving…
GRAHAM: And if he said he needed more, you would support him?
FALLON: I don’t know, sir. I haven’t been there yet, and I’m not in a position to make that judgment.
GRAHAM: Well, it’s his judgment about 21,500, does it make sense to you?
FALLON: I will better be able to give you an informed answer when I understand the situation better.
Moments later, responding to a question from Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), Fallon divulged he’s always “felt more comfortable in smaller numbers” rather than a larger force “decorating the landscape”:
FALLON: I cannot tell you with any degree of accuracy what percentage of troops or what the numbers are that are effective. And I believe that this is pretty judgmental. It’s pretty subjective, in my opinion, my experience. And it’s one that I am very anxious to gain an appreciation for from our ground commanders.
I’ve always been someone who felt more comfortable in smaller numbers of very effective capabilities than a large number of — whatevers — decorating the landscape. So we’ll be really interested in trying to find out where we really stand with these forces.
President Bush said of Fallon, “[He] has earned a reputation as one of our country’s foremost military strategists.” And like many other military strategists, he appears to have deep concerns about escalation in Iraq.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Admiral Fallon might be playing a game of cat and mouse with Sen. Graham, or he truely does not want to look stupid like President Bush.
January 31st, 2007 at 11:05 amI’m glad he’s in favor of smaller numbers of “whatevers.”
January 31st, 2007 at 11:06 amHe’s just trying to look good. He’ll tow the line soon enough, or be replaced.
Why does it seem like talking about this stuff seems pointless at times?
January 31st, 2007 at 11:07 amInteresting catch-22 Admiral Fallon finds himself in.
On the one hand, he seems unwilling to speak against Bush’s escalation plan, perhaps out of a misguided sense of loyalty, but more probably because he’s seen what happens to those who dare to question the existence of the Emperor’s new clothes.
On the other hand, he seems unwilling to speak in favor of Bush’s escalation plan, most probably because he doesn’t wish to see his reputation as a competent strategist besmirched by endorsement of a plan that most high-school students can recognize as utter folly.
So…what to do…what to do…
January 31st, 2007 at 11:11 amForTruth > check out our posts on previous thread. They are shifting position and have wrong time posted for them? A glitch or cyber attack?
January 31st, 2007 at 11:11 am“A large number of… whatevers… decorating the landscape…”
January 31st, 2007 at 11:12 amHow callous, to put it mildly….
Remember, this is a Navy man, and he likes big boats, big guns, and big bombs………
Remember as well the second Naval aircraft carrier group steaming for the Persian Gulf as we speak………
So we have a new commander that doesn’t know how many troops are necessary because he is new. All the while more troops are being sent over. When the troops are already there we can hear him say that he has enough to do what he wants to do. Then the Dems will be labeled as taking forces away from the commander on the ground(sea?). Bush just loves to play these political games with our men and women in uniform just to fulfill his ego.
January 31st, 2007 at 11:15 amThere is no VICTORY to be had in Iraq…
…for the money and blood that has been wasted so needlessly…
…EVERYBODY has LOST…
…the Iraqis in innocent lives and sovereignty (among other things that are as yet intangible)…
…Americans in lives and treasure that surely were unnecessary given the containment strategy that WAS WORKING, as well as faith in our democracy given the scurrilously incompetent and corrupt Republican/Bush/Cheney era…
…and the world which now has to deal with a stepped up arms race, and loss of what it had heretofore considered a great moral leader (in america) but no more…
…for the money we’ve spent alone we could’ve paid EVERY Iraqi (Saddam Uday and Qusay too) to relocate…
…we could’ve solved world poverty!
…NOW, we’ve got a long road to redemption…
January 31st, 2007 at 11:15 amJay Randall sez:
Count yourselves lucky…at least you get to post.
I’ve been repeatedly blocked from posting on the ThinkFast thread. My post was regarding Habeas Corpus, and was not objectionable by any standard. Yet, it failed to post, although I tried five times.
It’s crap like this that gets me interested in other blogs. If TP can’t get its act together, I’ll just leave it to the trolls.
January 31st, 2007 at 11:17 amRemember as well the second Naval aircraft carrier group steaming for the Persian Gulf as we speak………
Comment by Raven
There is also one in the Mediterranean.
January 31st, 2007 at 11:20 amAnyone watching the C-Span broadcast, realizes there is no plan besides the war-profiteers continuing to loot the US treasury.
January 31st, 2007 at 11:24 amIs this a rumsfeld type response, while beating around the bush and trusting in small numbers of hightech military. Is this looking forward to a limited Iran adventure with advanced weapondry?
January 31st, 2007 at 11:26 amJust order the troops home, sir.
TripMaster > I believe that TP is being hacked by some Pentagon cyber unit, or something, because this stuff seems to be out of control on the threads.
January 31st, 2007 at 11:27 amCount yourselves lucky…at least you get to post.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — January 31, 2007 @ 11:17 am
Trip-try altering you moniker,that might help.
January 31st, 2007 at 11:28 amI think,though not certain,the filter attacks names,not content.
Regarding Graham’s question, “GRAHAM: Well, it’s his judgment about 21,500, does it make sense to you?” I observed him asking this question, and Graham was nodding his head affirmatively while he asked. It was as though he was desperate for Fallon to agree with him that it “makes sense.”
January 31st, 2007 at 11:30 amI don’t think he’s doing it to look like he’s not “in line” or anything like that. Honestly, it sounds like he’s doing what he can to gain the trust of the men and women on the ground, who probably mean much more to him than various senators and media outlets.
January 31st, 2007 at 11:30 amSo…what to do…what to do…
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
You attack Iran.
January 31st, 2007 at 11:31 ami’m trying the name change tactic
January 31st, 2007 at 11:35 amI hate to sound so suspicious (not really – just kidding), but didn’t Gates sound independentally-minded and nonsollicitous when first appointed? Now, what? He’s a big, brown-nosed lap hound. WOOF! WOOF!
January 31st, 2007 at 11:37 amHopefully Admiral Fallon in the future might refuse to carry out Bush’s orders to bomb the crap out of Iran. One can hope anyways, otherwise WWIII begins soon!
January 31st, 2007 at 11:37 amI hate to sound so suspicious (not really – just kidding), but didn’t Gates sound independentally-minded and nonsollicitous when first appointed? Now, what? He’s a big, brown-nosed lap hound. WOOF! WOOF!
Comment by Liberal in New Mexico
You are correct, sir!
January 31st, 2007 at 11:39 amJust order the troops home, sir.
January 31st, 2007 at 11:41 amI think a major problem is that Iraq is a huge strategic treasure. Democrats and Republicans alike are tied to military industrial corporate interests; the interest here being Oil, lots and lots of the black gold; and preventing China and Russian elites from getting their hands on it.
Sadly, it looks like, until U.S. soldiers are dying by the thousands every week, will exiting Iraq be “politicly viable” for either party.
hopefully we’ll see more mass demonstration and soldiers refusing orders on the basis of being ordered to commit “war crimes”, deployed into an illegal war, etc. (see Watada)
January 31st, 2007 at 11:45 amWe may have another feint in this whole issue of sending more troops, when the real objective is to break loose the airplanes and laser bombs.
January 31st, 2007 at 11:47 amThe running history of this regime has been throwing bones out to distract the watchdogs, while they rob the homes…….
but didn’t Gates sound independentally-minded and nonsollicitous when first appointed?
Comment by Liberal in New Mexico
No,not to me;I knew what to expect from a Bush appointee.
January 31st, 2007 at 11:48 amThe plan for Iran is three days of massive bombing! And then what?
The Bush “last chance plan” for Iraq is to count on Iraqis, that we can’t count on. And then what?
January 31st, 2007 at 11:53 am“more comfortable in smaller numbers of very effective capabilities than a large number of — whatevers — decorating the landscape”
So the MSM crucifies John Kerry for his “botched joke” but nobody says anything about this guy almost calling our soldiers inefective?
Regardless, I’m glad he isn’t allowing himself to get fenced in by the dog and pony show being put on by the assclowns in Congress.
January 31st, 2007 at 11:57 amHe called them “whatevers”.
January 31st, 2007 at 12:25 pmThat isn’t even acknowledging the soldiers as human beings.
I hope this is the torpedo that sinks his boat.
Iraq was part of the Arab countries’ camp before this war started in 2003. After this war, Iraq became part of the Iran’s camp under a Shiate leadership,who came back from Iran,well trained and well equipped. Sooner or later we will leave Iraq, and Iraq will develop to become an Iranians’ satellilte. Iran influence on the increase in Iraq after the collapse of The Ba’athists regime in Iraq under Saddam. 20 years ago,we were supporting Saddam and his regime under Reagan administration ,because he was the enemey of Ayatollas of Iran. It was not until Saddam invaded Kuwait that he became our enemy. In fact Senator Bob Dole with other 5 senators visited Saddam in the city of Mousol in 1990 to assure him of the USA support. In January of 1990 Bush Sr., overrode Congressitional opposition to deny credits for Iraq . Bush defended his decision because it is in the US best interest to continue support Saddam. The Shiate leadership in Iraq wants the Americans now to help them eradicate the Ba’athists left from the old regime; the resistance pockets in big mob operations..and when this is done,they will tell the Americans to leave..and Iran will be the dominating power not just in Iraq, but the whole Persian Gulf area when you consider that 30% of Kuwaities are Shiate,49% of the Bahranis,15% of the Saudis east coast,and hundreds of thousands of Iranians now live and work in the oil producing countries. With Iraq on their side, they will be a major power in the area. But right now,they need the Americans…when Bush talks about victory..it might mean something different to him than what the Shiate leadership in Iraq and Iran…Victory to the Shiate means total control of Iraq, marginalization of the Sunnis, and control of oil resource..beside open the door to trade between both countries ,the rise and blend between the two religious powers of Ayatollas over their masses in both countries.
January 31st, 2007 at 12:40 pmLook at this: they are going for it hammer and tongs it seems. CNN promotes the propaganda to page one!
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/31/iraq.main/index.html
I wonder what General Fallon and the military brass will have to say, when asked to respond to these “gulf of tonkin”-like incidents.
January 31st, 2007 at 2:33 pmThe geopolitic involved with posturing toward Iran simply states one thing: there’s only one big dog that gets to “run” the Middle East, and it’s going to be the U.S. We will do anything and everything we need to do to make that happen. I’m quite sure the U.S. will attack Iran in the near future via sea and air, and not at all surprised if they don’t use some tactical nuclear weapons as well. Of course, it will be in response to some manufactured attack, just as the Gulf of Tonkin attacks were in the day. It’s always been, and will always be, about OIL. Who controls it.
January 31st, 2007 at 3:22 pm# 31
I’m with you there, but will the military and congress go along, or will somebody someday just say no?
I still hope they do.
January 31st, 2007 at 5:22 pm