[R-G] Admiral Fallon, Who Said "[An Attack on Iran] Will Not

[CeJ]

I haven't read a long piece with so much unintentional hilarity as
that Esquire one on Fallon since one of those 'exposes' that Hersch or
Woodward do every 6 months.

But here are a few comments and few more links.

I would say that the resignation/firing means basically that Fallon
has positioned himself for an appointment with a Pres. Obama or
Clinton. Given how much unconstitutional diplomacy he did as CentCom
commander (and earlier as PacCom head), I would recommend him for Sec.
of State. I'm not sure where he is with a Pres. McCain. Rremember, the
interesting thing about Good Cop - Bad Cop routines is that they are
ruses carried out by two bad cops, but it looks like a Gen. Petraeus
(Fallon's direct subordinate at CentCom until Fallon resigned/was
fired) is more set to thrive in a McCain regime.

1. http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070131/WIRE/701310313/-1/news

On Iran

>>"They are posturing themselves with the capability to attempt to
deny us the ability to operate in this vicinity," Fallon said, adding
that there is room for diplomatic efforts with Iran because it has an
economic stake in keeping open the Persian Gulf's commercial shipping
lanes.<<

Translation with interpolated explanatory notes:

Background: Fallon is a Navy political man who doesn't fit with the
factions dominating current CentCom. His appointment there was really
a lateral transfer, not a promotion, though CentCom is where the heart
of the US militarist empire is right now, because of the occupations
of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the ongoing interference in Lebanon. And
since the AfricaCom is just getting started, we can include Somalia
and Sudan in the portfolio.

Army politician and Iraq commander, Gen. Petraeus, Fallon's
subordinate, went behind his back--JUMPED THE CHAIN OF COMMAND in the
all-important terms used by military careerists, the ultimate
no-no--on the Surge and on Iran. But what was Adm. Fallon (who seems
to have had more four-star assignments than anyone in recent military
history) actually trying to say?

Basically, if we move a third carrier group to the Persian Gulf area
to posture still yet more in order to threaten an aerial bombardment,
if we do get into a shooting war with Iran, even a relatively isolated
incident, they could use some of that same stuff Hezbollah fired from
rubber boats on the Israeli DF last year to wreck one of their
aluminum-hulled high-tech ships. Plus the NATO proxy war in
Afghanistan is collapsing--that was predictable, since CentCom and
NATO don't mesh.

Fallon always talks about Pakistan when he gets a chance--as does
apparently Obama. But it would seem so far the biggest result of the
Dem-Obama strategy for Pakistan is it got Benazir Bhutto killed very
quickly.

2. http://youtube.com/watch?v=aKpzPXLkv4w

Adm. Fallon on the Surge in a vidclip up at youtube. So see, afterall,
the Surge is a 'Win their hearts and minds' strategy. But geez, he is
an AWFUL speaker. That is a put them to sleep strategy. Also,
remember, never trust a top US military officer who isn't overweight.
It means that, unlike most of his troops (whose lives, whose jobs,
whose equipment he knows less about than people like me who read about
such things on the internet), he actually watches what he eats and has
time to work out. That is, he is a politician in a military uniform.

3. http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd03072008.html

And finally, a CP article that really gets it oh so very right:

excerpt

>>The most remarkable fact about the Esquire article is not its
laughable portrayal of the man in charge of mass slaughter and
military aggression across a broad swathe of the globe as a shining
knight holding back the dogs of war. Nor is it the delusion on the
part of Barnett --- and much of the commentariat as well – that Bush
would ever appoint some kind of secret peacenik as the main commander
of his Terror War. (Although it could well be that Fallon will be
fired in the end for not groveling obsequiously enough to the Leader,
in the required Petraeus-Franks manner. Or indeed, that he might even
resign rather than commit what he sees as the tactical error of
crushing the Iranian ants at this particular time. But so what? If he
quits, someone else who would be happy to do the stomping will be
appointed in his place. If Bush decides to attack Iran, then Iran will
be attacked. There is no one standing in the way. It's as simple as
that.)

No, what is most noteworthy about the article is that Barnett has
given us, unwittingly, one of the clearest pictures yet of the true
nature of the American system today. And that system is openly,
unequivocally and unapologetically imperial, in every sense of the
word, and in every sinew of its structure. For what is Fallon's actual
position? We see him commanding vast armies, both his own and those of
local proxies, waging battles to bend nations, regions and peoples to
the will of a superpower. We see him meeting with the heads of client
kingdoms in his purview, in Cairo, Kabul, Baghdad, Dushanbe: advising,
cajoling, demanding, threatening, wading deeply into the internal
affairs of the dominated lands, seeking to determine their politics,
their economic development, their military structure and foreign
policies.

For example, Barnett tells us that Fallon was locked away with Pervez
Musharaff for hours the day before the Pakistani dictator imposed
emergency rule last year. Barnett, hilariously, swallows Fallon's line
that Washington didn't greenlight Musharaff's crackdown: "Did I tell
him this is not a recommended course of action? Of course." Yes,
Admiral, whatever you say. But did you tell him there would be any
adverse consequences whatsoever from Washington: any cut-off or even
diminution of military and economic aid, for example? Of course not.
(For a glimpse of hero-worship, here's how Barnett sets the scene: "As
the admiral recounts the exchange, his voice is flat, his gaze steady.
His calculus on this subject is far more complex than anyone else's."
A calculus more complex than anyone else's in the whole wide world!
And certainly more complex than any analysis those ants in Pakistan
could come up with themselves.) To his credit, Fallon then goes on to
give the true picture: Washington supported the crackdown because
Pakistan is "an immature democracy" that needs a savvy strongman – and
American loyalist – at the helm. As for the idea that Benazir Bhutto –
then still alive – could play a role in stabilizing the country:
"Fallon is pessimistic. He slowly shakes his head. 'Better forget
that.'" A few weeks later, Bhutto was out of the picture.

What we are seeing, quite simply, is an imperial proconsul in action.
There is no difference whatsoever between Fallon's role and that of
the proconsuls sent out by the Roman emperors to deal with the wars
and tribes and client kingdoms of the empire's far-flung provinces.
There too, the emperor could not simply snap his fingers and bend
every event to his will; there had to be some cajoling, compromise,
occasional setbacks. But behind everything lurked the threat of Roman
military power and the promise of ruin and death if Rome's interests
were not accommodated in the end. It is the same with America's
pro-consuls today.

Nowhere in the article – nor anywhere else in the well-wadded bastions
of the "bipartisan foreign policy community" (and amongst its fawning
scribes) – will you find even the slightest inkling of a doubt that
America should be comporting itself as an imperial power in this way.
It is simply a given that an American military commander – with or
without a calm, steely gaze and complex calculus – should be hashing
out emergency decrees with Central Asian dictators, launching missile
strikes on African villages, driving hell-for-leather in bristling
convoys down the streets of occupied cities, stationing warships off
the coast of Lebanon and Iran… and continually throwing massive
amounts of American blood and treasure into a never-ending campaign to
"crush the ants" that swarm so inconveniently around the imperial boot
heels. For the elite – and, sadly, for the majority of other Americans
as well – this is simply the natural order of the world. Not only are
these imperial assumptions unquestioned; they are unconscious, as if
it were literally inconceivable that the nation's affairs could be
ordered in any other way.

We should be grateful to Barnett. Not even the most scathing dissident
could have produced a more damning indictment of America's imperial
system than this fawning – indeed groveling – piece of hagiography.
>>end of CP excerpt, cheers to CP for publishing something worth
reading.

-----------------------

I still say no attack on Iran is coming. Last year I put it at 60-40
against, now I'm shifting to 70-30. And if it does come, it would be a
limited aerial attack. The problem with that strategy is what America
sees as 'limited' is actually quite horrific if you are on the
receiving end (ask the Serbs).

In which case, an all-out retaliation from Iran could result in
billion-dollar war ships getting hit with low-tech missiles and
turning out to be rather defenseless, which could then escalate into
attack on merchant shipping. In which case, the price of oil would go
way outside the current range of leveraged, profitable speculation or
a hedge against the collapsed dollar. Look for more activity directed
towards Lebanon, Syria, Somalia and Venezuela--as if that combined
with two occupations--wasn't enough for these people.

If it looks like McCain is going to lose badly to the Dem. nominee,
the  White House and some in the Pentagon and CentComwould be very
tempted to pull off some sort of foreign policy crisis to influence
the elections. Besides, it would be Bush wishing to add at least a
wiki entry paragraph to his historical legacy.

But it would have to be major enough to get attention in the media,
and done in a way that makes Americans look like victims responding in
self-defense. I'm sure they have got some of their best minds working
on it. It's not so much a matter of creating a crisis but rather which
ones to put into the spotlight.

If Bush were to start releasing oil from the strategic reserves to
foil speculators, he would probably do more to make Americans feel
better about the current state of things. But that might be worse for
American financials than Bernanke not lowering interest rates still
yet further. More and more it looks like it will be a Democratic
presidency that has to deal with the Greenspan Bubble.

CJ
http://japanheo.blogspot.com/