We’re hearing rumblings on the personnel front from the Pentagon.
Stay tuned . . .
Admiral William Fallon is out as CENTCOM commander.
Fallon has resigned, according to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in a press conference at the Pentagon:
According to a recent Esquire profile of Fallon, a piece which generated considerable controversy within the Pentagon:
[W]ell-placed observers now say that it will come as no surprise if Fallon is relieved of his command before his time is up next spring, maybe as early as this summer, in favor of a commander the White House considers to be more pliable.
Here is Fallon’s statement:
“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. 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,” said Fallon.
“I have therefore concluded that it would be best to step aside and allow the Secretary and our military leaders to move beyond this distractionâ¦and focus on the achievement of our strategic objectives in the region. I have submitted my request to retire to the Secretary of Defense.”
Like other professional classes — lawyers and scientists come immediately to mind — the military officer corps is seen by the White House as a threat to its own Executive Branch hegemony.
That’s the key to understanding today’s resignation by Adm. William Fallon, the commander in chief of Central Command.
The resignation of a CINC is a big deal, under almost any circumstance. But considering the Bush Administration’s seven-year effort to put the Pentagon under its thumb, the resignation of a commander like Fallon, who by most accounts was willing to exercise his independent military judgment, is another setback for the professional officer corps as an institution.
Make no mistake. None of the Bush Administration’s efforts in this regard has been about re-asserting civilian control over the military in some constitutional sense. The effort has been focused on degrading the autonomy, independence, and institutional authority of the Pentagon in order to further the narrow ideological and partisan aims of this particular White House.
Fallon was considered by many to be the one man standing between Dick Cheney and bombing Iran. So in the short term, Fallon’s resignation raises concerns about our future policy towards Iran (and as Spencer Ackerman notes, those concerns are likely to be greatest in Iran itself). So much for the return to mainstream foreign policy that was going to be led by Bob Gates and Condi Rice.
In the long-term, Fallon’s resignation — in some ways forced, perhaps in other ways dictated by circumstance — does much of the same damage to the Pentagon as has already been done to the Justice Department and the supposedly independent regulatory agencies. Defense Secretary Gates was supposed to be a bulwark against the White House’s ongoing efforts to erode the Pentagon. But Fallon was apparently too independent. The White House wanted someone, as Esquire said, more pliable. Another Tommy Franks. And we all remember where that led.
The interlocking rumor and speculation mills are now buzzing with theories about whether Adm. Fallon jumped or was pushed from his perch as the top military commander for US military forces across the Middle East (what the Pentagon refers to as ‘Central Command’). But there is a big picture that is important to keep in focus. That is, quite simply, that Fallon is leaving because he was apparently too sane for the Bush White House.
Those may seem like fighting words, but they’re not.
By all accounts, the points of contention between Fallon and Bush administration officials centered on three points: 1) his belief that the indefinite occupation of Iraq is a disaster for the US military, 2) that diplomacy has a central role in American foreign and national security policy, 3) that war is not a credible policy for the US to pursue in dealing with Iran. The last of these was believed to be the key issue.
Bear in mind too that Fallon was not foisted on the White House. Nor was he a holdover from a previous administration. The administration chose him. And while the political leadership of the Pentagon and the White House can’t choose just anyone for that job they have a fair amount of latitude to choose an officer of sufficient rank who is to their liking — a prerogative this administration has availed itself of as much or more as any in modern American history.
It is widely believed in media and political circles that despite the difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan, American foreign policy is back under some kind of adult/mainstream management. In other words, that we’ve left the Cheney/Rumsfeld era behind for a period of Gates/Rice normalcy and that Iran regime change adventurism is safely off the table. But put together what the disagreements with Fallon were about, the fact that the president chose him as someone he thought he could work with not more than one year ago, and the almost unprecedented nature of the resignation and it becomes clear that that assumption must be gravely in error.
Last we heard from John McCain he was denouncing John Hagee’s anti-Catholic statements while holding on to his endorsement. But now McCain seems to be having second thoughts. Today McCain went on Hugh Hewitt’s Bill Bennett’s show and explained that while he would condemn Hagee’s anti-Catholic remarks if they were actually anti-Catholic that he’s not actually sure they were anti-Catholic. He now points out that Hagee says the remarks were taken out of context and that he’d appreciate if Hagee can be allowed to explain his remarks.
“Well, obviously I repudiate any comments that are anti-Semitic or anti-Catholic, racist, any other. And I condemn them and I condemn those words that Pastor Hagee apparently â that Pastor Hagee wrote. I will say that he said that his words were taken out of context, he defends his position. I hope that maybe you’d give him a chance to respond.”
He also went on to say that we shouldn’t be so quick to judge Hagee because he’s a big supporter of Israel and also supports an indefinite occupation of Iraq.
A couple of more data points emerged today about the underlying conduct by Eliot Spitzer that is now under federal investigation.
ABC News is reporting this evening that Spitzer moved “an estimated $40,000 through various accounts” in possible violation of federal law, according to federal investigators.
Earlier today, the New York Times reported that “Mr. Spitzerâs payments to the Emperorâs Club began sometime in the middle of 2007.”
Even at the $4,500 a pop that Emperor’s Club allegedly charged, you’re talking about numerous assignations just in the last few monnths. Based on the wiretap from the night of Feb.13, it appears Spitzer was more in the $2,500 per night range. So as many as a dozen or more separate encounters, assuming that all $40,000 went to call girls.
While that’s an awful lot of money to be spending on call girls in a relatively short period of time, $40,000 is a relatively small amount when it comes to money laundering. The movement of that amount of funds by a man who reportedly has considerable personal wealth would not be particularly suspicious. Assuming banking regulations required the filing of a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR), the amount of money involved was so minimal that it’s surprising it caught the eye of the IRS.
Before Alberto Gonzales and the revelations surrounding the politicization of the Justice Department, a safe assumption would have been that the name of a sitting governor on a SAR would have been enough to catch the eye of any investigator, even if the amounts involved were relatively small. That’s the gist of what happened here, according to various reports.
I hope that’s true. I want it to be true. Based on the facts as we know them now, I tend to think it is true. But one of the sad legacies of the Bush Administration is the lingering doubt that now accompanies public corruption investigations.
Late Update: From the AP:
Speaking on condition of anonymity, a law enforcement official said Tuesday that Spitzer, in fact, had spent tens of thousands of dollars with the Emperors Club. Another official said the amount could be as high as $80,000. But it was not clear over what period of time that was spent.
$40,000? $80,000? But who’s counting?
As we wait here for the returns to come in from Mississippi, it occurred to me that while I love living in New York City we’ve had sort of a rough time with the governors lately. There are some pretty obvious differences between the blowout of NJ Gov. Jim McGreevey’s career and our Gov. Spitzer’s. But through all the differences of money or no money and differing sexual orientations, there’s also a pretty strong similarity. New Democratic governors brought in after a long period of Republican rule rapidly brought down by wildly reckless sexual behavior. All we need now is some Connecticut governor to get tripped up and we’ll have the local trifecta. But then it occurred to me, what am I thinking: Connecticut Gov. John Rowland was forced to resign and was then thrown in the slammer just back in 2005. Admittedly his weaknesses were for luxury rather than carnality. But still three gubernatorial takedowns in four short years is a rough record for our area.
We just got an email from a longtime and prized reader, TPM Reader JS. And JS said that Ferraro’s statement was simply a fact. And whatever outrage people feel, she says, people shouldn’t be forced to shut up or stand down when they’re simply saying things that are true, even if they’re uncomfortable truths.
Now, I’m really not much for the sport of competitive outrage that’s flying over all of our heads of late. So I’m just going to set aside whether the comment is offensive or outrageous. Let’s just consider whether it’s accurate.
Can anyone seriously claim that it’s an asset to be an African-American in a US presidential race? Happily what we’re now seeing is that it does not in itself seem to be an eliminating factor in a presidential race. But an advantage? There’s no doubt that Obama’s race is the central factor in allowing him to consolidate almost unanimous support from African-American voters, especially in the South. But African-Americans make up only about 13% of the population. And does anyone doubt that that advantage he gains there is not balanced at least to a substantial degree by resistance to voting for him among white voters? Why is Obama running so poorly among white voters tonight (compared to his rates in northern states) in Mississippi? And in South Carolina? We hear a lot about Sen. Clinton’s bedrock of strength among non-college educated white voters. Do we really think that’s simply a matter of appeal of Sen. Clinton? More speculatively, but I think no less true, is that a lot of the Farrakhan/Muslim/foreign influence stuff has more sticking power because of Obama’s race.
Most of the same points could be made about the advantages and disadvantages Sen. Clinton is under because of her gender. In fact I think there’s a pretty striking symmetry. It’s clearly helping her with her big advantage among women voters, especially her generational peers. But we’d be foolish not to realize that some of Obama’s big margins among white men are not simply a reflection of support for Obama.
You might support Obama or not, think he’s qualified or an empty suit but suggesting he’s only where he is now because he’s black is something much worse than outrageous. It just seems obviously false.