If Congress won't stand up to the President, maybe the military will
Commander's veto sank Gulf buildup
By Gareth Porter, Inter Press Service
WASHINGTON - Admiral William Fallon, then US President George W Bush's nominee to head Central Command (CENTCOM), expressed strong opposition in February to an administration plan to increase the number of aircraft-carrier strike groups in the Persian Gulf from two to three and vowed privately that there would be no war against Iran as long as he was chief of CENTCOM, according to sources with access to his thinking.
Fallon's resistance to the proposed deployment of a third aircraft carrier was followed by a shift in the Bush administration's Iran policy in February and March away from increased military threats and toward diplomatic engagement with Iran. That shift, for which no credible explanation has been offered by administration officials, suggests that Fallon's resistance to a crucial deployment was a major factor in the intra-administration struggle over policy toward Iran.
The plan to add a third carrier strike group in the Gulf had been a key element in a broader strategy discussed at high levels to intimidate Iran by a series of military moves suggesting preparations for a military strike.
Fallon's resistance to a further buildup of naval striking power in the Gulf apparently took the Bush administration by surprise. Fallon, then commander of the US Pacific Command, had been associated with naval aviation throughout his career, and in January Secretary of Defense Robert Gates publicly encouraged the idea that the appointment presaged greater emphasis on the military option in regard to the US conflict with Iran.
(The rest is here. Thanks to Minnesota Central for the tip.)
By Gareth Porter, Inter Press Service
WASHINGTON - Admiral William Fallon, then US President George W Bush's nominee to head Central Command (CENTCOM), expressed strong opposition in February to an administration plan to increase the number of aircraft-carrier strike groups in the Persian Gulf from two to three and vowed privately that there would be no war against Iran as long as he was chief of CENTCOM, according to sources with access to his thinking.
Fallon's resistance to the proposed deployment of a third aircraft carrier was followed by a shift in the Bush administration's Iran policy in February and March away from increased military threats and toward diplomatic engagement with Iran. That shift, for which no credible explanation has been offered by administration officials, suggests that Fallon's resistance to a crucial deployment was a major factor in the intra-administration struggle over policy toward Iran.
The plan to add a third carrier strike group in the Gulf had been a key element in a broader strategy discussed at high levels to intimidate Iran by a series of military moves suggesting preparations for a military strike.
Fallon's resistance to a further buildup of naval striking power in the Gulf apparently took the Bush administration by surprise. Fallon, then commander of the US Pacific Command, had been associated with naval aviation throughout his career, and in January Secretary of Defense Robert Gates publicly encouraged the idea that the appointment presaged greater emphasis on the military option in regard to the US conflict with Iran.
(The rest is here. Thanks to Minnesota Central for the tip.)
Powered by Blogger
1 Comments:
“if the choice is between a nuclear-capable Iran and the use of force, then I think we need to look at the use of force."
"If the choice is them continuing [towards a nuclear bomb] or the use of force, I think you're at a Hitler marching into the Rhineland point. If you don't stop it then, the future is in his hands, not in your hands, just as the future decisions on their nuclear program would be in Iran's hands, not ours."
These are the words of former Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton this week in an interview in the UK Telegraph .
These are scary words when you consider the position that he held and that he is now able to speak unencumbered and publicly.
And we Minnesotans should be concerned about Norm Coleman’s judgment since he was strong advocate during Bolton’s confirmation hearings :
“John Bolton provides us a strong, vigorous voice at the United Nations, making sure that our nation’s concerns are not only being heard, but that legitimate issues of U.N. reform are being addressed with more than just lip service. In a world that needs a vibrant and credible United Nations, we need a strong and credible voice speaking for the United States and the UN: John Bolton is that voice.
I watched those confirmation hearings and Coleman was an embarrassment as Senator Boxer schooled Coleman on the Constitution and the Senate’s Advice and Consent responsibilities.
Bolton did not reward Coleman’s desire to reform the UN as It has been written that Bolton introduced hundreds of unilateral amendments making UN reform impossible.
Thank goodness that the military leaders have more sense than the politicians.
Post a Comment
<< Home