Ominous Signs of a Wider War

[RedEarth]

On January 5 Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that he was replacing Gen. John Abizaid as commander of the Central Command (Centcom)--the body responsible for oversight of all US forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and the greater Middle East--with Adm. William Fallon, currently the commander of the Pacific Command (Pacom). Fallon is one of several senior officers recently appointed by Gates to oversee the new strategy for Iraq now being shaped by President Bush.

The choice of Fallon to replace Abizaid was highly unusual in several respects. First, this is a lateral move for the admiral, not a promotion: As head of Pacom, Fallon commanded a larger force than he will oversee at Centcom, and one over which he will exercise less direct control since all combat operations in Iraq will be under the supervision of Gen. Dave Petraeus, the recently announced replacement for Gen. George Casey as commander of all US and allied forces. Second, and more surprising, Fallon is a Navy man, with experience in carrier operations, while most of Centcom's day-to-day work is on the ground, in the struggle against insurgents and warlords in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Part of the explanation for this move, of course, is a desire by the White House to sweep away bitter ground-force commanders like Abizaid and Casey who had opposed an increase in US troops in Iraq and argued for shifting greater responsibility for the fighting to Iraq forces, thereby permitting a gradual American withdrawal. "The Baghdad situation requires more Iraqi troops," not more Americans, Abizaid said in a recent interview with the New York Times. For this alone, Abizaid had to go.

But there's more to it. Abizaid, who is of Lebanese descent and served a tour of duty with UN forces in Lebanon, has come to see the need for a regional solution to the crisis in Iraq--one that inevitably requires some sort of engagement with Iran and Syria, as recommended by the Iraq Study Group. "You have to internationalize the problem, you have to attack it diplomatically, geo-strategically," he told the Times. "You just can't apply a microscope on a particular problem in downtown Baghdad...and say that somehow or another, if you throw enough military forces at it, you are going to solve the broader issues in the region of extremism."

If engagement with Iran and Syria was even remotely on the agenda, Abizaid is exactly the man you'd want on the job at Centcom overseeing US forces and strategy in the region. But if that's not on the agenda, if you're thinking instead of using force against Iran and/or Syria, then Admiral Fallon is exactly the man you'd want at Centcom.



http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070122/klare

[izzie]

1. The oddest part of this stuff is we even have to think about it.

Since we have become the 'war country' every one is always worried about what war Bush will start next. New type thinking. I liked it when we saw the wars from afar and wondered what they were fighting about. Being old has it good points.

[dos pelos]

2. In your face,damn the congress,damn the people,WAR

What do you think the removal/shuffle of generals has been about in the last two weeks?Escalation,a wider war.While Sen Reid summons the courage to write a trembling milquetoast letter of "warning" to Bush,'ol George and the boys are readying to blow this thing sky high.These guys are going to drive a speeding truck over the congressional "opposition" ,who will sit there mumbling mealy mouthed vacillating mild protestations as tire tracks are laid down on their backs.A deluded,self congratulatory Pee Wee Herman has entered the ring against a determined,psychotic Mike Tyson.Who's gonna win ?Thats what we've got here folks.Oh,and a few loyal supporters screaming hysterically at Pee Wee to wake up,watch out and get ready to fight.

[MasonJar]

3. Bush won't leave because how would he then guarantee that the

US gets all the oil?

[teryang]

4. I wrote a very similar commentary on January 5

Maybe this guy reads DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3043384

This is ominous for two reasons...

Placing an admiral in charge of CENTCOM suggests that the CinC is considering moves that will place the lines of communication in the Persian Gulf region in greater jeopardy. Anti-cruise missile defense and other naval surface warfare considerations rather than a ground warfare focus are suggested by such a decision.

Also, CNN reported a white house statement that the "decision" regarding a new direction in Iraq would be strategic in dimension, rather than limited to just consideration of the so called "surge" inside Iraq.

An admiral with aviation warfare experience is more than capable of supervising the so called air assault against Iran, and more capable than either an Air Force or ground forces general officer of supervising the defense against the anticipated response from Iran to such an attack, which will necessarily invole surface warfare, mine warfare, air and missile defense over the gulf and defense of port facilities of international economic significance.

As the talking head retired general with the AEI background said, Admiral Fallon, is the right man for the job, a regional strategic solution, to a local intractable problem.