1. catdynamics
  2. playing with boats

playing with boats

By catdynamics on May 15, 2007.

Unconfirmed report on CommonDreams that the White House wanted to put three carriers in the Persian Gulf in early April by having the Nimitz get there early.
Supposedly Admiral Fallon refused to do this, which is curious and problematic in itself.

On the one hand putting three carriers in the gulf is tantamount to a declaration of war, on the other hand CENTCOM commander does not make policy. The story implies Fallon was asked to request the carrier to provide cover and refused to do so, which is slightly plausible.

Quite weird, and quite worrying in view of Cheney's recent bluster and today's reports claiming Iran has rapidly and successfully expanded its enrichment capacity, I am bothered again.
But, hey that is almost 4 weeks of not worrying about crazy f*$%cks randomly starting a war...

Tags
Random

More like this

"Life goes on as it did before..."
"...As the country drifts slowly to war" Update: Why do I keep hammering on the "paranoid Iran scenario"? Because I am worried that the decision to "take out" Iran has been made in DC, and that it is now merely a question of when, and with what rationale. There are two considerations: one is next…
weird shit
more strange goings on in the general vicinity of the Middle East Syria Comment has an interesting series on the Israeli Air Force strike in Syria. Given how potentially provocative such a strike is, the line of news stories and diplomatic reactions is weird. It is also worrying that Israel has…
The MoveOn ad
I'm tired of hearing people with usually progressive views (like Mark Shields or John Kerry) complain the latest MoveOn ad in the New York Times asking if General Petraeus has Betrayed Us is counter-productive, "alienating those who would otherwise agree with us." It's the same bogus argument we…
Political Paranoia
There is a lot of speculation in the non-US press and in blogs about an imminent US strike on Iran, what with two US carriers in the Persian Gulf (and two Marine amphibious groups), the incident with the UK and the fact that Iran and Russia seem to have made up on the deal for enriched uranium (…

A source who met privately with Fallon around the time of his confirmation hearing and who insists on anonymity quoted Fallon as saying that an attack on Iran "will not happen on my watch."

Asked how he could be sure, the source says, Fallon replied, "You know what choices I have. I'm a professional." Fallon said that he was not alone, according to the source, adding, "There are several of us trying to put the crazies back in the box."

Do you suppose one of his "options" would be a coup d'etat? Or some lesser form of revolt? It is hard to imagine a benign meaning to what he said.

Maybe Fallon just meant he'd resign if ordered to attack Iran? I would think that would be part of being a professional.

Caveat: the report is anonymous and unconfirmed, so this is speculative

I don't think a coup d'etat is likely, but there have been reports in Europe of possible mass resignation of general staff - that would seem a likelier course - "outing" any such plan would also scupper it, also at the cost of a career or few.
In extreme cases the local commander could refuse to pass on an order and he could order forces to stand down or withdraw rather than pass on a presidential order. That'd be a court-martial offence, but in the circumstances not maybe one that'd go to trial.

Something is still not adding up - I'm worried again that the policy level will either try a "hail mary" move to change the ground in the Middle East, or they may decide they have nothing to lose and "do the right thing" of eliminating what they consider possible future threats, pre-emptively.