Did Head Of Centcom Halt Bush War Plan For Iran?

Did Admiral Fallon save American troops from another bout of Bush’s fruitless nation-building?Did Head Of CENTCOM Halt Bush War Plan For Iran?By Cliff Montgomery – May 16th, 2007In February Admiral William Fallon was still George W. Bush’s nominee to head the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), but that apparently didn’t keep him from making a principled stand “to put the crazies back in the box.”Fallon flatly opposed a Bush Administration plan to add another carrier strike group to the two then sailing the Persian Gulf, and further promised associates that there would be no made-up war against Iran if he became chief of CENTCOM, according to a high-placed Pentagon source quoted by Inter Press Service (IPS), an international news wire service.Fallon’s clear resistance was followed by an equally clear shift in the Bush Administration’s Iran policy. In February and March, Bush officials inexplicably began working toward a diplomatic relationship with Iran.White House plans to add a third carrier strike group to the Persian Gulf was apparently a key element in a broader administration strategy “to intimidate Iran by a series of military moves suggesting preparations for a military strike,” according to IPS.Admiral Fallon’s refusal to greatly increase U.S. naval striking power in the Gulf almost certainly surprised top Bush Administration officials. In January, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates publicly encouraged the possibility that Fallon’s appointment would be the start of louder U.S. sabre-rattling directed straight at Iran.”As you look at the range of options available to the United States–the use of naval and air power, potentially–it made sense to me for all those reasons for Fallon to have the job,” Gates then said about his recommendation of Admiral Fallon to head CENTCOM.Bush Administration spin doctors even began working the principal news hubs to drum up public support for a possible Iran crisis. In December, officials leaked to CBS News and the New York Times that the U.S.S. John C. Stennis and its attendant warships would sail to the Gulf in January, six weeks earlier than planned in order to “send a message to Tehran”. The U.S.S. Eisenhower was already patrolling the Gulf.But that was not the end of this plan. The U.S.S. Nimitz and its associated vessels also had a part to play. They were set to sail into the Gulf in April, and join in Persian Gulf patrols with the other two carrier strike groups for months. Thus all three carrier groups would be patrolling the Gulf at the same time.”Two well-informed sources” told IPS this was the basic Iran plan being formulated by officials high in the administration. In any case, Newsweek‘s Feb. 19th edition reported that a third carrier group’s deployment to the Gulf was “likely”.If true, this would have created the same U.S. naval presence in the Gulf it maintained during the 2003 U.S. air campaign against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, when the Kitty Hawk, Lincoln and Constellation carrier groups were all present. Two more carrier groups helped coordinate bombing raids from the Mediterranean.The simultaneous deployment of three carrier strike groups was not intended as the beginning of a U.S. strike on Iran, but instead was meant to ‘scare Iran straight’ if its leaders thought of  continuing its uranium enrichment program, according to IPS.We at aren’t so certain. Apparently, neither was Admiral Fallon…There was an extensive discussion of how best to intimidate Tehran’s leaders at a mid-February meeting of top civilian officials. Secretary of Defense Gates presided over the debate, according to a source outside the Pentagon who quoted a Pentagon official attending the meeting.But Admiral Fallon, who was set to become Bush’s CENTCOM chief Mar. 16th, flatly rejected the proposed plan. Fallon sent a crisp message to the Defense Department in mid-February  stating that a further U.S. naval buildup in the Persian Gulf was not needed.”He asked why another aircraft carrier was needed in the Gulf and insisted there was no military requirement for it,” the source told IPS. The source discussed Fallon’s message with a Pentagon official who had received it.Fallon’s refusal to back another naval buildup in the Gulf apparently reflects his solid refusal of an unwarranted attack on Iran, and his equally apparent readiness to do what he can to prevent it.An anonymous source who spoke privately with Admiral Fallon during the days of his confirmation hearing quoted him as declaring that an unnecessary attack on Iran “will not happen on my watch”.Asked how he might ensure this promise, the source says that the wily admiral replied, “You know what choices I have. I’m a professional.”Fallon also stated that he was not the only military leader who feels this way, according to the source, and that the admiral added, “There are several of us trying to put the crazies back in the box.”