Another blow to Bush

WHEN the senior-most commander of US forces in both Afghanistan and Iraq deserts the ship, it is obvious that one more plank has given way in the disintegrating Bush White House. The official line continues to rely on political rhetoric though, with Defence Secretary Robert Gates not realising that dismissing controversy surrounding the episode as “ridiculous” makes his position all the more unenviable. Ironically, while it remains to be proved if the Iran issue is really at the heart of the resignation, it is interesting how Teheran continues to add to America’s frustration in the Middle East, no matter how indirectly. To the outside world, however, especially relying on vibes from Washington, it is all but clear that Admiral William Fallon’s fall has to do with his views on Iran, which departed from the official House line and found precious air-time on the controversial Al Jazeera network, sparking a domino effect that culminated in his resignation. Even if there is weight in Washington’s official stand that an attack on Iran is not on the cards, it is going to be impossible to shrug off accusations of serious problems in the military-politics nexus. Rumours that a steady deterioration had been gathering momentum owing to the continuous negative fallout from both Afghanistan and Iran now appear vindicated. The Bush team is by now quite used to bad press, which is why it won’t bother with much save carefully crafted official statements for the remainder of its time in office, but the atmosphere in Washington will make the incoming president’s job among the most difficult in living memory.
Even though numerous members of George Bush’s initial war-against-terrorism team left over the last couple of years, the admiral’s departure makes for a serious split with military high offices, bringing unprecedented embarrassment to the White House. Not only has Bush’s tenure raised first time arguments about limits to the president’s power — who ignored domestic and international opinion for a pointless war that has killed millions — it has also left strained relations between the White House and the Pentagon, compromising the delicate power construct. If the US still harbours designs of a military strike on Iran, however limited, it would bring about regional Armageddon that will take little time in spilling over to the wider world, paling its other follies in comparison. At the risk of repetition, the Bush administration should use the little time it has left to accept its blunders and make whatever gestures possible for a return of normalcy to a region it has ravaged with unprecedented blood spilling.





War agenda

IT is necessary to read between the lines in the statements that have accompanied the resignation of Adm. William Fallon, commander of US forces in the Middle East (CentCom). They show that the Bush administration remains bent on aggression against Iran. Ever since the US Embassy hostage crisis, Iran has been seen by America as a malign power, needing to be contained. Such a containment objective must have been shared equally by Fallon and Bush. It is over the tactics that the two men have fallen out. Bush, staring at a two-term legacy of failure, sees the chance to quit next January, with one last military huzzah. He made it perfectly clear to his hosts on his visit to the Gulf in January that he was intent on confrontation — rather than the negotiation that Iran’s Arab neighbors, his hosts, were urging on him. Here surely is the genesis of the rift between him and Fallon. The admiral was being ordered to prepare an assault on Iran. This is a highly respected sailor who, in his previous command in the Pacific, earned a reputation for diplomacy as well as command. He is credited with establishing good military relations with the Chinese despite the growing suspicion with which each country views the other’s military. If, indeed, such orders as an assault on Iran came from the White House, Fallon will have immediately realized their madness.
A strike on Iran, almost certainly with cruise missiles and Stealth bombers, would be an unmitigated disaster for US interests in the Middle East. Iran would immediately unleash its radical Shiite attack units in Iraq, plunging that country into even bloodier chaos. It would also undoubtedly step up its intervention in Afghanistan, tipping what is an already precarious security situation toward outright failure. Tehran would also urge Hamas and Hezbollah into action against US interests and, for good measure, it might seek to punish Washington’s long-standing friends in the region. A Bush attack on Iran would, therefore, be a tactical disaster and, in the long run, might not even advance objectives that Fallon says he shares with his commander in chief. Fallon is too good an officer to make clear his real feelings of the real reasons for his resignation. Defense Secretary Gates, having said what a wonderful officer Fallon has been, has added that it is “right” the admiral retire. Why “right”? Senior US military officers do not normally resign when they are profiled in the media. It is clear what has happened. Fallon has resisted one last crazy play by the Bush administration and fed his views, on an off-the-record basis to a journalist. The hope should not be that in retirement, Fallon will not leave it too long before he adds his voice to the other retired senior US commanders who have lambasted this learn-nothing US administration for its ignorant and stupid international conduct. An attack by Washington on Iran would be a colossal continuation of that policy and one from which it might well be impossible to recover.

—Arab News