How Come No One Has Heard from Admiral Fallon? by ILSM

Here is a link to how Petraeus’ boss feels abuse him:

In sharp contrast to the lionisation of Gen. David Petraeus by members of the U.S. Congress during his testimony this week, Petraeus’s superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.

Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be “an ass-kissing little chickenshit” and added, “I hate people like that”, the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.

That extraordinarily contentious start of Fallon’s mission to Baghdad led to more meetings marked by acute tension between the two commanders. Fallon went on develop his own alternative to Petraeus’s recommendation for continued high levels of U.S. troops in Iraq during the summer.

Aside from being put off by his “buttering up” to his superiors style, Fallon is concerned about the rest of his Central COmmand responsibilities including keeping the oil flowing, Pakistan with nukes falling to the mullahs running the Madrassas, and several issues in Africa and beyond.

He may consider Gen Petraeus to be polishing the apple for the president a president deluded and out of touch while avoiding his oath and professional responsibility to tell it like it is and support sand defend the constitution not his prospects for the job at the Joint Chiefs.

Of course, any officer aware of their duty to the constitution may be move by that duty to question why we are defending US interests which are different than any reasonable definition of the “common defense”. What interests in oil business has to do with keeping the British and Indians out of my neighborhood is beyond me.

Except that the DoD is the tool of the commercial interests which define national interest. George Washington warned against he moral hazard of having a standing army!

Here’s another link.

————

Cactus here… I note that some on the right are saying this story – Fallon’s expressed opinion of Petraeus – is made up given that the original source for the links ILSM provides are small outfits.

So here’s the relatively cheerleading Washington Post:

For two hours, President Bush listened to contrasting visions of the U.S. future in Iraq. Gen. David H. Petraeus dominated the conversation by video link from Baghdad, making the case to keep as many troops as long as possible to cement any security progress. Adm. William J. Fallon, his superior, argued instead for accepting more risks in Iraq, officials said, in order to have enough forces available to confront other potential threats in the region.

The polite discussion in the White House Situation Room a week ago masked a sharper clash over the U.S. venture in Iraq, one that has been building since Fallon, chief of the U.S. Central Command, which oversees Middle East operations, sent a rear admiral to Baghdad this summer to gather information. Soon afterward, officials said, Fallon began developing plans to redefine the U.S. mission and radically draw down troops.

One of those plans, according to a Centcom officer, involved slashing U.S. combat forces in Iraq by three-quarters by 2010. In an interview, Fallon disputed that description but declined to offer details. Nonetheless, his efforts offended Petraeus’s team, which saw them as unwelcome intrusion on their own long-term planning. The profoundly different views of the U.S. role in Iraq only exacerbated the schism between the two men.

“Bad relations?” said a senior civilian official with a laugh. “That’s the understatement of the century. . . . If you think Armageddon was a riot, that’s one way of looking at it.”