Nicknamed “the Fox” by his colleagues, he was renowned as one of the best strategists in the US military, and the most diplomatic – the “voice of reason in the administration” according to Hillary Clinton. When President George Bush appointed him Commander of the US Central Command, he had hoped to rely on him in the confrontation with Iran. He is Admiral William Fallon, who submitted his resignation two days ago, generating a whirlwind of interpretations as to the reasons behind it, despite the clarity of the resignation text itself.
Now, this isn’t particularly new insofar as the resignation goes. We’ve seen much about it this week. We’ve seen that General Fallon is opposed to a war in Iran. We can guess as to what his resignation portends.
British and US sources attest that the US Department of Defense has set up a plan to attack Iran, dubbed “Checkmate”. An Air Force Strategic Studies Group was entrusted with planning the war, under the leadership of Brigadier-General Lawrence A. Stutzriem and his chief civilian adviser, Dr. Lani Kass, a former Israeli military intelligence officer and expert in electronic warfare (CNN, Sunday Times). The presence of the latter in the Group might give credit to such information, since Israel is most eager to attack Iran, and considers the downfall of the Iranian regime to be a crucial issue.
More on Lani Kass here.
It’s something to consider. What do we have to gain via a war with Iran? Who will support us, and who will support the Iranians? Can our economy surive the expected oil shock that would come with such a war?
The Bush administration is being accused of playing poker in its conflict with Iran, whereas Tehran is playing chess, which is said to be a Persian invention. The US attack plan, although not novel, has been given the name “Checkmate” in reply to such accusations. So will Fallon’s resignation precipitate the war, or postpone it until disputes within the US military, and between a large number of its military officers and their civilian leaders, are settled? Those who oppose the US’s wars in the Middle East are hoping that Tehran will not consider Fallon’s resignation a victory of its policies. The fact is Iran cannot be credited for any efforts in the matter, as this is merely an internal US dispute, and Bush can easily find a hundred generals to take over the mission of the Admiral who resigned before saying “check”.
Here’s a YouTube of the words of David Swanson on the possibly coming Iran war:
Pretty powerful stuff. Are our elections so sacrosanct that they override even the most basic viewing of what’s going on in the rest of the world? Are we so browbeaten that we can’t even shudder at the thought of a war with Iran, and the possibility of it breaking into a greater general war brining in the Russians?
Needless to say, Dennis Kucinich is at the front in fighting against this possible war!
One of my favorite books is Eon, by Greg Bear. It was written before the fall of the Soviet Union. It’s underlying premise was that the Soviets were seeing their empire fall and that the US had gotten such a large lead in the technological field that the Soviets were willing to use nukes on a limited scale in a confrontation with the US. This, called the ‘Little Death,’ of course set the stage for the ‘Death,’ which was a full-scale nuclear war fought several years later. My reason for bringing this up is that the US faces such a moment, albeit an economic one as opposed to a technological one. My thinking is that the possible coming war with Iran is an end-run to try to solve our inherent economic problems (which it won’t). If we end up using nukes (even ‘baby’ nukes), all bets are off.
So, the question is, are we going to fight to keep this war from happening? To my mind, it’s the most important question facing the people of the United States today.
One final thought: If the war happens, impeachment will be too late.
Originally posted here: http://rjones2818.blogspot.com/2008/…