Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Fallon Derided Petraeus, Opposed the Surge

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 09:20 PM
Original message
Fallon Derided Petraeus, Opposed the Surge
Source: IPS




http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39235

U.S.-IRAQ: Fallon Derided Petraeus, Opposed the Surge
By Gareth Porter*

WASHINGTON, Sep 12 (IPS) - 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.

The enmity between the two commanders became public knowledge when the Washington Post reported Sep. 9 on intense conflict within the administration over Iraq. The story quoted a senior official as saying that referring to "bad relations" between them is "the understatement of the century".
........

Read more: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39235





Mike Malloy doing his show about this now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
truthisfreedom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 09:24 PM
Response to Original message
1. Just as we suspected. Every time the bush administration gets behind someone whole-heartedly,
supporting him/her with complete confidence, we know we're dealing with another confidence man. And usually, they aren't long for their jobs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Fallon refused to send a 3rd carrier to Persian Gulf last May:
He demonstrated his independence from the White House when he refused in February to go along with a proposal to send a third naval carrier task force to the Persian Gulf, as reported by IPS in May. Fallon questioned the military necessity for the move, which would have signaled to Iran a readiness to go to war. Fallon also privately vowed that there would be no war against Iran on his watch, implying that he would quit rather than accept such a policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MidwestTransplant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. Bush had to go through a bunch of Generals until he could find the "right" one...a sycophant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indepat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-13-07 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #11
37. A real honest ot God sickofant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fredda Weinberg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 09:26 PM
Response to Original message
2. "Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting."
I dunno ... it'll be fun if Fallon doesn't deny it tho
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mckara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 09:30 PM
Response to Original message
3. GO NAVY; BEAT ARMY
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #3
13. GO NAVY, BEAT ARMY, AND DON'T LET THE ARMY TAKE OUR SAILORS TO IRAQ. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-13-07 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #13
38. jarheads will take on any army group, with pride.
just from personal experience. (I tended bar, underage) at a naval air station, and they had this group of army special forces stay over for a weakened. They ended up at the bar, and the local marines won)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UTUSN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 09:30 PM
Response to Original message
4. Well well well. K&R #1 for good find. Kick it up peeps!!1 n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tandalayo_Scheisskopf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 09:31 PM
Response to Original message
5. Fallon's estimation of Petraeus tracks closely with...
Things Stan Goff has written about, as he calls him, "Perfect Peter". Seems that Goff has served with Petraeus in the past and "Perfect Peter" left no butt unkissed on his way up the military foodchain.

Yo Stan. If you are out there, howza 'bout some fresh insights on this institutional conflict?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 09:37 PM
Response to Original message
7. Fallon seems to have a clear, sharp mind and saw right through Petraeus
Sadly, he seems just about the only one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 09:39 PM
Response to Original message
8. As an old Navy man....
Edited on Wed Sep-12-07 09:40 PM by Tyler Durden
Gimme an Admiral over some fucking General any time (with the exception of Wes Clark, of course).

The ULTIMATE accolade from an enlisted man to an officer: "AYE AYE, SKIPPER!"

ATTENTION ON DECK FOR ADMIRAL FALLON.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. CENTCOM, Arriving! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 09:46 PM
Response to Original message
9. One more kick then bed.
Fair winds, Admiral. And stay off of any small non-Navy aircraft.

Someone needs to give this one more rec.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NastyRiffraff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 09:50 PM
Response to Original message
10. K&R!
Nice catch, rodeodance. Note that Petraeus lobbed the ball back to Fallon at least a couple of times during his testimonies. So much for what the media keeps calling a "straight shooter."

Somerby has good takes on Petraeus the Straight shooter here and here and here
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ToolTex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 09:55 PM
Response to Original message
12. K&R
Good find.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
15. Kicked and recommended. Amazing. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
16. Just a remnder .... there were lots of threads right after Fallon's appointment ............
...... full of unfounded speculation that he was there to launch some sort of seaborne attack on Iran ..... etc.

Carry on.

The above is **NOT** directed to the OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
simmonsj811 Donating Member (309 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. 1 time for
the peeps in the am:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 11:29 PM
Response to Original message
18. Is this hitting mainstream US media at all? Or are they too afraid.... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libodem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 11:30 PM
Response to Original message
19. those carriers
are just over there to escort the oil tankers anyhow. It's all about the oil. Nothing too good for big oil. Kicked and recommended.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 11:36 PM
Response to Original message
20. "an ass-kissing little chickenshit"
Couldn't have said it better myself. Ironic it came from his boss. Too bad the CIC is an utter moron.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Torn_Scorned_Ignored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 11:42 PM
Response to Original message
21. "an ass-kissing little chickenshit" and added, "I hate people like that"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-13-07 12:04 AM
Response to Original message
22. I heard Biden kind of hint at this the other day (I think on Hardball)
Something along the lines of I'm sure there are plenty of Patreasus's superiors who disagree with his position. I was wondering what he meant, and what he knew.

This is great - K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-13-07 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. PS = yeah I know I typo'd the sacrosanct name of Petraeus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SleeplessinSoCal Donating Member (710 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-13-07 12:42 AM
Response to Original message
24. Wish there was a was to Kick this to the mainstream media...
I'm fairly sick of reading this stuff that the world ought to see, but doesn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaysunb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-13-07 12:43 AM
Response to Original message
25. I hope someone will forward this on to KO
Worthy of his front page, especially since the corporate media refuses to report real news....:evilfrown:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SleeplessinSoCal Donating Member (710 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-13-07 12:47 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. Fallon needs to be interviewed on all the Sunday Shows...
including NFL football. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bjobotts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-13-07 01:46 AM
Response to Original message
27. Everyone saw this coming 6mos ago.No surprise. Read this and know
No matter how many soldiers die, no matter 'surge' success or failure, no matter if sectarian violence turns into outright genocide, no matter if the Maliki government dis-bans, BUSH WILL NEVER LEAVE IRAQ...unless he is forced to leave by congress...PERIOD. Said this 6 mos ago and can say it 6 mos from now.
Only 3 ways to force him out: 1( impeach--Pelosi blocked; 2)cut the funding--Reid blocked; 3) get a veto proof majority by getting enough republicans to see the light (need 18) and join with Democrats to withdraw the troops.
1) Impeachment...Pelosi...need I say more
2)So far Reid has been playing the victim whining that he can't get enough votes to withdraw yet he only needs 40 votes to cut the funding for anything except troop withdrawal. It should be seen however that republicans cannot get enough votes to continue funding the occupation..NOT that Reid can't get the votes to withdraw. Dems have what Bush wants, not the other way around. Bush must cater to Dems to get it...NOT the other way around. The troops are not going to be doing without anything they are not already doing without. The new Cougar equipment Biden wants to send them would not even get there for 16-24mos. Bush has all the funding he needs already to bring the troops home safely and can always get more for that. Supporting the troops means protecting them from being "forced" to sacrifice their lives policing a civil war and supporting the war profiteers. The Dems must protect them by getting them out of harm's way. Not another soldier needs to die. They assume we will protect them and not put them in an ambush like the civil war in Iraq.

3) The republicans have seen the light and it's shinning from 2012 which is the next best chance of taking the WH back. Dems will take the WH in '08 by default due to the horror of the Bush administration and the GOP candidates being such a joke, Bush know his party has no chance. But if they can help Bush push his war off on the dems to end and spend the time till 2012 blaming the dems for all problems associated with ending Bush's mess then they've got a shot at winning the WH back.

Dems in office claim this is Bush's war but they will not do what is necessary to force him to end it or withdraw the troops, which leaves the dems to straighten out the mess. The added benefit of either 1 or 2 above is that it will be just enough to keep Bush from attacking Iran. I believe the extra $50 billion Bush is asking for is to cover the initial cost of attacking Iran...it just couldn't be budgeted that way...Which is why Gates knew nothing about it...and he should since it was his budget.

Because of Pelosi's stubbornness to get behind impeachment or debate it or even discuss it nationally...We are left with Reid to stand up and refuse to fund this occupation...agreeing to fund only the withdrawal of our forces...to begin immediately just like Kucinich has been asking for and has planned out. I support the Troops...I told them not to follow Custer into Little Bighorn or to be an occupying force in Iraq. Just saying...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trashcanistanista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-13-07 01:52 AM
Response to Original message
28. Great catch.
Anyone sending it to Reid for Mondays Iraq legislation?
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-13-07 02:04 AM
Response to Original message
29. Where is the media coverage of this important information to American voters? (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-13-07 06:49 AM
Response to Reply #29
35. what media? what coverage? Say, did you hear that
a little girl is missing abroad, and her mommy is a suspect?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-13-07 02:04 AM
Response to Original message
30. W hat a GUY! Not afraid of the administration, either. Too good to be true.
You just don't see these guys around any more, do you?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Admiral_William_Fallon,_official_military_photo.jpg/480px-Admiral_William_Fallon,_official_military_photo.jpg

Admiral William Fallon


From the article:
Fallon had a "visceral distaste" for what he regarded as Petraeus's sycophantic behaviour in general, which had deeper institutional roots, according to a military source familiar with his thinking.

Fallon is a veteran of 35 years in the Navy, operating in an institutional culture in which an officer is expected to make enemies in the process of advancement. "If you are Navy captain and don't have two or three enemies, you're not doing your job," says the source.

Fallon acquired a reputation for a willingness to stand up to powerful figures during his tenure as commander in chief of the Pacific Command from February 2005 to March 2007. He pushed hard for a conciliatory line toward and China, which put him in conflict with senior military and civilian officials with a vested interest in pointing to China as a future rival and threat.

He demonstrated his independence from the White House when he refused in February to go along with a proposal to send a third naval carrier task force to the Persian Gulf, as reported by IPS in May. Fallon questioned the military necessity for the move, which would have signaled to Iran a readiness to go to war. Fallon also privately vowed that there would be no war against Iran on his watch, implying that he would quit rather than accept such a policy.
(snip)
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39235
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-13-07 06:13 AM
Response to Reply #30
33. This guy is indeed a class act!
Petraeus also assisted Judith Miller in her well-publicized search for WMD in Iraq when she went in with a special team searching for them.

I guess you already know Petraeus plans to run for the presidency in 2012.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-13-07 05:41 AM
Response to Original message
31. If Patraeus passed his report up the chain, WHERE IS FALLON'S APPROVAL OF IT???
Edited on Thu Sep-13-07 05:47 AM by Tyler Durden
In almost 15 years of service, I never once gave a report to my commanding officer's direct CO. "Up the chain" means just that: I once stood BESIDE my CO while SHE gave a report that I heavily donated to, but NEVER did I stand in the place rightfully held by my CO.

In military protocol, this report jumped the chain of command, because, of course, Admiral Fallon as CENTCOM was not IN the chain the report followed.

edited: Fallon is CENTCOM, not Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and therefore even more directly in Patraeus' chain of command.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-13-07 06:00 AM
Response to Original message
32. I've read somewhere that Petraeus wants to be president of the U.S.
in 2012. Fallon may have put the damper on that idea.

:bounce:
:bounce::bounce::bounce:
:bounce::bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-13-07 06:24 AM
Response to Original message
34. "an ass-kissing little chickenshit"
Amazing! That was my very thought when I first glanced at him testifying the other day. He has it written all over him. We all know somebody that fits that mold and looks just like him. Probably got the shit beat out of him every day as a kid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Graybeard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-13-07 08:10 AM
Response to Original message
36. "7 Days In May"
In the old film "7 Days In May" there is a plot at the highest levels in Washington, D.C for a take-over of the government by RW crazies. The only member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who refuses to go along with it is the Navy admiral!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 11:20 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC