Posted on 05/28/2007 12:05:00 AM PDT by familyop
The top U.S. commander in the Middle East said Sunday that Iran is a major player in the region that cannot be ignored but that the United States has no intention of leaving, as Iran would like to see happen.
Adm. William Fallon said the U.S. would continue to maintain a presence in the Middle East, as it has for decades, at the request of other countries in the region.
"We have to figure out a way to come to an arrangement with them," Fallon said about Iran in an interview with The Associated Press.
The admiral's remarks came on the eve of a meeting between American and Iranian ambassadors in Baghdad to discuss ways to ease the crisis in Iraq. It would be a rare one-on-one forum between the two countries, which broke off formal relations after Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Fallon was in New York to be the keynote speaker at a Memorial Day ceremony hosted by the Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum in Central Park on Monday.
Fallon succeeded Army Gen. John Abizaid as head of U.S. Central Command earlier this year. He is overseeing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and managing military relationships with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other nations at the center of President Bush's strategy for fighting terrorism.
Fallon said he welcomed Bush's creation of an Iraqi war czar position, which was created to eliminate conflicts between the Pentagon, Department of State and other agencies.
He also said about three-quarters of the U.S. troops are in place for a planned surge in Iraq and that the additional troops will be in place by next month.
Fallon said increased U.S. efforts to root out insurgents and quell sectarian violence could mean an increase in casualties.
"We are uncovering the bad actors, and they are not taking it lying down," Fallon said. "We are trying to turn the balance, and they are fighting back."
Dust hasn’t even collected on the Baker-Hamilton Report...
That’s true. It’s not all about Admiral Fallon. Our whole leadership is infected with the procrastination/appeasement bug—probably from special interest constituents.
We need someone like Duncan Hunter to be our next president.
Arrangement???
I agree with the other poster; remarks are likely taken out of context.
Making arrangements or attempting to negotiate with the Iranian government would be an exercise in futility.
...related. I’ve been wondering if there might be any motive for anti-defense media people (or more realistically, their corporate sponsors) to falsify quotes and reports on the matter. ...can’t think of any, and the news syncs with other news we’re hearing about policy moves in N. Korea and Israel.
Commander’s veto sank Gulf buildup (Admiral Fallon opposes military move against Iran?)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1834992/posts
U.S. Admiral Decries Talk of War on Iran
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1785217/posts
Very soon after the overthrow of the Saddam dictatorship Bull Halsey would have recommended the removing the Iranian régime, all nuclear (weapons) sites, Iranian middle installations coupled with all Iranian naval ships poising a threat to the oil sea lanes of the Persian Gulf.
Okay, I’m going to play armchair general now, but I think there is some truth to my theory:
We should have attacked Saddam way earlier. The circus at the UN was totally unnecessairy, as was wooing the Europeans and Russians.
We should have removed Saddam’s regime in fall 2002.
We gave him way too much time, as there are speculations that he removed his WMD’s to Syria during the built up of our invasion. After having removed his regime and set-up an Iraqi-American interim Government, we should have totally sealed off the Iraqi borders.
Summer 2003 or Spring 2004 we should have preemptively destroyed Iran’s navy, nuclear, WMD, missile and Revolutinary Guard installations and facilities.
The Syrians and Hezbullah would have gotten the message, and if not, the Bush of 2003 and Ariel Sharon would have given the proper response.
Okay now back to the reality of 2007.
Bush, Reviving Baker-Hamilton Advice, Recasts Mission in Iraq
The commander of all U.S. forces in the Middle East, Admiral William Fallon, said Bush’s new embrace of the Baker- Hamilton recommendations made sense in light of recent events that ``open up opportunities,’’ such as new U.S. diplomatic contacts with Syria and Iran.
``My sense is the whole thing has been moving in that direction for a while,’’ Fallon said in an interview. ``You can read the tea leaves. We said we’re going to do the surge, have all the stops pulled out to make it work. We’ve said we’re either going to recognize success or we’re going to recognize that we’re not making it.’’
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20070525/pl_bloomberg/ag22wncmuon4
At least we still have Jesus! May he save America and our Souls. Amen.
LLS
“”We have to figure out a way to come to an arrangement with them,” Fallon said about Iran in an interview with The Associated Press.”
We are. Get out of Iraq so they can become a country governed by themselves and stop trying to build a bomb. If you do those two things you will never have to look over your shoulders and see two carrier groups on your shores.
Fallon is a problem. He should never have been put in charge of the largest land engagement since Desert Storm. Furthermore, he was lousy as head of the Pacific Fleet. He was a panda hugger now and today he is appeasing Iran.
False prophets cry "peace, peace" - but there is no peace.
Forget the WMDs. The rest I more or less expected to happen in 2003, absent the attacks on Iranian assets. I was puzzled when the invasion force was pulled out and replaced rather than sending the new troops to the borders. Some of that happened, but not enough. Maybe one day we will know what the heck was going on. But I doubt it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.