Admiral Fallon has admitted that he was under pressure because of the public positions he had taken on Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

In an interview with the New York Times, Admiral William J. Fallon said that he had felt the pressure building for several months before his departure. He had, after all, taken public positions favoring diplomacy over force in Iran, troop withdrawals from Iraq that were greater than officially planned and more high-level attention to Afghanistan.

Former US Middle East commander Fallon announced his sudden resignation in March after an Esquire magazine article described him as the only man standing in US President George Bush's way, not allowing him to wage war against Iran.

�I wanted us to get focused on Iraq and Afghanistan at a high level, not just rubber-stamping every request, or whatever that was coming out of Baghdad,� he said during the interview.

He also said that he favored dialogue and patience, not war, with Iran, and that the US Navy could provide a way to begin the process.

�In the conduct of daily business, we routinely have excellent communications with the Iranian Navy,� he said.

�When the conditions are right, it might be a reasonable way of interaction, to build on existing maritime communications.�

He defended his public statements on Iran that stressed diplomacy over the use of force and said, �People tend to look at things in black and white, we're going to love Iran or attack Iran� That is a very simplistic way to approach a complex problem.�

He also acknowledged that he had had differences with the top US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus.

He also did not contradict reports that at one point Petraeus had wanted as many troops on the ground in Iraq as possible, while he had favored substantial reductions.

Another one bites the dust. How many expert military leaders have disagreed with Bush only to be forced to resign or replaced with yes men like Patreaus?

Soon someone will call him Anti-American

Well, either the writer is a liar or Fallon caved to the pressure:

Admiral: Bush doesn't want war with Iran

CNN
Tuesday, June 3, 2008

(CNN) -- Retired Adm. William Fallon resigned in March as leader of the U.S. military's Central Command after reportedly clashing with President Bush.

During an interview Tuesday on CNN's American Morning," Fallon denied a magazine article's assertion that he had been forced to resign over his opposition to a possible war with Iran.

CNN's Kyra Phillips asked Fallon about his resignation and about U.S. policy regarding Iraq and Iran.

Kyra Phillips: How were you informed that this was it? Who called you?

Fallon: The story is -- the facts are that the situation was one that was very uncomfortable for me and, I'm sure, for the president. One of the most important things in the military is confidence in the chain of command. And the situation that developed was one of uncertainty and a feeling that maybe that I was disloyal to the president and that I might be trying to countermand his orders, the policies of the country. ... The fact that people might be concerned that I was not appropriately doing what I was supposed to do and following orders bothered me, and my sense was that the right thing to do was to offer my resignation. Watch Fallon break his silence �

Phillips: Do you feel you were pushed out?

Fallon: What was important was not me. It wasn't some discussion about where I was with issues. It was the fact that we have a war in progress. We had a couple of hundred thousand people whose lives were at stake out in Iraq and Afghanistan and we needed to be focused on that and not a discussion on me or what I might have said or thought or someone perceived I said. That's the motivation.

Phillips: [Esquire magazine writer] Tom Barnett made it appear that you were the only man standing between the president and a war with Iran. Is that true?

Fallon: I don't believe for a second President Bush wants a war with Iran. The situation with Iran is very complex. People sometimes portray it or try to portray it in very simplistic terms -- we're against Iran, we want to go to war with Iran, we want to be close to them. ... The reality is in international politics that [there are] many aspects to many of these situations, and I believe in our relationship with Iran we need to be strong and firm and convey the principles on which this country stands and upon which our policies are based. At the same time demonstrate a willingness and openness to engage in dialogue because there are certainly things we can find in common.

Phillips: Would have you negotiated with Iran?

Fallon: It's not my position to negotiate with Iran. I was the military commander in the Middle East. I had responsibility for our people and their safety and well-being. It's the role of the diplomats to do the negotiation.

Phillips: So when talk of the third war came out, a war with Iran, the president didn't say to you, "This is what I want to do," and did you stand up and say, "No, sir. Bad move"?

Fallon: It's probably not appropriate to try to characterize it in that way. Again, don't believe for a second that the president really wants to go to war with Iran. We have a lot of things going on, and there are many other ways to solve problems. I was very open and candid in my advice. I'm not shy. I will tell people, the leaders, what I think and offer my opinions on Iran and other things, and continue to do that.

Phillips: Do you think that cost you your job?

Fallon: No, I don't believe so at all. It's a confidence issue of do people really believe the chain of command is working for them or do we have doubts, and if the doubts focus attention away from what the priority issues ought to be, then we've got to make a change.

Phillips: We talk about your no-nonsense talk and the fact that you had no problems standing up to the president. Your critics say that Admiral Fallon is a difficult man to get along with. Are you?

Fallon: You probably could ask my wife about that. She would have a few things to say.