(HOST) Veteran ABC News correspondent and commentator Bill Seamans is reading political tea-leaves again – this time in the sudden departure of Admiral William Fallon from the Middle East.
(SEAMANS) Two years ago it was called the "revolt of the generals" when six top retired Army officers criticized President Bush’s handling of the Iraq war. If anything, the incident exposed some dissension among our top brass about how our military forces were being used. Then recently, as noted by Tom Hicks, the Washington Post’s military expert, retired General Ricardo Sanchez, who led our forces in Iraq for a year after the invasion, accused President Bush and his cohort of going to war with a (quote)"catastrophically flawed" plan. He denounced Bush’s troop "surge" as, in his words, a "desperate attempt by an administration that has not accepted the political and economic realities of this war."
In response, Bush supporters asked why the top brass did not complain while they were still on active duty – why did they wait until after they had retired? It was inferred that the generals thought that waiting for their substantial retirement benefits was more important than raising a ruckus that would get them fired and lose full pensions.
Now, in a highly controversial event whose significance has been drowned out by the campaign, Adm. William Fallon – definitely on the active duty list as our top commander in the Middle East and, not incidentally, Gen. David Petraeus’s boss – was fired last week. This after a recent Esquire magazine article described him as "brazenly challenging the ill advised" Bush administrations posturing about attacking Iran’s allegedly threatening nuclear industry.
We’ve often heard President Bush say that he would act on the advice of his generals in the field – but it’s apparent that he does not welcome advice that he does not agree with. The next big scene will be General Petraeus’s report next month on how the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are going. Petraeus will claim that Bush’s surge has succeeded in reducing violence but will blame the Iraqi government for not taking advantage of the surge by bringing sectarian groups together. Translating Petraeus-speak: what’s wrong in Iraq is their fault, not ours.. Also, he will say that after the 30,000 surge troops are withdrawn, he will propose a so-called "pause" in the withdrawal of the remaining 130,000 troops.
Coincidentally, John McCain who supports continuing the wars and Dick Cheney who helped start it all both found themselves in Baghdad at the same time, as if by surprise, allegedly to secure more Iraqi oil. They also talked with General Petraeus and anonymous sources say that they wanted to make sure that Petraeus’s report to Congress next month will be in tune with President Bush’s vaguely expressed intentions and with John McCain’s presidential campaign.
Meanwhile, I wonder when the pundits will start speculating whether Gen. Petraeus is on McCain’s short list as a possible vice presidential running mate.