February 11, 2009 3:18 PM

Top U.S. Commander In Mideast Quits

(CBS/AP)  The top U.S. military commander for the Middle East resigned Tuesday amid speculation about a rift over U.S. policy in Iran.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that Adm. William J. Fallon had asked for permission to retire and that Gates agreed. Gates said the decision, effective March 31, was entirely Fallon's and that Gates believed it was "the right thing to do."

Fallon was the subject of an article published last week in Esquire magazine that portrayed him as opposed to President Bush's Iran policy. It described Fallon as a lone voice against taking military action to stop the Iranian nuclear program.

Separately, the New York Times reported that there was "no question" that Fallon's departure was prompted by policy differences with the White House, and with Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq.

The newspaper said senior officials in the Bush administration were unhappy with remarks Fallon has made about Iran and the pace of U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq.

Fallon was out of step with the White House almost from the day he took over the U.S. Central Command, reports CBS News national security correspondent David Martin. On his first trip to Iraq, he allowed a reporter for the New York Times to accompany him to a meeting at which he lectured Prime Ministrer Maliki on the need for political reform. A source close to Fallon says that earned him phone calls from Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Rice and National Security Adviser Hadley. Afterwards, Fallon said he had "two strikes against me" and lamented ever taking the job.

Martin reports there will be a lot of speculation that Fallon's departure clears the decks for war with Iran before the Bush leaves office, despite the fact that Secretary Gates twice called the notion "ridiculous."

It is not known how Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, who will replace Fallon as the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, feels about war with Iran, but it's a safe bet he's against it, Martin reports. Virtually every senior military officer is against it, and Dempsey, who has spent a lot of time in Iraq, knows first hand how that war has pushed the Army close to the breaking point. As Fallon's deputy, he also knows the U.S. still needs more troops in Afghanistan. No one in the American military is interested in a wider war, but from now on they might be more cautious about how they say it.

Fallon, who is traveling in Iraq, issued a statement through his U.S. headquarters in Florida.

"Recent press reports suggesting a disconnect between my views and the president's policy objectives have become a distraction at a critical time and hamper efforts in the Centcom region," Fallon said.

"And although I don't believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command area of responsibility, the simple perception that there is makes it difficult for me to effectively serve America's interests there," Fallon added.

Gates dismissed the notion that Fallon's departure signals the United States is planning to go to war with Iran. And he said "there is a misperception" that Fallon disagrees with the administration's approach to Iran.

"I don't think there were differences at all," Gates added.

Fallon has had a 41-year Navy career. He took the Central Command post on March 16, 2007, succeeding Army Gen. John Abizaid, who retired. Fallon previously served as commander of U.S. Pacific Command.

Bush issued a statement saying that Fallon "has served our nation with great distinction for forty years. He is an outstanding sailor - and he made history as the first naval officer to serve as commander of Central Command."

Gates said that until a permanent replacement is nominated and confirmed by the Senate, Fallon's place will be taken by his top deputy, Army Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey.

The secretary called Fallon a very able military strategist and said his advice will be missed at the Pentagon.

"I think this is a cumulative kind of thing," said Gates, speaking of the circumstances leading up to Fallon's decision. "It isn't the result of any one article or any one issue."

"As I say, the notion that this decision portends anything in terms of change in Iran policy is, to quote myself, 'ridiculous,' " he said.

© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Add a Comment See all 308 Comments
by amyblue45 March 13, 2008 10:14 AM EDT
Who''''s the next miliatary commander to be fired & forced into retirement by Bush ??? I had seen a blog about this at EquestrianCupid.com/photo/girl.
Reply to this comment
by singingrick March 12, 2008 7:58 PM EDT



No!!!!!

We must go to war with Iran so that we can bring on Armagadon!!!

Don''t you see?!!!

Jesus is coming. Look busy.





Reply to this comment
by j-whitman March 12, 2008 5:05 PM EDT
JEGibbons,,, I can''t tell you about McClellend,,, But I know what happened to McArthur,, he''s under marble in downtown Norfolk, Va. --- But then again, it might be the Holy Grail burried there instead.
Reply to this comment
by tool105 March 12, 2008 5:05 PM EDT
when I was in the navy I remember something that we were tought in boot camp "to protect and to deafend the constition" so my question is instead of our top military leaders quiting why dont they and the joint cheifs of staff just remove bush from office and restore our govermet to the american people?
Reply to this comment
by jegibbons March 12, 2008 4:43 PM EDT
It never ceases to AMAZE me how many military geniuses there are who grew out of that marijuana smoking flower generation who in reality themselves REFUSED to serve and continue to have their sons refuse to serve their country in ANY capacity.

Too many of these MUTTON HEADS often speak with authority about ALL matters military??? You might think they actuallu knew what they were talking about if you didn''t know what FRAUDS they actually are.

FYI: US GENERALS & ADMIRALS have been resigning or being coerced into retirement since the nation began. Even great generals with strong impeccable credentials often have disagreements with the policies of their Commander In Chief. Ever hear about the fate of Generals: Mc Clelland, Mc Arthur?
Reply to this comment
by ajaxtheleast March 12, 2008 4:09 PM EDT
If they were going to "take out" seven countries
starting with Iraq and Iraq takes, say, eight
years, not, then in 6o years we get the
destroyer and "mission accomplished" with a
120-year-old, preserved-by-Ron Rico-rum,
former president under it''s banner
proclaiming victory.

In other words, things aren''t going
too well for "THE PLAN"

Reply to this comment
by j-whitman March 12, 2008 3:36 PM EDT
With more proof of the "Surge" not working today, a strike agianst Iran would place our troops in great peril.
Reply to this comment
by j-whitman March 12, 2008 3:27 PM EDT
Who''s the next miliatary commander to be fired & forced into retirement by Bush ???

Most military leaders against military strike on Iran

Gates has said publicly and privately that under current conditions he''s opposed to war with Iran. Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen is also against it. In fact, almost every senior military officer we''ve talked to is against launching military strikes against Iran, because as one senior official told us, "then what do you do?"
Reply to this comment
by jwind11 March 12, 2008 3:13 PM EDT
floydzepp...you have an immature obsession with NASCAR...whats up with that?
Reply to this comment
by cdfoxtrot March 12, 2008 3:03 PM EDT
I guess if you disagree with the moron-in-chief and his henchmen, you''re out on your ear.
Reply to this comment
See all 308 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook