Adm. Fallon—Commander of U.S. Central Command and Gen. David Petraeus' superior—has consistently been less enthusiastic on the surge than Petraeus and other Bush Administration officials. His dissenting voice on the Iraq surge strategy has been disregarded by the White House, and his strong support for balancing our focus on Iraq with other regional priorities has yet to be fully realized.

Fallon's Differences with Petraeus Described as "Armageddon": Fallon "has been saying from Day One, 'This [the surge] isn't working,'" and "The profoundly different views of the U.S. role in Iraq only exacerbated the schism between the two men. 'Bad relations?" said a senior civilian official with a laugh. "That's the understatement of the century. If you think Armageddon was a riot, that's one way of looking at it.'" [Washington Post, 9/9/2007 [1]]

Fallon Built Alternative Plan for Substantial Withdrawal by 2010: Last September, "President Bush listened to contrasting visions of the U.S. future in Iraq. Gen. David H. Petraeus dominated the conversation by video link from Baghdad, making the case to keep as many troops as long as possible to cement any security progress. Adm. William J. Fallon, his superior, argued instead for accepting more risks in Iraq, officials said, in order to have enough forces available to confront other potential threats in the region." The discussion "masked a sharper clash over the U.S. venture in Iraq, one that has been building since Fallon, chief of the U.S. Central Command, which oversees Middle East operations, sent a rear admiral to Baghdad this summer to gather information. Soon afterward, officials said, Fallon began developing plans to redefine the U.S. mission and radically draw down troops." [Washington Post, 9/9/2007 [2]]

Fallon Admits that Limiting Our Combat Mission Key to Achieving Political Stability in Iraq: "Fallon is also said to believe that giving the Iraqi government a clearer sense that the U.S. troop commitment is limited would help spur the Iraqis to pass legislation and take other steps aimed at achieving reconciliation among the warring sectarian factions in Iraq." [IHT, 9/7/07 [3]]

Fallon Remains More Aggressive on Substantial Troop Reductions than the Administration. Adm. Fallon stated that he would like to see the U.S. "transfer more and more responsibility for security in Iraq to Iraqi security forces and, at the same time, withdrawing a substantial amount of our combat forces." While he favors a pause in troop reductions, he believes it should be "temporary and brief". According to the NY Times, "Admiral Fallon's comments struck a somewhat different tone from the one voiced privately by Bush administration officials who have said they advocate holding to troop levels before the 'surge' for some months, perhaps even until the end of the administration." [NYT, 2/28/2008 [4]; AP, 2/25/2008 [5]]

Fallon Favors Focusing on Regional Threats in Afghanistan Instead of Solely Iraq: After very brief troop reduction pause in Iraq, Fallon wants a "resumption of withdrawals to ease stress on the overall military and allow him to balance deployments across the volatile region." He also stated that he hoped to add "a couple of thousand" military trainers to support Afghan Army and police forces. However, he did acknowledge that more troops in Afghanistan are not enough and that the strategy and execution need to improve. "Could we do better with a few more folks? Of course. But the real challenge is: Where is the economic viability for this place?" [NYT, 2/28/2008 [6]]