Editorial: Fallon's departure puts focus back on Congress

In a country that values civilian control of the military, no one should be surprised that the Bush administration asked Adm. William Fallon to resign. As commander of U.S. military operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, his public statements on Iran and Iraq differed from administration positions. He had to go. That said, Fallon's resignation should send a strong signal to Congress to reopen oversight on those policy areas and take action.

In contrast to administration policy, Fallon opposed long-term troop escalation in Iraq (the "surge") and believed the Iraq war was stretching the U.S. military thin, particularly in Asia.

And when President Bush was warning of World War III if Iran were to get the knowledge to make a nuclear weapon, Fallon was publicly saying: "This constant drum beat of conflict ... is not helpful and not useful."

Fallon successfully blocked sending a third aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf. The final straw seemed to be the April Esquire Magazine article on Fallon that began: "If, in the dying light of the Bush administration, we go to war with Iran, it'll all come down to one man. If we do not go to war with Iran, it'll come down to the same man."

So what should Congress do? Follow the advice of Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., in two key areas:

• Use April committee hearings to, in Webb's words, bring Fallon "more aggressively into the oversight process with respect to the occupation of Iraq and the overall strategic approach to resolving the issues of the region" – particularly on the pace of troop reductions.

• Resurrect Webb's bill (S.759/H.R. 3119) that would prevent the Bush administration from launching pre-emptive military activities against Iran without the approval of the Congress. This bill would undo the damage done by the ill-considered Kyl-Lieberman Iran Amendment that passed in September. As Webb said, that amendment designating the Revolutionary Guard of the Iranian government as a foreign terrorist organization left the administration free to interpret the resolution as a congressional OK to strike at Iran.

The public also should put pressure on the presidential candidates to clearly state their positions on Iran.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, was the only presidential candidate to vote for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, though she is now a co-sponsor of Webb's bill. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., did not vote on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment. Obama has introduced a minimal resolution (S. J. Res. 23/H.J. Res. 64) making it clear that the 2002 congressional authorization of force against Iraq cannot be used to authorize the use of force against Iran.

Echoing Vice President Dick Cheney, McCain declared in October, "I still say there's only one thing worse than military action against Iran and that is a nuclear-armed Iran."

When McCain was asked last April when the United States would "send an air mail message to Iran," he responded by singing, "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran."

Fallon clearly lost his internal policy battle within the Bush administration. But that's not the end of the matter. Congress can take action. And voters, too, can – and should – put pressure on the presidential candidates for a course correction.