Politics, Foreign Policy, Current Events and Occasional Outbursts Lacking Couth

I've been reading, with great consternation, amassed reports conflating the resignation of Admiral William Fallon from CENTCOM to what is being conjectured as an imminent conflict with Iran. The common thread being that the Admiral's resignation is something of a "last hurdle" in realizing what is oft reported (or opined) to be a long range Busho-con strategy to engage, in a most fiery fashion, yet another spoke in the "axis of evil."

Any who read Soob with any regularity are already privy to my decidedly headstrong opposition to attacking an enemy nation whose populace maintains a much more "pro-American/pro-Western" visage than some of our regional allies or nation-state welfare recipients.

In every report I read the same apparent "catalyst." That of Thomas Barnett's unapologetic evaluation of Fallon as a man unafraid to challenge the mainstay of those that pay him. A man who put the responsibility of his command before political acquiescence or platitude. A man who, well, did his job. A quote:

Fallon sidles up to me during a morning coffee break. "I'm in hot water again," he says.

"The White House?"

The admiral slowly nods his head.

"They say, 'Why are you even meeting with Mubarak?' " This seems to utterly mystify Fallon.

"Why?" he says, shrugging with palms extending outward. "Because it's my job to deal with this region, and it's all anyone wants to talk about right now. People here hear what I'm saying and understand. I don't want to get them too spun up. Washington interprets this as all aimed at them. Instead, it's aimed at governments and media in this region. I'm not talking about the White House." He points to the ground, getting exercised. "This is my center of gravity. This is my job."

In another world, during another time such "political insubordination" would otherwise be deemed valuable insight from a trusted military leader and be taken into serious consideration. The commander of CENTCOM would opine on the efficacy of a strike on Iran and his observations would be taken in a most serious fashion and be instrumental in America's Iran policy.

Nice place, that other world and other time. Wish we could be there.

Dr. Barnetts reaction has been admirably stalwart if a bit vague. I came, I saw, I wrote, perhaps. His reaction to date:

I don't have any comment on it.

I reported the story as I found it, because I thought it was crucial for readers to understand this officer and his thinking within the context of his incredibly important and high-profile position.

As readers of my blog know, I have expressed a lot of admiration for the admiral over the years. In my 18 years of working for and with military commands, I have met few with the same capacity for strategic vision. I wish him well on whatever he chooses to do next.

I'm perfectly suited to express the idiocy of "having at" Iran. I am not, however, convinced that the reports I've read are figments of journalistic imaginations. In this respect I'm left with a question:

Is war with Iran imminent?


Tom said...

“The right wing zealots have never given up on an illegal and preemptive strike on Iran”

See video: we need to get the word out as much as we can, stop war with Iran

tell everyone not to participate in an illegal act:
The uniform code makes it abundantly clear that it must be the Lawful orders of a superior officer. In fact it says, ‘Members of the military have an obligation to disobey unlawful orders.’ This principle was considered so important that we, the government of the United States, proposed that it be internationally applied in the Nuremberg trials.” - Senator Inouye, a decorated World War II veteran and hero
see blog