David Ignatius in the Washington Post weighs in this morning on Adm. Fallon’s resignation as head of CENTCOM:
The first thing that many of Adm. William Fallon’s colleagues note about him is that he’s a Navy officer. By that, they mean he has the stubborn self-confidence, some would say arrogance, that is part of command at sea. He knows how to wear his dress whites and receive a snappy salute — and he likes telling people off when he thinks they’re wrong.
Those headstrong qualities were part of why Fallon was chosen to run Central Command, arguably the most important senior post in the U.S. military today.
And they explain why Fallon finally crashed and burned Tuesday, tendering his resignation after his blunt comments to an Esquire magazine writer had gotten him into one too many conflicts with the White House and the military brass.
My. Catty. Describing Tom Barnett as an Esquire magazine writer isn’t enormously different from characterizing George McGovern as a Wall Street Journal writer.
Mr. Ignatius continues by downplaying Adm. Fallon’s opposition to military action against Iran and cataloging the admiral’s willingness to encourage a public debate.
I have no idea why Adm. Fallon resigned nor why he blew up at Tom Barnett’s interview with him in Esquire. Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar. I do know that lots of people are speculating that Adm. Fallon was forced out and this betokens an imminent attack on Iran.
Maybe it’s just me but I seem to hear a lot more about the U. S. invading Iran from people who oppose the Bush Administration than from the Administration itself. I continue to believe that the Bush Adminstration will not attack Iran but for those who do I’ve got a minor challenge. Please give us a date certain, presumably before January 20, 2009, by which, if the Administration hasn’t bombed or invaded Iran, you’ll acknowledge that you’ve misjudged the situation. I certainly will if they do.