On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, Mike Allen's Politico Playbook was quoted:
> 4) THE WEST WING IS READING ... and is none too pleased about ... From
> the forthcoming Esquire, 'The Man Between War and Peace: As head of U.
> S. Central Command, Admiral William 'Fox' Fallon is in charge of
> American military strategy for the most troubled parts of the world.
> Now, as the White House has been escalating the war of words with Iran,
> and seeming ever more determined to strike militarily before the end of
> this presidency, the admiral has urged restraint and diplomacy. Who will
> prevail, the president or the admiral?'
>
> Thomas E. Ricks wrote in the WashPost: 'Written by Thomas Barnett, a
> former professor at the Naval War College, the article in the
> magazine's April issue predicts that if Fallon leaves his position at
> Central Command, 'it may well mean that the president and vice
> president intend to take military action against Iran before the end
> of this year and don't want a commander standing in their way.''
Now that I've read this long article (which is available online at: http://www.esquire.com/features/fox-fallon) I think the author totally undercuts his case. It's a rug's eye view that idealizes Fallon, and what emerges is a guy who is every bit as militant and truculent as the administration, and who shares much of their bubble thought (like that Iran is a big cause of our trouble in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we need to keep Musharef in power) and only has differences about timing. Fallon convinces me in this article that he's telling the truth when he says differences between him and Petreus and him and the administration have been way overblown. I don't see any evidence that he'd impede the bombing of Iraq any more than he impeded the surge. He'd be against it for tactical reasons, and then when ordered he'd good-soldier on, just like Colin Powell.
I basically came away from this article like Fallon a lot less than when I started.
Michael