And while there may not be any support for attacking Iran, saying so publicaly, may be counter to our diplomatic strategy, and I would think, outside the chain of command and responsibilities.

Granted… I *want* Iran to think so, but I really don’t see that there’s been anything much more substantial than fantasies based on the party-line that Bush is out of control militaristic… and *that* was going on prior to 9-11, even if no one remembers it. The rhetoric that certain persons and parties were bound and determined to go to war was, in my opinion, at least part of the plan for 9-11… to provoke a thoughtless and overwhelming response to the terrorist attack that day, that emotionally targeted all Muslims, maybe even Mecca, and so broke the apathy of all those Muslim moderates we were talking about.

Really classic terrorist tactics of motivating those less prone to extremism to take up the cause.

That interpretation of mine relies on what no one remembers… that certain people, pre 9-11, loudly proclaimed that certain other people wanted us to go to war and *would* react that way. Of course, Bush didn’t. Not even going on to Iraq was the sort of mindless retaliation that could have been expected by anyone who believed that the people saying such things were doing something other than bloviating.

And I have to wonder, now, if it’s not a whole lot of the same. Attack Iran? Maybe, but why would we reasonably do anything *but* try to avoid that if at all possible? Because some people are heavily invested in the need to insist that Bush is not in any way reasonable?

There’s domestic political posturing and then there is the truth… we shouldn’t mistake one for the other.

We *should* do the macho breast-beating with Iran… but just because that is seen as illegitimate by those who’ve given us the metrosexual male doesn’t mean that this isn’t how humans and groups (and any number of animal species) haven’t worked out dominance *without* warfare since we were amoebas.

Suggesting that someone *wants* war with Iran is… politics.

The perception that Fallon has opposed a drive toward military action against Iran from within the Bush administration dates to his confirmation hearings in January 2007, when he told the Senate that the United States needed to exhaust all diplomatic options in its disputes with the Islamic republic.

But he also has said that the United States would be able to take steps if Tehran were to attempt to block the Strait of Hormuz, the outlet of the Persian Gulf and a choke point for much of the world’s oil.

And he recently told CNN that the United States is looking for a peaceful settlement to disputes “in every case.”

“We’re trying to encourage dialogue and find resolution,” he said. “In fact, that’s our message to the Iranians out here, given that everybody is nervous and anxious about their activities, is to come forth and explain what they are doing with all the people in the region.”

On Tuesday, Gates said, “We have tried between us to put this misperception behind us over a period of months and, frankly, just have not been successful in doing so.”

So do you think Fallon and Gates saw the Barnett piece as a way of fighting “this misperception,” and their jaws dropped when Barnett them not only didn’t diminish, but amplified the probability of an on-going catfight over Iran policy?

That could explain the “poison pen” comment. And, if true, it would also sink Barnett’s access to other officials at the DoD.

I’m of the opinion that if Fallon retired out a concern of disrupting the chain of command and/or his obvious disagreement with Bush over the merits of attacking Iran in some way, he is behaving with the utmost honor.

Other than the Iran thing, I’m in complete agreement. I don’t believe for a second that Bush wants to attack Iran, even if he does want Iran to think so. Whatever disagreements there are between Fallon and the CiC, I agree that he did the honorable thing in stepping aside. Indeed, I’m of the opinion that doing so “noisily” signals that he is unwilling to follow along with the administration’s plans. As I understand it, this is the only good way to make the statement “I disagree with you wholeheartedly Mr. President, and I’ll have none of it.”

I don’t like the buried implication in some reports that Fallon is being pushed out to make way for a cushy and prestigious assignment for Petraeus once his tour is done in Iraq

That bugs me too. Somehow the military seems like it should be off limits to the petty political BS that goes on everyday inside the Beltway. I guess it’s not.

That is, assuming it’s all true. Both Blackfive and Ackerman are working off rumors. Competing rumors (and both claims “sources close to blah blah blah”), but rumors nevertheless.

Also, a bit earlier, I posted the rumors about Fallon’s connection to the Barnett piece—namely, that Barnett’s high profile exposure of the possible conflict between Fallon and Bush fomented a retirement that may have happened eventually anyway (and I don’t like the buried implication in some reports that Fallon is being pushed out to make way for a cushy and prestigious assignment for Petraeus once his tour is done in Iraq… the man did a good job, but that sort of political maneuvering is distasteful… again, if any of this is true, but I’m not at all sure about yet).