Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

The article opens with a fairly flippant tone before it gets down to business, so I suspect GEN F is just doing what is required to remain effective in his assignment. I'm more curious about what the three candidates have to say.

Flippant tone is exactly right, and that's what's going to get quoted. While the story is one that's worth telling, the effort to sound edgy (the more-than-implied sense of "can you believe those Bushies?") doesn't do Fallon any favors.

Unfortunately this approach is going to turn off a lot of people who might otherwise get the message.

Tom, the damning quote was re. Fallon "brazenly challenging" the Prez on Iran. Sure, we need to see it in context, but on the face of it there's no way Adm. Fallon could see this as anything but damaging to his standing in the current national security community. Even though he's right about the US having no need to threaten war with Iran. Absolutely right.

Tom: Could it be you've caused a problem for Fallon by exposing the sanity of truth?

TEJ: I see no evidence the "three candidates" get it, and have little hope.

The beginning of the article is such that the article is guaranteed to be controversial. It is no wonder that the article was mentioned at the White House briefing. However, I suspect that there is much truth in the Article???

One thing that continues to be clear is that the Administration wants to attack Iran. The War Drums were beating very loudly last year. The Kyl-Lieberman Resolution was one of the carefully planned steps to that end. My belief is that the resolution was planned to be used as the authorization for military action against Iran. Then the NIE on Iran upset their plans.

Following that the Administration desparately attempted to use the incident in the Hormuz Straits to create a major crisis both domesticically and internationally. Fortunately, in both arenas the incident was mainly seen as a minor provocation that should be taken in stride by the US.

Just recently the Administration got a new round of sanctions against Iran passed in the UN. Also the US Elections will be occurring in November. There is the possibility that the Administration wants War to keep the focus on the National Security arena, rather than the domestic arena. The Repuplicans continue to be perceived as stronger on defense.

My belief is that at the moment there are only two major obstacles preventing War with Iran. Those are the intelligence community (the NIE) and the resistance of the military to attacking Iran. Both Gates and Fallon are known to actively oppose another military engagement. Where Petraeous stands is unclear to me, but he must realize that an attack on Iran will definitely aggravate the situation in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I would be very surprised, if he would encourage an attack on Iran. Congress will certainly go along with an attack as the Kyl-Lieberman resolution made clear. Tom's article points out that relieving Fallon of command would be an early indication that War has been decided upon. However, what about Gates? Politically replacing Gates would be almost impossible.

TEJ,

I totally disagree that the opening was not serious, and totally agree
that the three candidates should speak to this article.

Tom Merrit: Good assessment.

With Bush Presidency losing relevance and clout by every passing hour; Will anybody in his administration ever contemplate risking his or her future on such a risky project as bombing Iran?