
A posting in the LATimes has it this way:
"Iran wasn’t the only point of contention between Fallon and the rest of the Bush administration. As Los Angeles Times Pentagon reporters Julian E. Barnes and Peter Spiegel point out in Wednesday’s paper, Fallon seemed to oppose the U.S. strategy in Iraq, as well. But, it was Fallon's words on Iran policy that riled neoconservative White House and Beltway hawks."

"Neoconservatives celebrated Fallon's departure. Max Boot was the foreign policy pundit who labeled Fallon as "unimpressive" in January this year. In an opinion piece in Wednesday's L.A. Times, he argues that Fallon just didn't get it, with regard to Iran:
Fallon's very public assurances that America has no plans to use force against Iran embolden the mullahs to continue developing nuclear weapons and supporting terrorist groups that are killing American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.... By irresponsibly taking the option of force off the table, Fallon makes it more likely, not less, that there will ultimately be an armed confrontation with Iran.
[Of course, this assumes that Iran depends on US pronouncements for its policy decisions, which is palpably absurd. Further, this point of view, utterly naive in its assumptions, purports that the US is right and Iran is wrong. Any experienced diplomat, and every sophisticated observer well knows diplomacy between hostile parties is never quite that simple. Thus, this commentator comes off as cynical, in the least, and manipulative otherwise. Such nonsense can be dismissed as political nonsense. And, by the way, one must wonder if the bellicose person actually has even served in the military, or, as his Cheney and Bush heroes, managed to skip the service through some subterfuge or other.]
But the story may not end here. Lawmakers are already calling for investigations into Fallon's departure.
And, of course, more likely than not, Fallon's got a tell-all book in the works, as with so many other ex-Administration officials."
No comments:
Post a Comment