That Adm. William Fallon stepped down as head of U.S. Central Command didn’t surprise insiders. He’s not on board with key elements of US strategy in the Middle East. He can be a unilateralist – as seen with impending, blindsiding personnel cuts at Centcom. He has a tendency to talk outside of school. And he’s also far from the most popular guy at MacDill Air Force Base. That’s a recipe for resignation.
What’s concerning is that his legitimate issue-differences may be diminished by his ill-timed departure. Among other things, you don’t use Esquire magazine or Al-Jazeera as forums for foreign policy critiques and criticism without repercussions.
Protocol demands that if you feel so strongly on Iraq or, especially, Iran, and see no hope of affecting change, you vent exclusively in-house, then resign, then go public. In that order. And then your views and credibility will not be undercut by an awkwardly high-profile resignation – and the inevitable, anonymous-sourced bad-mouthing sure to follow.
That Fallon was at odds with Iran hawks, while not surprising, is disturbing. Some, including the author (a former Naval War College instructor) of the Esquire article involving Fallon, have projected that a Fallon resignation in the near term could signal a precipitous turn toward war with Iran.
I’m reminded again of the words of Steven Kinzer, the author of “All The Shah’s Men,” who lectured this month at USF. He’s a strong advocate of diplomacy toward Iran.”We’re not yet at the end of political development in Iran,” he stated. “In the long run, be patient; don’t do anything crazy. Democratic elements will become stronger in Iran. There’s more potential for the development of democracy in Iran than any other country in the Middle East.”
Unless, of course, somebody does something “crazy.”