Ricks' attempted 'takedown' of Esquire piece
Thursday, March 6, 2008 at 3:01AM Tom Ricks from the Washington Post got Admiral Fallon to 'reject' Tom's article. The pertinent quote from Ricks:
Asked about the article yesterday, Fallon called it "poison pen stuff" that is "really disrespectful and ugly." He did not cite specific objections.
I wonder: did Fallon have a chance to read the whole piece, or did Ricks read him the part about being at odds with Bush/Cheney, like maybe this one:
Well-placed observers now say that it will come as no surprise if Fallon is relieved of his command before his time is up next spring, maybe as early as this summer, in favor of a commander the White House considers to be more pliable. If that were to happen, 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.
Because, here's the question: why 'reject' a piece that is so laudatory, quotes Fallon himself extensively in a positive light, and was reported on a trip where a lot of access was given?
Hopefully we'll have a more extensive reaction from Admiral Fallon in the near future. It'll be interesting to see how this one plays out.
Reader Comments (7)
Unfortunately this approach is going to turn off a lot of people who might otherwise get the message.
TEJ: I see no evidence the "three candidates" get it, and have little hope.
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.
I totally disagree that the opening was not serious, and totally agreethat the three candidates should speak to this article.
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?