[Whilst I was struggling to pull this together for a blog post, BDBlue responsibly pulled the trigger first. Works too as a comment so here, as written:]

There’s ample background elsewhere, no need to rehash. For someone at Fallon’s level to resign before his tour of duty is over seldom bodes well. If it was his own decision, it can only mean that he is unable to accept the orders he has been given. If he is being forced out – told to resign or he will be fired – because he is an obstruction to the administration’s objectives, that is also troubling since he has been a steady voice for diplomacy and peaceful negotiation. That he was SecDef Gates’ hand-picked choice for the position may be the most disconcerting aspect of all; it appears from this that the Cheney warmongers have undermined yet another Cabinet Secretary; State is a shambles, DOJ and NSA are run by Cheney lapdogs, and what was supposed to be a move to greater independence for Defense has just been undercut.

Fallon has very pointedly said that there would “be no war with Iran on my watch” and resisted placing a third carrier task force off the Iranian shore. Cheney’s response was to land himself on one of Fallon’s carriers in the Persian Gulf where:

”Cheney stood aboard one of the two carriers currently in the Gulf and warned Iran that the U.S. was prepared to use its naval power to keep Tehran from disrupting off oil routes or ‘gaining nuclear weapons and dominating this region.’”

Fallon very clearly put his career on the line to prevent further reckless military adventurism by the Bush/Cheney war machine. With a year still left on his assignment, there can be no other reason for his abrupt departure but that he has lost that struggle. Once out of uniform, Fallon should speak out; he can tell us about Bush’s plans for a broader Middle East war, and someone should.

There are no good military options for success in open warfare with Iraq, nor are there any rational strategic benefits to be had by attacking Syria or any other nation in the area. But the Bush/Cheney cabal defines “success” differently than rational, decent human beings. There was no prospect of conventional success to be had from occupying Iraq, it was a march into quagmire, but that was the appeal and the long-term objective; never-ending war.

Facing the possibility of defeat at the polls in November, the war machine is moving on two fronts to secure its vision; establish a presence in Iraq so entrenched that no Democratic president can possibly unravel it, and broaden the conflict so that any move at all towards withdrawal from the region will bring greater disaster that remaining engaged.

Meanwhile, in more important news:

SOME GUY IN NEW YORK HIRED A HOOKER!!!!!

(In case you were wondering about the timing on that one.)

That’s a much better Fallon post than mine.

Quick counts; content counts. Well done, and not ironically.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

last chance to stimulate the economy I guess.

“As I say, the notion that this decision portends anything in terms of change in Iran policy is, to quote myself, ’ridiculous,’” Gates said.

So, your star, hand-picked appointment resigns (over Iran) and that is what Gates has to say.

I can’t see any strike group headed for the gulf, but the fact that the USS Abe Lincoln is on the move isn’t a good sign.

Three locally based Navy warships from Everett and a Navy air squadron from Whidbey Island will depart Mar. 13 for a six-month deployment to the Western Pacific, the Navy said Thursday.

The USS Abraham Lincoln, based at Naval Station Everett, will lead Carrier Strike Group nine, grow its own crew to nearly 5,000 as it takes on pilots and crews of nearly 10 air squadrons.

The guided missile destroyers USS Shoup and USS Momsen, also from Everett, are among the group, which includes more warships from San Diego.

The USSS Nimitz is currently doing joint exercises in Korea. (Along with the USS John S. McCain)

So did not mean anything negative, you and I both thought it was important, we are in agreement. All my intro was intented to do was explain the format, much more blogpost in style than commentary. I was too lazy to rewrite and didn’t want to come across as stuffy - more than usual.

I meant no slight towards you whatsoever, none, not at all. Your work is, IMNSHO for what that’s worth, just fine.

I probably typed my response to your excellent post too quickly. It was meant as a compliment, you had much more info on this than I did and that’s a good thing, but it came out kind of snarky on re-reading. So no worries. I know no insult was intended (and even if it had been, I don’t take much personally, I’ve been a lawyer too long for words to hurt me).