In today’s WaPo, an article on Page 12 discusses Admiral Fallon’s firing expulsion forced exit resignation from CentCom. Not to worry, the article says, and surely with a placement on Page 12 there must not be anything in it to cause concern. If there were, WaPo’s editors would have made sure it was right up front and not down in the body – wouldn’t they?

Fallon’s Resignation Is Not Seen
as Step Toward Attack on Iran
By Joby Warrick and Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, March 13, 2008; A12

The abrupt resignation of the Pentagon’s top Middle East commander has silenced one of the Bush administration’s fiercest opponents of a unilateral military strike against Iran, yet top administration officials themselves do not see real prospects for military action before the end of President Bush’s term, current and former U.S. officials say.

Adm. William J. “Fox” Fallon, who announced Tuesday that he is quitting as head of the U.S. Central Command, had irked the White House in recent months by publicly opposing possible military action against Iran. But support for a military strike within the administration has eroded steadily in recent months, and Fallon’s departure will do little to change that, the officials said.

That sounds pretty good.

Instead, absent an unforeseen precipitating event, the current policy of seeking multilateral diplomatic and economic sanctions against Iran as punishment for its nuclear-weapons-related work will continue until Bush leaves office and beyond, according to administration officials and independent experts.

Bush has publicly maintained that he wants to use diplomacy to persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions, but he has pointedly refused to take the military option off the table. Some experts cautioned that Bush’s views could still trump his advisers’ contrary opinions.

That, however, does not sound so good. Please, reassure me:

…the administration’s ability to execute such a strategy has been weakened in recent months…The Esquire article said that if Fallon left his job, it would signal an impending attack against Iran…Administration officials, including Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, have publicly rejected the article’s contention as absurd … action against Iran would need both congressional and allied support not evident now, the officials said…Fallon was hardly the only administration figure to express reservations about military action on Iran, and today similar concerns are said to be held by Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice…

Whew! All righty, then; no worries. Long article, maybe I should skip the last little bit, probably nothing important all the way down at the end, just a quote from somebody named Danielle Pletka, vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute…

…Oh…

…Wait…

The key unknown variable is Bush, who has repeatedly indicated he does not want to pass on problems to his successor.

“I think there is a possibility that the president would feel that he could not leave without trying to address this problem,” she said. “Nobody knows what the president thinks, and all I can say is to go by what he says — and he has always said he thinks he has to deal with this problem.”

Good old well-intentioned Georgie, doesn’t want to leave any problems behind, wants to be sure everything will be all tidied up with Iran just like he’s accomplished with Iraq, Afghanistan, al Qaida, Darfur, Palestine, military readiness, the economy, education, the budget deficit, balance of trade, climate change, environmental pollution, food safety, on and on.

George is such a responsible fellow, he’s always made sure that he takes care of problems; in his military service, his business affairs, as governor of Texas, and in every aspect of his Presidency thus far. Untreated cocaine addict alcoholics like good old George are known for taking care of their own problems, and never making or leaving a mess for others.

“Key unknown variable” George Bush plans to “deal with” the “Iran problem.”
What could go wrong?