An Admiral "Resigns" and More War Threatens

It's a bad sign, to put it mildly, that Admiral William Fallon, the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East (CENTCOM), has "resigned" due to his opposition to the Washington nomenklatura's lip-licking, salivating insistence on attacking Iran.
Depressingly, this increases the possibility/probability of an expansion and acceleration of this seemingly eternal War on Terror.
It would be an understandable, were this administration possessed with some equanimity, to argue that Fallon's departure is the result of an unacceptable divergence from policy by a subordinate. After all, this is a republic where the military must defer to the civilian leadership.
And as a matter of principle, few would disagree.

But--and this is certainly obvious nearly eight years into a disastrous "governance"--George Bush and Co. remain as arrogant, belligerent and threatening as ever. And all signs point to more of the same following Fallon's departure. In any case, there was no "official" disagreement between Fallon and the White House to begin with, according to Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Speaking with utter believability, Gates said of Fallon's resignation/retirement, "I believe it was the right thing to do, even though I do not believe there are, in fact, significant differences between his views and administration policy ... [although] I think there is this misperception out there that there were."

Then again, when Fallon was interviewed by al-Jazeera last September, he said of Iran, as reported by the Financial Times, "this constant drum beat of conflict is what strikes me, which is not helpful and not useful. I expect that there will be no war and that is what we ought to be working for."
Prior to that, he apparently ruffled feathers in Washington by improving military relations with China which resulted in, as Esquire put it, "the Pentagon and Congress ... realizing that their favorite 'programs of record' (i.e., weapons systems and major vehicle platforms) were threatened by such talks that the shit hit the fan."
Said Fallon, "I blew my stack. I told [then-Defense Secretary] Rumsfeld, Just look at this shit. I go up to the Hill and I get three or four guys grabbing me and jerking me out of the aisle, all because somebody came up and told them that the sky was going to cave in."

Sec. Gates said that Fallon "told me that, quote, 'The current embarrassing situation, public perception of differences between my views and administration policy, and the distraction this causes from the mission make this the rigbt [sic] thing to do,' unquote."
Gates insisted, throughout the course of his public statement on the matter, that Fallon "was fully supportive of" administration policy regarding Iran, that there was a public "misperception" about it, but that there were no "differences at all" between the admiral and the White House.

Yet, as Esquire put it, "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."

When a reporter at Gates' press conference, referring to the Esquire article, said "there was a line in that ... story that said that basically if Fallon gets fired, it means we're going to war with Iran. Can you just address that --"
Gates said, "well, it's just ridiculous. It's ridiculous ... the notion that this decision portends anything in terms of a change in Iran policy is, to quote myself, ridiculous."

Huh.
Okay, then.
I guess that's settled.