Dashboard

By Mark Thompson / Washington

WASHINGTON MEMO

As a navy pilot, Admiral William (Fox) Fallon, chief of U.S. Central Command and the senior military commander in the Middle East, liked to push the envelope in the air--and in his comments on U.S. policy in the region. But a profile in the April issue of Esquire pushed a bit too far. It portrayed Fallon as "brazenly challenging" the Bush Administration's "ill-advised" push for war with Iran--and the admiral's cooperation with its author carried a whiff of insubordination. On March 11, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced Fallon's resignation over the "distraction" caused by a "misperception" of a clash between the admiral and the White House.

Fallon is not alone among senior officers in saying that the confrontation with Iran should be resolved diplomatically. But he has sailed close to the wind in his public comments. Speaking to al-Jazeera network last fall, he criticized the "constant drumbeat of conflict" out of Washington over Iran, calling the rhetoric "not helpful and not useful."

While Pentagon officials insist the decision to leave was his, Fallon's backers say his exit is proof that the Administration brooks no dissent on matters of war and peace. "Bush says he'll listen to commanders in the field," a retired admiral says, "unless they say something he doesn't like, and then he fires them." (Fallon was aware of the article's explosive potential; he called Gates before the Defense Secretary had seen it and warned him to "brace himself.")

Still, the betting inside the Pentagon is that despite Fallon's departure, war with Iran is no more likely now than it was then. The military has its hands full in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the impact of the U.S. attacking a third Muslim nation since 9/11 would be extreme, officers believe. No President wants to bequeath another unfinished war to his successor.