In the person of CENTCOM commander Admiral “Fox” Fallon, strategic thinker TPM Barnett believes that he has found that rarest of all gems to a man of his own Olympian gifts: Someone to admire.
The admiral is of course a brilliant man with a stellar list of accomplishments in his four decades of service. But neither does it hurt that the attitudes Barnett imputes to Fallon mesh so closely to his own, whether it be the surge in Iraq, engagement with Iran, partnership with China, economic “connectedness” or contempt for the wicked neocon dullards who’ve gone and bollixed everything up, when it was all running so smoothly before.
So fullsome is Barnett’s praise on this latter point that the admiral apparently felt compelled to issue a rebuttal:
Asked about the article yesterday, Fallon called it “poison pen stuff” that is “really disrespectful and ugly.”
On his own website, and in his typically self-effacing style, Barnett says that the “article speaks for itself,” and “provided magnificent context to judge (the admiral’s) strategic thinking.”
No one with the least familiarity with the admiral’s career and reputation could doubt for a moment that he is as brilliant and visionary a strategic thinker as Barnett paints him to be. But one can wonder whether all of the vivid contrasts Barnett strikes between the admiral’s thinking and that of the administration were more important to sell the story than they were to tell it.
Like all slaves to their own brilliant egos, Barnet will jump the shark at some point. The world is just not as neatly pigeon-holed as his certainly compelling theories would suggest.
There is no such thing as a perfect strategic thinker or a perfect Admiral. You cant be either one without a healthy ego (arrogant at times as it is) and you cant stay in either business without learning from experience. Both do. Neither will change, neither has to. The last thing I want is carbon copy thought from either one of them. Both should be respected for the positive things they bring to the table and the new ways of thinking they inspire. Frankly, if they had to work together they would make an incredible team.
Given my choice, I would rather believe Admiral Fallon than Dr. Barnett. I honestly believe that this was a cheap shot at the admiral, and his quotes were twisted WAY out of context.
I stopped reading Barnett a while ago; he’s a pompous ass who’s convinced of his own infallibility.
Shouldn’t that be, P.T. Barnett?
I think it is an interesting article. I don’t see the article as an attack on Fallon. I do observe that a lot of the reaction to the article appears to be an effort to prove a theory that Fallon is some kind of maverick in CENTCOM, standing up to the Bush administration.
The media today has a weird definition of what a military hero is, but that image for Fallon fits such an image from their POV, and they try to sell it.
Lex I really enjoyed your 4 part take on ‘the brief’, excellent reading.
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.
Correct me if I’m wrong but, should the President decide to go to war with Iran (though I truly do not see this happening right now…nor do I feel that we’re even close to doing so), Admiral Fallon would not “stand in their way”. The CinC would issue an order and Commander Fallon would follow it, whether he agrees with it or not. That is what military members DO.
What America needs, Fallon says, is a “combination of strength and willingness to engage.”
Those are fighting words to your average neocon–not to mention your average supporter of Israel, a good many of whom in Washington seem never to have served a minute in uniform.
We do not have to go to WAR with Iran to affect the change we wish to see in Iran. And if *I* know this, I’m pretty sure that the people at the Pentagon and the White House know if too. There are other ways to do this, for goodness sake.
“Get serious,” the admiral says. “These guys are ants. When the time comes, you crush them.”
Best line of the entire article. Speaks volumes as to Admiral Fallon’s views. I don’t WANT a commander who is itchy to go to war. I doubt the White House does either. I want someone who pushes for alternative courses of action (assuming they will bear the same fruit or better than that of war) rather than starting WWIV.
I’m sure there is more but that’s as far as I managed to get this evening.
I thought it was a fair article-but then again I agree with Barnett’s views vis a vis neocons.
Furthermore, there is nobody who understands the strategic communications game and the politics of Washington better than Fox Fallon. It would not suprise me if this whole thing the article and the rebuttal were part of his strategic communications plan. He gets to have his cake and eat it too. Barnett carries the water for the message that needs to get out.
Besides if the administration really wanted to let Fallon go they could-he’s over 62 they could just drop the age waiver they got when they nom’ed him to the CENTCOM position. They are not going to do that.
Barnett was way off centerline. That is about it. Way off centerline. Admiral Fallon, in his response, put it exactly as it is.
Well…
It sure is going to be interesting to see what he has to say when he (hopefully) decides to sit down for an interview after retirement.
Wow, talk about jumping the shark! (Breaking news just now that ADM Fallon has resigned). Could it be that Skippy-San’s assessment about strategic communication plan included a timely resignation to emphasize the point? One has to imagine he’d thought the whole thing through. v/r, B.