"U.S. Navy Adm. William Fallon, who currently oversees U.S. forces in the Pacific, has been tapped by Bush to replace Gen. John Abizaid, the head of U.S. Central Command who is retiring this year, two senior U.S. military officials told CNN Friday." http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/05/us.iraq/index.html "Fallon is an unusual choice to head the Central Command, which has responsibility for a land-dominated region that includes the Middle East and parts of Africa." Why would Bush appoint a Navy man to command two ground wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan? Actually, this question missed the point completely. Bush appoints a Navy Adm. to head the CentCom, because the focus of the CentCom will change from the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, to the next war which will be a naval and air war: Iran. This is a clear signal where Bush is going. Can anyone stop him?
If he feels he needs to attack Iran, then he will need the approval of the US Congress. Do you think that Congress will give him that approval? Of course, a staged attack on US resources by so called Iranians may change the public attitude overnight and cower the Congress to give approval. However, as things stand, I don't think there is enough public support for another war.
James, Bad analysis. I would expect better from you. Now go back and re-think this. Hint: There is way more political risk in attacking Iran. Its not Iraq....no comparrison.
There are many ways to manipulate a nation into a war. Whether Bush can accomplish that is a different matter. Otherwise, it's a strange appointment whichever way you look at it.
Admiral Fallon is a doddering, bumbling fool, like his boss. In his current position - he is busy kissing up to Chinese admirals, giving them tours of our naval vessels, and allowing Chinese subs to tail US ships. If there is a war with Iran (Which I don't believe), I completely trust Fallon to either lose it and lose hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of Americans in the process.
This is on most discussed London Times editorials list today: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-162-2530313-162,00.html An alliance approach makes sense to me because W's administartion is at caretaker stage and has no support for anything. And isn't Blair much more popular on domestic issues than foreign? So maybe it makes sense for his weakened condition also? This upcoming speech by W and the actions being taken, including the military shakeup the OP posted on, really are big news. The really big story that hasn't dawned on the media yet -- we aren't leaving Iraq and the troops are not somehow coming back in timing with the waning Bush years. If anything the Bushies are getting ready to hand the unresolved, intractable, steaming ME turd over to their successors in 08. The Dem frontrunners (one of whom will win the 2008 election) seem more than willing to run with the ball.
The fallacy of your conclusion is the assumption that Bush's actions can be explained by reason, logic, strategic or tactical calculations or long term objectives. So far all his appointments have been based on cronyism, personal/party loyalty and nothing else, there is no reason to believe just yet that this appointment is any different.