He had, after all, taken public positions favoring diplomacy over force in Iran, greater troop withdrawals from Iraq than officially planned and more high-level attention to Afghanistan.

But the catalyst for his departure was not a policy disagreement with the White House, he said, but an article in Esquire magazine earlier this year that portrayed him as the man standing between President George W. Bush and war against Iran.

Yet again, there is no mention here of the fact that the Esquire article was written by Thomas Barnett. Though in the article Barnett portrays himself as sympathetic to Fallon’s position, Barnett had been the architect of the "global transaction strategy," a plan to spread economic globalization (largely by force) as the U.S. response to 9-11. Taking down the regime in Iraq was step one of his ten-step plan. North Korea was step two, followed by Iran as step three. Could it be that Barnett "outed" Fallon, knowing that such public exposure would force out a man who was standing in the way of creating Barnett’s "future worth creating?"

Advertisements