Why should we care that this Admiral has resigned? Well it seems that he was leading the charge for some sense of rationality in regards to our position with Iran. In other words, invading it would be a huge mistake on a massive scale. It seems Fallon was a little too honest when he talked to Esquire magazine.
I think this nicely sums up what officers who disagree with administration policy will draw from this event (this is from the Froomkin piece):
"At the same time, some younger officers who have been critical of senior commanders for not speaking up about the risks of invading Iraq now see a senior officer who did speak his mind publicly being prompted to choose early retirement."
I guess there can be opposing views but they have to be very quiet opposing views.
At least there was some reaction. This from the Post story:
"Several Democrats were quick to accuse the administration of not tolerating dissent. 'It's distressing that Admiral Fallon feels he had to step down,' said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.). 'President Bush's oft-repeated claim that he follows the advice of his commanders on the ground rings hollow if our commanders don't feel free to disagree with the president.' Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) asked whether Fallon's resignation is a reflection that the administration is hostile to 'the frank, open airing of experts' views.'"
Does this mean we are closer to war with Iran? Maybe. Maybe not. It does mean that one voice of reason has been silenced and that can't be a good thing for this country.