Michael Barone proves yet again that when it comes to political analysts, he is in a class by himself. The latest proof is in the form of his piece on the resignation of Adm. William Fallon as head of CentComm. After reading this piece, I’m left with more questions than answers. For instance, considering that Fallon seemed to undermine Bush’s policies for so long, why let him stay in high command for such an extended period of time? My gut answer is that Bush, like is father, is simply too nice of a guy to make examples out of those who try to openly undercut him in his own administration.

   That many CIA and State Department officials and lackies alike have also worked to undercut President Bush in his own administration comes as no surprise to anybody in the political cognoscenti. After all, as Barone himself points out:

“Civilian and military, those who have been undercutting administration policy do so in the belief that their views are more in the nation's interests than the conclusion of the Texas cowboy whom the voters somehow elected president. State and CIA are filled with professionals educated in elite universities dominated by the left and, while not as wacky as their professors, have come away with the default assumption that liberals are always right.”

   With that sort of default assumption in mind, it certainly explains the lack of American Exceptionalism in these crucial divisions of the Executive Branch. What is truly disturbing, however, is that there seems to be a similar trend (minus the lack if AE, thankfully) afoot in the military:

“Many military officers, who increasingly have graduate degrees from such universities, seem to have imbibed similar habits of mind.”

   Nor does the concern end there. Barone points out another tendency where high-ranking officers assigned to a world region, like diplomats, end up “going native,” which explains Fallon’s insistence on Israel caving in to Palestinian demands at every turn. I would welcome solutions to this “native” problem from someone with deeper foreign policy insight, say, Frank Gaffney or Oliver North (whose own piece on Fallon can be found here).  On the bright side of things, it does seem as though Sec. Robert Gates did his part in outing this renegade.

   As an aside, it has been speculated that one reason for Fallon’s resignation, timed right after a puff piece was written on him in Esquire magazine, was to position him as a possible Veep candidate for either Hillary or Obama. Such a development would not surprise yours truly – a former military officer on the ticket could theoretically help boost the foreign policy credentials of either Dem candidate (i.e., not looking so soft on defense). Then again, ask Gen. Wes Clark how well that worked in the party of defeat and retreat.