Posted on 02/24/2007 4:37:37 PM PST by Pokey78
SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.
Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.
“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”
A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike. “All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them.
“There are enough people who feel this would be an error of judgment too far for there to be resignations.”
A generals’ revolt on such a scale would be unprecedented. “American generals usually stay and fight until they get fired,” said a Pentagon source. Robert Gates, the defence secretary, has repeatedly warned against striking Iran and is believed to represent the view of his senior commanders.
The threat of a wave of resignations coincided with a warning by Vice-President Dick Cheney that all options, including military action, remained on the table. He was responding to a comment by Tony Blair that it would not “be right to take military action against Iran”.
Iran ignored a United Nations deadline to suspend its uranium enrichment programme last week. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insisted that his country “will not withdraw from its nuclear stances even one single step”.
The International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran could soon produce enough enriched uranium for two nuclear bombs a year, although Tehran claims its programme is purely for civilian energy purposes.
Nicholas Burns, the top US negotiator, is to meet British, French, German, Chinese and Russian officials in London tomorrow to discuss additional penalties against Iran. But UN diplomats cautioned that further measures would take weeks to agree and would be mild at best.
A second US navy aircraft carrier strike group led by the USS John C Stennis arrived in the Gulf last week, doubling the US presence there. Vice Admiral Patrick Walsh, the commander of the US Fifth Fleet, warned: “The US will take military action if ships are attacked or if countries in the region are targeted or US troops come under direct attack.”
But General Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said recently there was “zero chance” of a war with Iran. He played down claims by US intelligence that the Iranian government was responsible for supplying insurgents in Iraq with sophisticated roadside bombs, forcing Bush on the defensive over some of the allegations.
Pace’s view was backed up by British intelligence officials who said the extent of the Iranian government’s involvement in activities inside Iraq by a small number of Revolutionary Guards was “far from clear”.
Hillary Mann, the National Security Council’s main Iran expert until 2004, said Pace’s repudiation of the administration’s claims was a sign of grave discontent at the top.
“He is a very serious and a very loyal soldier,” she said. “It is extraordinary for him to have made these comments publicly, and it suggests there are serious problems between the White House, the National Security Council and the Pentagon.”
Mann fears the administration is seeking to provoke Iran into a reaction that could be used as an excuse for an attack. A British official said the US navy was well aware of the risks of confrontation and was being “seriously careful” in the Gulf.
The US air force is regarded as being more willing to attack Iran. General Michael Moseley, the head of the air force, cited Iran as the main likely target for American aircraft at a military conference earlier this month.
A senior defence source said the air force “could do a lot of damage to the country if there were no other considerations”. But army chiefs fear an attack on Iran would backfire on American troops in Iraq and lead to more terrorist attacks, a rise in oil prices and the threat of a regional war.
Britain is concerned that its own troops in Iraq might also be drawn into any American conflict with Iran, regardless of whether the government takes part in the attack.
Bush is still pursuing a diplomatic agreement with Iran — urged on by secretary of state Condoleezza Rice.
One retired general who participated in the “generals’ revolt” against Donald Rumsfeld’s handling of the Iraq war said he hoped his former colleagues would resign in the event of an order to attack. “We don’t want to take another initiative unless we’ve really thought through the consequences of our strategy,” he warned.
And it won't have it either. Contrary to the 'hoo-rah' gang, the financial leaders and markets (the ones who hold the real power) have had enough. And it is also becomingly evidently clear that more within the administration and those surrounding it while not speaking publicly are voicing their opinion (a correct one loud and clear). Cheney and Bush can rant all they want and get the shrinking war support base whipped into a frenzy but make no mistake. There will be a diplomatic solution to this.
AMEN!!!
We'll be praying for you, jude.
As I've repeatedly pointed out, we are not fighting 2 wars, we are fighting one war, the war on terrorism, and Iran would simply be the 3rd front in that one war.
The US could easily defeat the Iranians in ground combat. The only issue would be what we'd want to do with that nation. Hopefully, we'd just leave after we destroyed their nuke capability. (The Iranians couldn't defeat the Iraqis in 10 years. We defeated the Iraqis twice in a total of about 3 weeks.)
Any idea that generals would quit is idiotic. Generals won't quit. That's just ignorant.
Wow....these little green (gray) guys really called it spot on.....a year ago! March 17th....2006 !
"The likely outcome is that the US will threaten and bluster, plant evidence against Iran that the US citizen and the world does not believe, rumble tanks and planes up to the border of Iran, and there the conflict stops. There will certainly be tense moments behind closed doors when the military is asked to take steps they refuse to take.............."
http://www.zetatalk.com/index/zeta268.htm
How much do you want to bet that those people you describe have literary agents or similar advisors who are helping those generals jockey to the CNN talking head posts.
I think some of those officers have a Lady McBeth at home. (or a Hitlary Clinton)
How much do you want to bet that those people you describe have literary agents or similar advisors who are helping those generals jockey to the CNN talking head posts.
I think some of those officers have a Lady McBeth at home. (or a Hitlary Clinton)
Are you nuts? The last thing we need is another failed Middle Eastern state. That'd make things even worse.
Is their anyone lucid enough to understand that Generals made these statements.....probably on direct orders from CinC?
Or are memories so damaged as to leave no understanding of what it is to squeeze an enemy?
Under all these conflicting messages, Iran remains under TREMENDOUS pressure. One slip, one mistake, and we will bomb them back to the stone age. While avoiding mistake causes Iranian leadership to look weak, like a little bitch complaining about the bullying they are getting from the big bad USofA.
Of course these statements were made, and I wish someone on this forum understood the tactics of a psychological war.
It might also be known that while we may not have many available troops, we have more than enough bombs to turn the country of Iran into a smoking hole.
What is wrong with you people?
Dont answer, and I wont stick around to read it. Just grow up, dammit.
I hope and pray you are correct. Unfortunately, the President has a lot of power to direct troops where he likes. Congress can do little more than jerk funding.
'Preciate it.
No it wouldn't. There is a fairly healthy, educated, respected opposition in Iran. We don't need to stay.
We break their nuke capability and leave. That's all we need to do.
And this silliness about generals....what'd it say, four or five....those guys are not quitting. They've lived their whole lives for such a time as this to make a difference.
and what does that mean?
Sheeeesh, ya try to interject a little martian humour into a thread and someone like you comes along with a hair across their azz and spoils everything.
lighten up.
>>Enemy propaganda.<<
Do you thin is originating in the U.K or is it coming from the U.S. but planted in a U.K paper?
I'm thinking that if its British in origin then it may be mainly about justifying to the population the apparent decisions for the Brits to not help in Iran.
But if its coming from either American Generals themselves or opponents of President Bush using the military and the foreign press to do it then they are really undermining the President's ability to apply leverage on Iran. They may wind up causing the war they claim they oppose.
The mullahs are not gonna turn into nice guys - the only hope to not have military confrontation is for Iran to believe that we will fight and that they need to avoid a war with us and that it would go very badly for them.
If this turns out to be Americans undermining that effort then they deserve exposure and (at a minimum) disgrace.
If the President wants, he has all the authorization he needs in the Sep 18 Resolution. As you see how it was applied in the Iraq Resolution, it is clear that it was broadly interpreted. There would be no legal basis against this President if he used the Sep 18 Resolution.
Now, could he prove Al Qaeda or particular person ties to Iran?
I think it would be fairly simple. I'll also bet they've been putting that case together for better than 4 years now. Iran, not Iraq, has long been considered the leading supporter of International terrorism.
Did you read the resolutions I posted?
Good thinking on their part. Then, when the Iranian a-holes attack us here and around the world with nuclear weapons, they can say,"Gee, guess maybe we should have hit them first, huh????" Very brave of these moron generals. I still advocate unilateral pre-emptive nuclear strikes now against Iran, Syria, and North Korea. Of course, everytime I express this personal opinion the Admin. Mod deletes the post. Oh well!
There was one in Iraq too. That didn't stop Iraq from degenerating into sectarian chaos. It only takes a small, dedicated minority to turn a struggling state into a failed state. Without a massive occupying force - one much larger than the shoestring one we tried in Iraq - Iran would be doomed to become like Iraq.
The problem is that, because of Iraq, America has become a paper tiger. Without a massive ramp-up of military strength (i.e., drafts and rationing), we could not fight a third war. Nor could our country, our economy, or even our military function without access to Saudi and Kuwaiti oil - sources which would be shut off to us in any serious altercation with Iran.
Right now, we're stuck between Iraq and a hard place. There's not much we can do to Iran beyond diplomatic pressure.
If Bush tries that, the 9/18 resolution will be repealed. Those moves are already afoot.
Plus, he would have no legal basis under the UN Charter to invade. We can't just invade another country's territory without the UN's authorization.
No retirement either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.