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.
Now I know why we haven't won in Iraq.
Too many perfumed generals.
Time to purge the Clinton disciples. IMO
You forget the Senate. Mitch McConnell has a solid filibuster-proof group of Senators. If their president tells them this is right, they will support him.
And the resolution will not be repealed. It is a joint resolution and all of Congress would have to be involved.
Besides that, there is the constitutional question of whether congress can undeclare a military authorization. Once you start some things, you have to finish them.
"Guys, guys...Hey, you Islamofascists, Congress said we're finished, so you've gotta stop, too. Got that? Now, go on home. There's nothing to see here. Nothing else to do."
If the admin. was willing to strike a deal with an insane government like N. Korea, they'll probably be willing to deal with anybody. There is a crazy notion amongst the posters here that you can "bomb them back to the stone age" and not have troop presence on the ground.
The admin. can already claim some victory. Amedinijiad's party lost badly in their midterms. We may yet have regime change without firing a single bullet..
To defend ourselves we can take whatever action the President would send the military on.
Shoot....as long as it takes Congress to do anything, and as fast as we win the ground campaigns in these kinds of affairs, we could have their nuke capability destroyed before congress could even decide on a title for their sure-to-fail, probably unconstitutional repeal.
"I don't see how you could know that"
The siren song of "little birdies" again?
Tie their pensions to their ability to keep their mouths shut.
Any way to find out if they got their stars under Clinton's watch?
That filibuster-proof group of Senators will evaporate if Bush goes off half-cocked against Iran.
"There are roads which must not be followed,Besides that, there is the constitutional question of whether congress can undeclare a military authorization.
armies which must not be attacked,
towns which must not be besieged,
positions which must not be contested,
commands of the sovereign which must not be obeyed."
-- Sun Tzu, The Art of War, 7.3
Congress has the sole power to declare war, to levy an army and navy, and to regulate said entities. It's pretty clear they can.
>>"I don't see how you could know that"
That reference has specific meaning in context, since they've been utterly (and very publicly) wrong before.
If true, that sure is a sad statement of affairs. I thought the US was the "last superpower". Doesn't sound much like a superpower to me...
If we don't have the military might to take the fight were we see fit, then I suggest that we have been mis-spending our Federal Budget for a long time.
But again, isn't it amazing how so many will whine and moan about our options in the world - including military, yet offer no answers or solutions. The "best" most offer is more negotiations, which really means capitulation. We see how well that has worked in North Korea. Iran continues to enrich Uranium, despite our and the UN's empty threats of sanctions. They know we won't completely cut them off - the world needs their oil and we "cannot afford" the massive price increases that would come with such a cut-off.
For the same reason that I really don't have much faith in an actual attack on Iran. Unless Iran actually has a bomb and maybe even tests/uses it, we won't attach them in the remaining Bush years. The following years, if we are "ruled" by a Democrat, will be marked with passive isolationism - at least until the second term of said liberal is marked by a swearing in in Arabic (or Spanish, or both!). But by then, the population of the US will be unarmed, waiting in line for simple medical care (thank you Hillary-Care socialized medicine), and paying the highest taxes ever known to the US.
But oh well...
>> That filibuster-proof group of Senators will evaporate if Bush goes off half-cocked against Iran.<<
We cannot afford any half cocked war anywhere right now. But in terms of what country is doing the most to support global terrorism that would be Iran - we dont want then find Hamas and Hezbollah and also having nukes.
>>
Besides that, there is the constitutional question of whether congress can undeclare a military authorization.
Congress has the sole power to declare war, to levy an army and navy, and to regulate said entities. It's pretty clear they can.<<
That is an excellent point/question. Does anybody know how formally declared wars have been ended in the past? Is it by the executive only or is congress involved?
It isn't that I don't think your more intelligent then the rest of us but when you use the handle "Pukin Dog" it can be a little tricky !!!
>>That reference has specific meaning in context, since they've been utterly (and very publicly) wrong before.<<
I apologize - I did not catch the reference.
There it was, at the end. The clue that puts the screws to the whole story. Remember that bunch of scumbag Democrat generals who were putting their names on various "letters" of protest against the Iraq war? This whole story is a fake news story.
5.56mm
There is no statement that Congress can undeclare an in-process war.
They can get us started, but once in the field, the security of the US is in the hands of the Cdr in Chief.
You're wrong about the Republican Senators siding with Mitch McConnell. They will solidly stand beside the president.
And, like I said, we want to take out a capability Iran possesses. We dont' want to nation build. Israel took out Iraq's capability a couple decades ago, and it took them a long time to get back to where they had been.
Interestingly, Mossad is also active. They've been killing off Iranians key to the nuke program. That's one way to slow it down.
It looks to me as if Iran is about to take a serious ass whipping from the USA if they don't soon wise up.
Our partners who are countries which most Americans long ago fled from simply do not have the sac to maintain.
The U.K. media is FOS by the way. No American General would ever cut and run in the fashion that they are intimating.
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.