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.
I would bet the farm that all of this tripe is brought to you by: the Democrat party of the USA.
Be sure to lay to rest the question of we prefer diplomatic dialogue and state that the question is in the context of Failed talks that were managed by Kerry, Kennedy and Hillary.
Not true. The Army and Navy (and Air Force) exist only with the consent of Congress. If Congress saw fit, all could cease to exist tomorrow.
I wonder what they will be writing if Iran is able to transport a small nuke to one of our cities and murder hundreds of thousands of people?
Well, I can dream, can't I ?
"Does anybody know how formally declared wars have been ended in the past?"
America's formally declared wars have ended upon the unconditional surrender of the other side.
The GWOT, and OIF are not congressionally declared wars, as I understand the term.
But you can relieve them of their command in put them in charge of the Honor Guard in Alaska.
It is true. Commander in Chief means exactly that once in the field, the CinC gets to decide how to utilize them.
And we both know that the Congress is not going to cause the Army and Navy to cease to exist.
It would be terrible dereliction that would drive any supporting such stupidity from office.
And, of course, there's the fact that such a thing would have to survive the entire legislative process, to include a presidential veto. It would never be over-ridden. Ever.
Why name names, when one can just cite "a source".
Barbarism taints everything about such a nation, its actions and motives. I say stomp it out because if it gets nuclear weapons, it WILL use them barbarically. It's not like this is anything new -- Western civilization became what it is by centuries of stomping into submission such backward societies. You gotta be ruthless sometimes to maintain freedom. And freedom, it appears, needs constant maintenance.
"...neo-conservative delusions of American hegemony."
he·gem·o·ny
1. leadership or predominant influence exercised by one nation over others, as in a confederation.
2. leadership; predominance.
3. (esp. among smaller nations) aggression or expansionism by large nations in an effort to achieve world domination.
Would you do me the favor of telling me which of the above definitions you were referring to in your post #72?
Thanks in advance.
Yeah. Right.
Actually, there are around 450 Flag-rank officers spread across all services. Forty two are 4-star.
Army chiefs are worried about a possible rise in oil prices? This is the lamest story I've read in a while.
Do the Generals have the courage to put their names on the same page saying they will quit and present their intentions now.
That way they could quit now and save us paying their Pensions.
Seems I remember McArthur told President Truman, how the war should go, and Truman fired him.
Iran already is a failed middle eastern state. Iran in fact is the poster child for what failed states become: a "terrorist aircraft carrier."
GOOD!! WE NEED TO GET RID OF THE REST OF THE DEAD WOOD AT THE PENTAGON!!
Let the whining babies quit!!
Throwing out the 'dead wood' once in a while is a good thing.....
What are you smoking? - The President has the executive power, and the congress cannot remove it. They can attempt to defund it, but that also requires the President's signature. The Constitution state that the congress has the power to raise up armies, but strangely does not discuss any power to eliminate them. The armies exist to carry out the CINC's orders, until he requests that the congress disband them. BTW, FDR's executive order of martial readyness is still in force, and the President can use it at his pleasure.
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.