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.
There is great danger lurking....
A land attack on Iran is out of the question. Topographical maps of the region show the impenetrable north-south mountain ranges that would have to be traversed by any invaders. Easily defensible, a nightmare for armored columns. Vastly different than mostly flat Iraq. The plain fact is that, caught in the Iraq quagmire, there are not sufficient forces available to attack Iran. Naive Pentagon planners projected that by now only 5% of U.S. troops would still be in Iraq!
That leaves a bombing campaign as the most likely option. The smart money says the Israelis will finally run out of patience and do the job themselves (As they did to Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981). It will be the opening salvo in WWIII, for if there is one thing that will ignite the Muslim world it is hated Israel attacking Muslim people and soil (Realizing this during the Gulf War I, the U.S. exerted extreme pressure on Israel to prevent it from retaliating against the Scuds).
Muslims worldwide will protest and ignite civil unrest in protest of the Israeli attack. Countries like Britain and France with large Muslim communities will see riots in the streets.
The Iranians will strike back. Where else but all the fat targets in the narrow Straits of Hormuz? All it will take is one ship/oil tanker sunk by a missile or mine for insurance rates to skyrocket and shipping to effectively cease. That's 40% of the world's oil shut down, not to mention enraged Arab nations turning off the spigot and shutting down production - deja vue 1973 after the Yom Kippur war.
With the cost of gas doubling and tripling - when it can be found - the U.S. economy will sink into recession. At the same time we will see increasing terror attacks by Muslim fanatics on our soil and against U.S. interests worldwide.
I work in Washington DC. All it would take is a couple of backpack suicide bombers on a couple of metro lines during rush hour to paralyze the nation's capital for days and weeks. Simultaneous attacks in several cities would cause unimaginable panic across the country. Throw in a few massive car bombs in downtown metropolitan areas, letter bombs and suspicious white powder showing up in the mail, the kidnapping and videotaped beheading of a few pro-Israeli public figures or vocal Muslim critics, and you have national pandemonium. The amazing thing is how easy it would be to pull it off.
Overstretched, facing economic distress and terrorism at home, the U.S. military will be compelled to avenge its (inevitable) naval losses in the Persian Gulf, and would become bogged down in attacking Iran. Other principal global players will weigh in - the Russians and Chinese - given the stakes (world oil supply). And you can bet that they will use any opportunity to topple America as a premier world power. Incessant demands by the Muslim world that Israel be "punished" will reach fever pitch, accompanied by escalating violence that threatens to engulf nations.
The whole world, it will seem, will be in the grip of confusion, fear, and uncertainty about what lies ahead. As was prophesied long ago: "In that day there will be Great Tribulation."
Indeed!
It's kind of amusing that they'd even print a story surrounding unamed generals, which of course means that the story can't be verified. I'm not hasty to use the word "propaganda" but this certainly qualifies.
Believe what you will, I could care less. But it's apparent the nation and a growing number of prominent Republicans, either on record or behind the scenes, are tired of another endless war on a noun. There is only a very small percentage that would support military action on Iran if they sat down and thought about it. Just because you sit in an echo chamber of 'bomb 'em back to Mecca', etc. doesn't change the fact that the Iranian situation will be resolved diplomatically
That presupposes that Iran has any intention to allow anything to be resolved. I see no evidence of that liklihood. Iran is ideologically driven to seek total dominance of the crescent, and that cannot be resolved diplomatically.
Grand B.S.
Surprised it is not coming from Kerry it is so extreme.
What do you think it is when you still have time left on an enlistment and you are informed that you are being discharged? You're fired just as certainly as the Chiefs and Petty Officers were when I was in the Navy and the Navy told them they were being forced to retire to make room for younger men to move up and remain in the service.
Are you sure the issue is political views? Considering how the military are already overstretched, maybe these guys don't want to send troops into a battle where they'll be outnumbered and short of supplies. I can remember the bomb shortage during Vietnam. I wish some generals had stood up to the Secretary of Defense back then.
>>
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.
<<
Yes, what I wondering was who, if any, were the civilian signatories accepting the surrender.
And you are, of course, correct that this is a congressional war powers act approved military action instead of a formal war. But I wondering about how wars end to try to extrapolate if it should even be possible for congress to end a war (or combat action, in this case).
I think congress would argue that since the War Powers requires the President to report no "less often than once every six months" that it means they are entitled to do something about it if they don't like what is reported.
I'm also pretty sure the President would argue the other way since all Presidents since 1973 have taken the position that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional and that they have just chosen to not force the issue.
Hey fella...on this web site, we have given up on the UN. The UN looks out for itself and world socialist domination which make the UN an enemy of all free people in the world. The UN can go to he!!
No need to repeat it, but a couple of backpack bombs on the Metro at rush hour would kill a lot of people but we are a tad tougher than folks guess.
I arrived at the Metro station in Springfield EARLY on 9/12 just to get back to work as soon as possible and see what I could contribute to the war effort.
We even had some Democrats show up as well ~ not all of them found their knees turned to jello.
And yet failure to accede to UN resolutions is a reason consistently given by more than a few posters for the police action in Iraq. Curious....
This is Eurotrash wishful thinking. They made it up out of whole cloth.
This is Eurotrash wishful thinking. They made it up out of whole cloth.
BUT .. the DBM never mentions that it could very well be the Lunatic from Iran that strikes an attack first
I think the story is BS.
"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."
Five oh Humanatee!!! 5 FIVE!!!!
Out of NINE HUNDRED 900 Admirals and Generals (roughly)
Of which 800 need to be Fired/Retired NOW!!!!
Our Forces today roughly *
"Approximately 1,371,533 personnel are currently on active duty in the military with an additional 858,500" reservists" **
10 Divisions
126 Combat Ships (rough)
14 Aircraft Carriers
0 Battle ships
27 Crusers
56 Distroyers
29 Frigates
In WII
300 Generals and Admirals (roughly) Commanded
15-17 MILLION!! MEN ***
91 Divisons (67 Infantry 16 Armored 5 Airborne,2 Cav,)****
2000+ Combat Ships Total
100 Aircraft Carriers
23 Battle Ships
100 Crusers
1000 Distroyers
*
http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/usa/surface.htm#cv
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_United_States
day.
***
http://www.army.mil/CMH/lineage/cc/cc.htm
****
http://www.historyshots.com/usarmy/backstory.cfm
If someone has better documented figures and would be so kind to share I will be happy to refine the numbers.
Oh good grief...The London Times is spreading more lies, I see.
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.