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.
ROTFLMSOPIMP
Perhaps some of the most gayest quotes from an unnamed source as I've ever read.
The UN is a fart in the wind, only recognized by other farts in the wind.
ROTFLMSOPIMP?
I'm guessing that "LMSO" is a cleaned-up version of "LMAO".
Yes, it's "laughing my socks off"; I don't do "dirty", not even in just initials.
OK girl, but I'm sure that you don't PIYP either.
The President would have to fly the bombing missions himself to avoid leaks.
No, I don't, but that's the phrase and I couldn't figure out how to change that part of it.
Of course, a method to mislead the Iranians as to our real intentions would be part of the strategy.
"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."
I don't think anyone doubts this. What I found doubtful is if the administration is so dismissive as some are of the varied things Iran *might* be able to do to screw with our (and for that matter the world) economy, including whatever capability they have in the straits of hormuz, terror cells operating in the US, and any number of other unpleasant things they have doubtless already considered. I know there are some here who say some or all of this is impossible or unimportant, but I don't think the administration, aside from the legal and political angle, wants to put the debt-laden (consumer and government) US economy into a tailspin with xxx$ oil and who knows what other items might occur. Unlike bloggers, the executive branch is actually responsible for consequences like this.
In other words, consequences work both ways, and it is hard to imagine Iran not doing everything in its power to bite back where it will hurt the most.
his points about oil price spirals are spot on, and he didn't mention the possibility that sympathetic regimes (specifically venezuela) might shut off sales to the US as well.
the consequences of oil doubling or tripling from here would be quite bad for our economy as well as pretty much everyone else's.
Let's see some names.
"socks"
"party dress"
The Strait of Hormuz can be cleared in under 15 minutes while central Tehran and the nuclear facilities will take 25 or 30 years.
Practically speaking, Congress' power over the Purse means that they can formally cause a President to desist from any military action the instant they so legislate. The President cannot spend one dime that Congress does not approve. No money, no military action.
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.