McCellan threatens to resign if ordered to attack Richmond!
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.
Really, how many Generals and Admirals retire each year? Probably more than this article suggests will "quit" if Bush orders an attack on Iran.
The article is a propaganda piece and nothing more.
I don't know if they love it so much. I think it's more that if you have a hammer in your hand the whole world looks like a nail.
I heard it said this way. When anyone leaves an organization it's like throwing a rock in a pond. When you throw a rock in a pond it makes waves. The bigger the rock the bigger the waves, but eventually everything smooths out and it's like the rock never existed at all.
No, I'm telling you that 'Wall Street' (in the generic sense of all world markets) influences world policy as a whole. Surely you're not going to tell me you believe that this nation's foreign policy is completely decided by a few ideological idiots in Washington. Ideological wars breed more terrible wars (i.e. Wilson's mistake created the foundation for WWII). I thought you were brighter than that.
Note I'm not talking about conspiracy crap. Just sensible businessmen that help open back channels in crisis situations to alleviate threats to peace. Yes there are some businesses that thrive on war but unlike 300-400 years ago there are many more that require peace, however shaky, to continue trade. If this nation went off bombing anyone that disagreed, while that would make the fringe happy, it would also be a right mess and there wouldn't be many markets for our product.
LOL! The hammer and the world looking like a nail reminds me of a neighbor who got a big ride mower and just mowed everything in sight.
This account has been banned or suspended
I could put together a better battle plan, than our current crop of so-called military leaders...
McCellan threatens to resign if ordered to attack Richmond!
“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.”
So, that will be the excuse to attack Iran?
"Its the Press that wants an attack on Iran..they keep talking about it!
You got that right!
And we dummies are contributing to it.
Im not a dummie!
Epiphany: I just answered my own question.
Maybe if you google "Pukin Dog" or 'VF-143' you wont feel that way.
"...It's time we recognized the nature of the conflict. It's total war and we are all involved. Nobody on our side is exempted because of age, gender, or handicap. The Islamofacists have stolen childhood from the world." [FReeper Retief]
"...That the totalitarian force pitted against freedom wears a religious makes this civil war among mankind all the more difficult to engage. Loving freedom as we do, it seems reprehensible to deliberate against a religion. But this is no ordinary religion as it demands absolute obedience of all to their religion at the cost of freedom itself." [FReeper Backtothestreets]
Indeed. Know-how and can-do combined with what's the hold-up?
Which means someone from the Times closed a bar with Joe Wilson.
Are generals allowed to quit? What principle allows them to quit when we throw lower ranked people in jail when they go awol during conflict?
The generals will fight if ordered by competent civilian authority to fight. The generals I have known do not relish the death and destruction of war and seek to minimize it as much as possible. That means fighting smart and hard. To paraphrase Patton, they would rather expend a bucket of sweat to save a pint of blood.
If there are generals opposed to intervention in Iran (and there may be) their option is to resign and clear the way for generals who will, if it comes to that. If they don't resign they will be fired.
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.