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.
Any officer is free at any time to submit a offer to resign. It is up to the president or service secretary (depending on grade) to decide whether to accept the offer.
“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. “
the headline of the article makes it sound like all US Generals want to quit, and the Liberal sheeple who don't read the articles and just the headlines will believe it
I am sure that was the exact intent of the headline. Without
names how can you vet a story? This, "according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources" claim cannot be verified. The entire story could be made up.
What bunch of p***ys these General are
unnamed sources
Our military generals understand the threat from a nuclear-armed Iran better than the vast majority of Americans or Britons. Our generals know that we are much better off dealing with Iran now than dealing with Iranian nuclear weapons later.
not sure what your point is regarding the impact oil prices would have on the US if they doubled or tripled. Also while an oil embargo by VZ would be an unfriendly act and they could be considered allies of Iran (chavez might actually say so openly he is bull-headed enough), this does not mean (in the real world) that any military action would be taken against him.
Not sure what cowardice has to do with not agreeing with every single word you write, unless it is a debate tactic to make up for not responding to points you are presumably responding to.
re asking if i am a traitor - he who protests too much might have something to hide. To use your own questions, are you a coward or a traitor, or secretly under the pay or direction of the enemy? Does this sound like a ludicrous question to you? It is pretty much a repeat of what you wrote to me.
you don't show a single hint of a clue about economics, the US economy, the role of debt in our economy, and what sort of really bad things can happen to a spring wound as tight as ours is, aside from crying 'traitor' and 'coward.'
the problem is not if you are right, it is if you are wrong. No plan survives contact with the enemy, and it seems likely Iran has put a lot of thought into the best way to screw us on this topic (str. of Hormuz).
You're right...those quotes and threats of resignations are most likely from imaginary unnamed sources. But I'm sure the Pentagon is opposed to a full-scale invasion and regime change, although Bush has no intention of doing a full-scale invasion anyway.
Most likely this story is based on opposition in the Pentagon to a full-scale invasion of Iran, which is not going to happen anyway. Nobody is going to resign if we have to launch airstrikes and limited raids with ground troops.
Michael Smith and Sarah Baxter likely used each other as the un-named sources...
We in the internet are experienced in the old media tricks of fake photos, photoshopped photos, staged photos...as well as faked memos from Dan Rather to this...
>>Philosophically speaking, it seems to me that Congress' power to Declare War necessarily implies the power to rescind such Declaration. Congress can rescind any Law it passes.<<
Hmmm I guess that's correct.
I still want to research whether congress has had previously to acknowledge/approve the end of wars. It will diminish congress' power to declare war if the military and/or the President could end the war without their involvement.
>>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.<<
There are some additional practical considerations
1. Hopefully there would be an enornmous backlash against a congress that cut funds while we have troops in the field
2. Presidents have always held that the war powers act is unconstitutional but they have never challenged it.
3. Alone or in coordination with #2 there is Presidential Impoundment. Starting with President Jefferson, many Preisdents have claimed the constitutional right to not spend money the way congress authorized it. Usually this was done because the spend was no longer needed - like if a war ended more quickly than expected or a program was able to finish its job with money left over. President Nixon tried to impound almost 20% of the budget congress responded by passing the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 but its not a constitutional amendment so if the President had that authority before then this law couldn't really take it away.
#2 and #3 would likely end up in the supreme court.
Maybe that will rid us of the Clinton appointed generals which may not be a bad thing after all.We could only hope.
I think I will send them a note that some generals had misgivings before we spanked the Island Monkeys in the Revolution.
Any military can be relieved of their position and reassigned to some other "more pressing" duty.
Probably every three and four star now serving started flag rank under Clinton.
You are forgetting...that was before we had Powerpoint...that's where the requirement for the other 600 flag officers came from.
The WH says there are no intentions of attacking Iran. Why does the MSM keep hyping this?
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.