Click on the woman, maximize the image,
check the bombs displayed on the strut, and
Mahmoud Rat Boy, picture YOUR NAME HERE
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.
To right, mop 'em up in Iran then onto North Korea. In fact while on the way relieve Pakistan of their nuclear capability too. After all they supplied Iran and North Korea with the equipment to process the nuclear material. Come to think of it who let them(the Pakistanis) keep their bomb in the first place? Oh yeah, the Bush administration. I'm clearly confused.
Perhaps it was a misunderstanding, as well as the vagueness of your original post. Now, that you have written in a more detailed manner, of course I agree with you.
"The attack on the Pentagon DID NOT BRING WASHINGTON DC TO A HALT."
I was in downtown Washington DC between the White House and the Capitol on 9/11. I don't know what you experienced but I can personally testify to panic in the streets as terrified commuters fled the city, causing a massive traffic jam. The confusion and fear on the street was palpable. People were shouting to get on buses, acting irrationally. A high-level individual in our organization caused a scandal by abandoning his female associate on Capitol Hill in a rush to get out of there. Our building was on lockdown and we were told to be prepared to spend the night as noone knew what was happening or what other attacks might occur.
General John Kerry and General Michael Moore...
The purpose was to allow the military and public safety personnel easy access to any other sites of possible attack.
I was here. I obeyed orders. I was back at work the next day at 6 AM.
Looking back on the post I agree it was a bit vague. But I have to say I still believe those we are talking about have had enough and will seek to achieve a diplomatic solution to Iran through back channels. The possibilities that it could have on the markets are too dire to be allowed to move forward unchecked. I would say most likely something of the order in North Korea but the differences are large enough between the two nations (prior humanitarian and food supports to NK from our government that Iran did not enjoy as one example) that it may be something else. That being said, I see Iran coming out of this with some form of nuclear capibilities (borderline peaceful/military). Which begs the question does the US government allow the Iraqi government to eventually achieve the same standard? Secondly if Iraq is truly a sovereign nation as US officials claim will it really be any of our business?
Personally I think NATO is in Afghanistan more because of Iran than because of Al Qaeda. We could have destroyed Al Qaeda's bases in Afghanistan and then left rather than NATO staying there. I think we stayed there to use Afghanistan as a base for quick raids against Iran over the next 20-50 years if that kind of action becomes necessary.
Mutiny? No, that would make them appear to me martyrs for the glorious cause of Peace. Instead charge 'em with Conduct Unbecoming An Officer. Hold Court Martials reduce 'em in rank and discharge 'em with extream dishonor.
Put a nasty lil stain on their service record to show everyone what worthless cowards they are.
Bust 'em down before booting 'em! You don't get to pick and choose wars! This isn't a buffet! Insubordination is punishable under the UCMJ no matter what rank! This is conduct unbecoming an officer.
Actually, we are talking staff officers here, and their resignations would not be considered desertion. Nazi officers were convicted at Nurembourg for saying they had to follow certain orders. The judges said no, they should have resigned. Of course, the Third Reich would have considered such a resignation a shooting offense, on the spot, I would imagine.
American staff officers who don't care for an operation should resign, we don't want them around anyway.
All that said, the article is complete BS, so none of this matters, other than as something to discuss.
Now field officers is a different story, in that case you would be correct, it would be a court martial offense to attempt to resign in the field upon being given an order.
Of course, it wouldn't be desertion. But insubordination at the very least. I agree that we wouldn't want them around anyway. If they want to put conditions on their service, then demote and discharge. Or refuse their resignation, and send them back to officers school.
Should Iran be "allowed" to have some kind of nuclear capabilities, Saudi Arabia, Qatar (sp?), the United Arab Emmerits, Kuwait, will all want to go nuclear as well. They are all sacred of Iran and the Mullahs.
It really isn't up to just the USA. The BIG BOYS in the nuke club, all think that they should have a world or three about who else has them too. Remember the "noise" about India and Pakistan, when each got nukes?
Are sure that is a good idea? What happens if a democrat wins in 2008?
Who keeps saying that we are going to invade Iran? My bad MSM, GW has never mentioned this but according to Iranians we are at their front gate. This is so stupid.
But there's no need to invade Iran. We can stop its nuclear weapons program and cripple its economy with air strikes and some spec ops and Navy on installations in the Gulf. Why would we invade?
Huh? When you retire, you request retirement. You don't just quit. When you are retired you are subject to recall to active duty in time of war. These nameless Generals need to review the oath they took.
Our troops deserve it. Victory, absolute and unconditional at that, or don't go in at all.
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.