Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack
The Sunday Times (U.K.) ^ | 02/25/07 | Michael Smith and Sarah Baxter

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.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: barbrastreisand; bravosierra; disinformation; duncanhunter; generalpace; generalsrevolt; gramsci; hillarymann; iran; iranrumormill; mann; mutiny; pentagon; perfumedprinces; peterpace; treason; unnamed; unnamedsources
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260261-267 last
To: PhilDragoo

Time to arm with Resolve and Kick Darius's Ass![Iran].....Gates of Fire....Persia must Fall!


261 posted on 02/26/2007 3:57:21 AM PST by Parrot_was_devastating
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

Always listen to experts.
They'll tell you what can't be done, and why.
Then do it.

LAZARUS LONG


262 posted on 02/26/2007 5:19:54 AM PST by HuntsvilleTxVeteran (Vote for RINOS, lose and complain by sending a self-abused stomped elephant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Any general with that mindset should be retired now.

Ditto that. GWB should interview each one in turn and ask for their commitment to follow orders. Any doubt or hesitation should be met with an immediate relief of duties.

263 posted on 02/26/2007 6:44:20 AM PST by TChris (The Democrat Party: A sewer into which is emptied treason, inhumanity and barbarism - O. Morton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: oneamericanvoice
Actually you want Generals to resign if they feel the mission cannot be accomplished with the resources so apportioned orif some aspect of the mission is not militarily sound.. far different that agreeing or disagreeing about the mission itself.

Thats not what these guys are doing ... They are directly engaging in political theater as Generals(If they exist). That is clearly unlawful under the UCMJ..

The problem here is with 900 some active Generals and Admirals you are going to have percentage that will disagree with every action just due to the sheer numbers. At less than 1% of the total number they are statistically meaningless.

If a General resigns because he does not believe a mission can be accomplished properly due to tactical or logistical considerations which are correctable and after requesting they be corrected that is not done.

That's legitimate and honorable.


These Generals (if they exist) are resigning ostensibly because they disagree with the mission. That is no more lawful than Watanabe's Baloney, no difference.

W
264 posted on 02/26/2007 3:09:34 PM PST by WLR ("fugit impius nemine persequente iustus autem quasi leo confidens absque terrore erit")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: WLR

I was never in disagreement with you. Isn't it funny that the "generals and admirals" weren't named....I, too, don't believe they exist. However, as you pointed out, there will always be those that disagree with the way a mission is carried out. When I served, as did my Father and Mother, I would never have expressed such sentiments publicly.


265 posted on 02/26/2007 5:43:10 PM PST by oneamericanvoice (Stand up for America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup

Yep, the B.S. meter is definitely on TILT.


266 posted on 02/27/2007 2:33:19 PM PST by rdl6989
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: AmericanInTokyo
"One thing is for sure, and we would be stupid not to learn from our mistakes.

If we DO attack Iran, we damned well better have the facts 100% incontrovertibly right, our intelligence rock solid, and such a massive, quick and unmerciless plan of attack, mop up and occupation/reconstruction that any remaining Iranian Revolutionary resistance will last no longer than a fortnight at most, rather than nearly four years of bogged down, garrisoned, IED, guerilla warfare and suicide bomb attack crap like we've had now in Iraq, which has facilitated a major split in the country and fed the likes of anti-patriotic, anti-troop CNN.

Our troops deserve it. Victory, absolute and unconditional at that, or don't go in at all. "

What you said.

267 posted on 02/27/2007 2:36:48 PM PST by OKSooner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260261-267 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson