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.
This got me fired up, but the first 8 posts have it covered.
Exactly, we want names. Earn your keep Generals. You have the best and brightest behind you.
If the United States, one on one couldn't beat Iran in a military confrontation then we're not the Super Power we claim we are. Iran is a two bit Islamic country trying to leverage it's oil money to become a nuclear threat and that's about where it's most dangerous.Sitting on our hands and waiting for them to do that is stupid beyond comprehension and if a few Admirals and Generals have a problem with this reality DUMP EM !!!
Names please...
what happened to following orders, no one is asking for thier opinion this is comming from the commander and chief. what if your men were questioning your orders. oh thats different. retire now murtha clones move aside and let the real men kick some butt
If these alleged "five generals" had any honor, they'd call a news conference, while in uniform, tomorrow. They would expose every single detail of every plan, and then throw their stars (and pensions) at the TV cameras. That would be the only way to prove their seriousness. They could still earn a nice living as a military consultant with the cable networks, or the RAT party.
After all, what is a career and a pension compared to the life of a single grunt that serves under you? My own suspicion is that these cowards, if they really exist, won't say a word until they see that the direct deposit of their pension checks has started.
"Firing Squad".
Bush had best think long and hard before going off half-cocked against Iran. The worst thing he could do, while struggling with two wars, would be to pick a third. We have neither the troop strength nor the will to win.
I'll even say this - if Bush starts a third war, he will be, without a doubt, the worst President this country ever had - surpassing even the cowardly James Buchanan. This country cannot afford a third war to satisfy the neo-conservative delusions of American hegemony.
What happens when "Private Jones" takes this stance?
I have a lot of trouble believing that anyone who's kissed ass as long and as hard as it takes to make O-7 would have the spine to resign on principle.
Good. Quit now. Good riddance.
More like a conversation over cheap bourbon between Peter Arnett, Christine Amanpour and Helen Thomas was overheard in a Georgetown watering hole.
Those idiots will disrupt a perfectly good psyops campaign with these anonymous leaks! Which side are they on fer cripes sake! It is in our national interest to know who these weak sisters might be and get them out of positions of authority if we are to survive.
Clintonistas in the government cannot, by LAW, be fired if they are under civil service protection or if they are uniformed military. Only people who hold positions which are political appointments can be fired. Most of your mid level people (and ALL of the military) are protected by the civil service law.
Highly paced sources? Name them spigot head!
The British still do not seem to have learned their lesson in the intervening years since 1776: when a general leaves its a good sign, we have dozens in the ranks ready to step in, none of whom are Clinton appointees.
Donchaluvit when the Euroweenie liberals start getting weak knees. Dubyah's sabre rattling has got them as nervous as a burqua clad Islamic virgin on her family arranged wedding night! She knows there's incoming but not where its gonna hit! The front door or the back?
Lay it on Dubyah! You are doin' a great job!
"Quit or retire????"
Maybe we can borrow some 'real' generals from Israel.
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.