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.
Hey generals resign now!!
There are currently about 875 active duty flag officers in the US military.
Hehe.
Then when someone more liberal than "W" fills the White House the same thing should be done? Wise up.
This line is an absolute joke, disinformation, or absolute BS. The current crop of journalists must think the American people are very gullible or at worst complete idiots.
I don't think you are correct. Under the GWHB and Clinton administrations, thousands of military personnal were fired to lessen the force numbers.
According to highly placed defence and intelligence sources, monkeys could fly out of my butt.
forgot to mention if their resignation is refused they can be court martialed if they refuae to obey orders lol
This smacks of a Colin Powell sour grapes special.
Colin Powell was the number one leaker when he was around in the first administration and it he constantly boasts of "his contacts" in the pentagon.
These generals sound like the paper pushers like weasley clark and his jimmy carter ilk.
I'm seriously confused over this issue and wish the people in power would stop spreading stories of this nature, it simply upsets people. If the damn generals don't like their jobs, let them quit and turn over their generous salaries to the government. As an American taxpayer, I'm tired of pandering to these crybabies. Nuff said.
"Anyone deserting the fort will be shot. Anyone encouraging anyone to desert will be hanged." - Colonel Munroe, Last of the Mohegans.
HOW many are 6 generals out of all we have at the Pentagon? If Bush knows who they are, he should ask for their resignations on his desk immediately.
We can't have a stable Iraq with the Ayatollahs in power in Iran or the Baathists in control in Syria. In America, overall policy decisions, for better or worse, are made by an elected executive - the President. If it was good enough for Washington and the Continental Congress, it should be good enough for these clowns - whoever they are.
Chances are most of them are "political generals" who oozed their way through the ranks the same way most politicians rise to the top, instead of fighting generals anyway. So who cares?
They should be shown the door and immediately discharged.
That isn't firing. Certain groups or classes were allowed to leave when their term was up. Some categories had their time shortened, but that isn't the same as firing.
All Clinton appointees, no doubt!
They're the only ones with the flappy jaws.
This is a blivet of epic proportions.
The problem is the Jimmy Carter years allowed an influx of paper soldier where were thare for the security of a no war government pension.
Then you have the clinton years where their first job done on the military was the don't ask don't tell effort to homosexualize and quota queen social experiment the military.
I would imagin, it will take to 2012 for the fake soldiers who enrolled in 1992 to work their way to pensions.
I also suspect these paper generals are with zero chance of qualifying for a promotion and so a protest retirement is rather meaningless and a way to stab at the White House for their not getting the promotion they feel entitled to recieve to courageous paper pushing.
If they were REAL men on conviction they would also refuse their pensions.
anyone under consideration for general should have their political views investigated before being promoted. Those who are already generals should have the same done, and the ones deemed unreliable should be kicked out.
I believe the USSR tried that policy. Don't think it worked too well for them.
Well we're all entitled to our own opinion sweet cheeks but here's a truth. Three wars,five wars or fifty wars,one of the most potentially dangerous countries as far as the USA is concerned is Iran NO QUESTION. These crazy bastards given nuclear weapons would not only seek to destroy Israel,but would use any chance they had to hit the US also. If we or the Israelis or both combined don't do something about this pain-in -the-ass country soon,I believe we will regret it bigtime !!!
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.