| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| (up to 5) US generals 'will quit' if Bush orders Iran attack |
| 2007-02-24 |
| 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. There are about 875 flag officers currently serving in the US military. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #14 I believe that Iran is not Iraq and that we have to take more things into consideration if we decide to go after them militarily. Iraq when we invaded was a toothless tiger. Most of it's capabilities were diminished from.... 1. The war with Iran 2. The first Gulf War 3. Approx. 10 years of economic sanctions 4. Ethnic and political divisions from withen Iran is the complete opposite of what Iraq is before we finally invaded and finished them off in March 20'th 2003.First point is that Iran consists mainly of Shia population that are extremely nationalistic and ideologically driven. An attack on them would more than likely unite them with the mad mullahs and it will probably strengthen their theocracy. Iran has never invaded a country or declared war on another nation other than Iraq and even in this case it was in self defence. For the last 25 years they have been producing sophisticated weaponry that can in no way stand up to American fire power but can be used to take on America in assymetric warefare. Iran's geograpy gives it that capability where it can use it's mountainous terrain along the coast of the Persian Gulf to launch attacks on oil tankers and America's 5'th fleet using its land based anti ship missles that can pretty much reach any target in the Persian Gulf and all of the Straight of Hormuz. If Iran even succeeded in stopping the shipping in the straight for lets say a week it would have economic reverberations around the world. It also has the means to unite all the Shia in Iraq and than America will find its self in an all out war over there. They also have Hizbollah rearming itself and an attack on Iran would probably result in another Lebanon-Israel war. As a result of this, it will create so much tension and hatred in the rest of the Arab world that possible coups or revolutions may occur and America may lose more of it's allies in the region such ass Egypt, Jordan, and it's main ally Saudi Arabia. All in all, their are just too many variables to take into account when dealing with Iran militarily. As a result of this it may be concievable that some american generals would resign over this because they may not want to be responsible for yet another quagmire in the region. |
| Posted by: Darkydark 2007-02-24 23:56 |
| #13 I am sceptical of this story's main contention but it does contain a grain of truth - the stakes involved in stabilizing Iraq are very high as it would free some of our forces for implied action against Iran, as well as possibly permitting us a regional base on Iran's doorstep. At this time our ability to project force by land there lags our sea and air capabilities, but we may need a conventional deterrent a couple of years in the future when the "critical mass" point of Iran's nuclear weapons development program is reached, or even beyond if Iran does succeed in its nuclear ambitions and a containment strategy is called for. |
| Posted by: Sic_Semper_Tyrannus 2007-02-24 23:52 |
| #12 Just plain old bullshit. Another skum sucking Time anti-military and Bush article. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2007-02-24 23:08 |
| #11 When a yournalist says that the number is "unprecedented" should they not consider the Civil War copperheads? |
| Posted by: Captain America 2007-02-24 23:04 |
| #10 “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.” lets see "Journalists re-"rote" the war in Vietnam, slandered every Soldier, Marine, Navy and Airman who ever served since then and we're supposed to believe anything they say. Lol! Brit "Journalist" are even worse. |
| Posted by: RD 2007-02-24 22:51 |
| #9 Good riddance. We do not need political generals. |
| Posted by: SR-71 2007-02-24 22:40 |
| #8 I don't think that the crews are timed out at Diego Garcia. We could use a couple of resignations in the Clintonion Clique of generals. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2007-02-24 21:37 |
#7  The alleged objection, that our forces are stretched too thin for this and therefore not capable of carrying it out, is nonsense. An operation to eliminate Iranian nuclear capability would involve forces that have not been heavily engaged in either Iraq or Afghanistan: long-range bombers and various missile forces, possibly including SLBMs with kinetic energy warheads. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2007-02-24 21:34 |
| #6 It's BS. |
| Posted by: anymouse 2007-02-24 21:28 |
| #5 Anonymous sourcing, allegedly from a foreign intelligence-defense establishment. Add a dash of Murdochian tabloi-faire and you have a story like this. But Rupert would reply: "Hey, you read it, didn't you?" |
| Posted by: mrp 2007-02-24 21:21 |
| #4 Do they have names , because it would be nice to know which G's won't follow orders if given. |
| Posted by: Flolumble Elmuling1667 2007-02-24 21:18 |
| #3 If they do, those are the ones who should be retired, so that's all right with this little civilian housewife.... whose opinion doesn't matter to those who make such decisions. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-02-24 21:07 |
| #2 Any 'source' the Times quotes is probably from Pinch Salzbergers office. |
| Posted by: Phineter Thraviger 2007-02-24 20:58 |
| #1 Dunno, but this smells like bullshit to me. With a faint whiff of wishful thinking, too... |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2007-02-24 20:57 |