You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack
2007-02-25
SOME of AmericaÂ’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.
................
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.
Posted by:Steve

#4  CNN Pert > When OSAMA BIN LADEN and Radical Islam attacked America on 9-11, whether intentional or not THEY PUT = FORCED AMERICA ON THE PATH TO GLOBAL EMPIRE-DOMINATION. OSAMA > own words > will do anything to bring about the defeat and destruction of the USA. IOW, OSAMA > 9-11/WOT > NOT MERELY ABOUT HURTING THE USA, ITS ABOUT KILLING = DESTROYING THE USA ONCE AND FOREVER.
KRAUTHAMMER > SAY IT WID ME, LEFTIES, FFFFFFOOOOOOOORRREEEEEEVVVVVEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRR, F-O-R-E-V-E-R, aka PERMANENTLY.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2007-02-25 21:09  

#3  Dubya & Admin have already said that a direct attack on Iran is not their intention. As said or argued before, iff Radical Iran gives credence-support to a "Mahdi/Jesus in Spring" scenario, Moud & Mullahs + Radical Islam in general will suffer ideo + internat humiliation iff no Appearance occurs; or else the Mahdi-Imam is more hi-tech, "Las Vegas" PC magician than divine Personage. Its one thing to claim beguiling divinity, its quite another to de facto remove or destroy the USA-Allies/West from the ME as per the demands of contempor Radical Islamism. CIA FACTBOOK/WIKIPEDIA/OTHER > we're roughly already partially thru the Spring period for Iran and still NO MAHDI-IMAM. RADICAL IRAN > MUST EITHER ACCEPT CONTAINMENT, I.E. "LOSE FACE" BUT NOT POLITICAL POWER [YET?]; OR ATTACK TO DIVERT ATTENTION. IMO Sadr in Iran, Mullah OMar in Afghanistan, + reports of 000's-0,000's of new fighters gatherng for new offensives in ME + Africa leads me to conclude that Radical Islam intends to attack, ala do-or-die, all-or-nothing WW2 "Banzai/Kamikaze" style. SURE, RADIC ISLAM = IRAN CAN PLAY THE "WAITING GAME" FOR AFTER 2008, BUT THEIR CREDIBILITY WOULD BE ALL BUT DESTROYED, WHILE THE USA'S INFLUENCE IN THE ME GETS STRONGER BTWN NOW AND 2009 WHEN DUBYA LEAVES OFFICE.

In addition, RUSSIA-CHINA > their anti-US, "War is not only Possible but Desired" scenarios allegedly may begin as early as Year 2014, or EARLIER VV NORTH KOREA-TAIWAN CRISES, etal. Anti-US agendists in Russia-China will prefer the USA be econ and mil weakened AMAP by then. SUM - THE SOONER IRAN-NORTH KOREA/TAIWAN, ETC. CRISES TIE DOWN AMER'S VOLUNTEER ARMY + ENDOWMENTS-RESOURCES IN PROTRACTIVE REGIONAL WARS, THE BETTER FOR RUSSIA-CHINA. WAR ZONE = BATTLE ZONE = LOCAL ZONE = ASSASSIN'S MACE anti-US strategems > based on "Take-and-Hold" Active Defense suppor by IMMEDIATE NUCLEAR-WMD REINFORCEMENT AND GEOPOL NUCLEAR ESCALATION. Russia can't suppor the above wid out INF missle forces. which it will want to legally re-dev and re-acquire as PC counter to US capabilities.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2007-02-25 21:01  

#2  They've read McMaster's book. . There's at least 6 out of the 1,000 flag officers who might resign if we got into a pre-emptive war with Iran. Remember that general who'd commanded a division in Iraq an then had problems sleeping so he whined to the WaPo? I can't even remember his name now. So what? They wouldn't stop any action and frankly, I'd be happier with them out of the military rehashing the good old days on CNN than in the Pentagon leaking to the WaPo. So have at it.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2007-02-25 20:08  

#1  A) I call BS. US military commanders do not get to call the shots and they damned well know it. That call lays with the US CIC who is the President and they are bound by their oaths to follow his orders.

B) US military commanders are, by and large, warriors way before they are politicians. If they're politicians and they feel forced to resign, the POTUS can refuse their resignations and fire them instead thereby destroying their careers and pensions.

C) I say, if any of them choose to resign, so be it. We don;t need the political commanders these days, we need the fighting commanders.

Posted by: FOTSGreg   2007-02-25 19:46  

00:00