Thread: US generals ‘will quit’.....

US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack

Michael Smith and Sarah Baxter, Washington

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, forcing Bush on the defensive.


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.
According to a report in The New Yorker magazine, the Pentagon has already set up a working group to plan airstrikes on Iran. The panel initially focused on destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities and on regime change but has more recently been instructed to identify targets in Iran that may be involved in supplying or aiding militants in Iraq.


However, 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 be drawn into any American conflict with Iran, regardless of whether the government takes part in the attack.




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.

Can military commanders simply "resign" from duty?

I don't think so.

^ Real ones, no. But when you're talking about a Hollywood army, it seems they can.

resign commission yes, however that being said a resignation has to be accepted

So, this is insubordination, the generals are traitors, threatening to desert.

Where's the link?
Looks like unsubstantiated gossip to me...

Sunday Times (on line) Boonie.Do a google,I can't be arsed at the mo...

I could only find this article, which is related:
Fears grow over Iran-News-World-Middle East-TimesOnline

Please do add the link, Little Chuchok.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling...media gone wild; aside from the absence of political will, the US does not have the military capability for more than a mosquito strike against Iran, and why should they stir the nest anyway when the Israelis are so much closer and also more motivated?

^when the time comes it will be Israel who make the first move if it comes to that.
Ahmadinejad's strongman rhetoric is likely to be wearing a bit thin inside Iran.

Originally Posted by stroller

I could only find this article, which is related:
Fears grow over Iran-News-World-Middle East-TimesOnline

Please do add the link, Little Chuchok.

It wasn't exactly hard to find...

US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack-News-World-Iraq-TimesOnline

^^ On the contrary, the whackjob will resort to the usual fingerpointing and waving of the jihad flag, which will result in more peaceloving Muslims being recruited to the jihad, and of course calls from the usual suspects bringing our attention to the flood of new terrorists created by Israeli aggression.

I think Iran would be more than happy to pick a fight with the Americans and kick their ass for the arab world to see. It would definitely be the end of the American empire.

If I was them, now would be the best time to pick a fight. Everyone would point the finger to the US and Israel. Priceless.

Jr is so stupid that he will fall for the trap.

True, and they're baiting with impunity...US options are limited.

Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot, and the Iranians possessed the firepower to annihilate the USA. Would they use it?

There will be a time when all those tomahawk missiles will have to be used before they reach their expiration date.

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot, and the Iranians possessed the firepower to annihilate the USA. Would they use it?

That's right, our enemy would attack and destroy us if they could, so we are not only justified, but obliged to annihilate them first.
Is this what you're trying to imply?

Probably not, but knowing our enemy would attack and destroy us if they could, and that he has stated the desire to do so, then at some stage common sense must override high falutin principles to ensure he does not have that capability, under any circumstances, even if it means breaking the law, infringing rights, or otherwise stepping on sensitive toes.

Originally Posted by keda

Probably not, but knowing our enemy would attack and destroy us if they could, and that he has stated the desire to do so, then at some stage common sense must override high falutin principles to ensure he does not have that capability, under any circumstances, even if it means breaking the law, infringing rights, or otherwise stepping on sensitive toes.

Back on topic, as an ex-military officer myself I have fairly strong views about professional soldiery, and I am no ones hired Thug.
Were I in the armed forces of the US, UK or Australia when Iraq was criminally invaded, my resignation would have immediately followed.

Out of interest, were you in the armed forces of the US, UK or Australia when religious terrorists illegally bombed civilians you are sworn to protect, what would you do then?

I was an Australian naval officer keda, but resigned in the '80's.
Whilst I would not say killing anyone is a pleasure, eliminating scumbag terrorists out to kill innocent people would come close to it.
But that has nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq, does it?

"My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of the higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military." Gen. Smedley Butler (USMC Ret.)

Originally Posted by keda

The sky is falling, the sky is falling...media gone wild; aside from the absence of political will, the US does not have the military capability for more than a mosquito strike against Iran, and why should they stir the nest anyway when the Israelis are so much closer and also more motivated?

Actually that's not entirely true ... whatever carrier with it's 75 + aircraft is closer to Iran than Israel is and if there are 2 carriers in the area then well over 150 aircraft. And probably well over half of them are F/A-18 Hornets. But the EA6Bs would go in and jam the fuck out Iran first. And it only takes one EA6B to knock the lights out of the entire state of California. I've heard though that the Russkies recently sold some new air defense equipment to the Arab wannabees. They'd probably like to see if it works.