US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack

[Snowden]

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.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece

[las47032]

Generals and admirals say they will resign if Bush oders an attack on Iran, guys, don't let the door hit you in the a$$!

When they took the officers oath, - Joining the Military - Military.com means these men do their duty as ordered to do, not what they feel like doing at the time or chose what war to fight.

Are they to create conflicts or are they to win conflicts?

Are they tasked to win a war? Who do they work for? Themselves or the President?

[ptco911]

Those senior officers that are unwillling to follow the orders of the President should be shown the door. There are many in our command levels that are truly gifted leaders and there are those that permeate the defeatist attitude that is festering within our country. War is not an answer to everything, but backing away liking cowering beaten dogs isn't either. Maybe a military strike isn't possible at this time, but to openly let our enemies know this is and can be disasterous. This has been created by the politicians in our country and the unwillingness of the American people to follow through on what is necessary to win this war. One of the first things President Bush said following 9/11 was that this would be a long war. If the senior officers of our military can't stay the course and follow the President, how can we expect the military as a whole to continue?

[Woodmonkey]

The two posts above me said what I feel, so I can't add to it except this question. What's with this business of leaking these things to the press instead of being professional military leaders and being loyal to their CinC. If they have so little faith in him, they should resign quietly - emulate the example that General Colin Powell gave when he couldn't abide President Clinton's actions. Has anyone heard Powell talk about that?

[Shooterman]

It is patently obvious that under the system of Chain of Command we have, the Senior Officers are wrong.

It is also just as patently obvious, to anyone with an IQ greater than their shoe size, and I have to presume the potential enemy would fall within these parameters, we would be sorely pressed to declare war on Iran and to attack them. We are woefully short of manpower, materiels', and moolah.

Not only does AlmondNutJob, Little Son Fool Do, ( of course we've temporarily bought that little bugger off ) and anyone else we may be eyeballing daggers at, know this, but so does President Bush, so instead of quietly minding the store, he has decided to escalate the 'War of Words', possibly hoping the 'Boogey Bear' will quietly go away.

It seems we find ourselves, mostly due to our own mistakes or ineptness, in a pickle barrel. If we do need to take out AlmondNutJob, we seem to be very much less capable than we may have been four years ago.

It's as if the Board of Directors ( voters ) put the CEO ( Mr Bush ) on notice this past November, that possibly in two years, not only he, but his entire crew ( PUB Congresscritters ) will suffer dire consequences, in less now, than two years. It matters little the DIMS will do no better. They don't have to. The CEO must now perform.

We can but hope the 'surge' works, but I for one, have doubts.

Yes, the Generals and Admirals are wrong and need to be ferreted out and cashiered, as Truman had to with MacArthur. It will not alleviate the problem now facing us, but will re-establish the sanctity of the Chain of Command.

[Caldric]

I would have to hear them say it to believe it. This smacks of pre-emptive propaganda to me to either make it look like the military no longer supports Bush or that an attack on Iran is bad news. I think an attack on the weirdos would be a bad move but I don't this happening myself.

[ptco911]

I don't believe Bush is planning to attack Iran. We have been wargaming this scenario since the fall of the Shah. It is an every changing scenario will continue to be planned for and wargamed. As far as the surge, I hope it works also and wish those that want it to fail would go to France or somewhere that supports defeatism. I for one don't. I am afraid however that the "surge" is about two years too late. The miitary is now tired (including the additional troops going in), the equipment is in need of major refit and our resupply of ordinance is questionable.

The thing we definitely don't need is politics in the upper echelons of the Pentagon and we damned sure don't need for them to air their disagreement to the media!