London Times: "U.S. generals 'will quit' if Bush orders Iran attack"

[Peace Patriot]

I was just stunned by this article, and I don't know how prominent it has been here at DU, or whether it got into "Latest Breaking News" in time--but I'm re-posting it, in case anyone has missed it.

--------------------------


From The Sunday Times
February 25, 2007

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."

(MORE)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq//article1434540.ece?Submitted=true

--------------

Posted earlier by Bosshog (where I learned of it), but not many people noticed:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3136578

[soothsayer]

1. they should resign over Iraq already....

[ClassWarrior]

2. Wow. That's big.

NGU.

[BOSSHOG]

3. A rather telling tale of the leadership skills of our great leader

Everything he has touched for 60 years has turned to shit. Thank god his mother has a beautiful mind and doesn't notice such things.

I spent 24 years in the canoe club and never ran across an Admiral or a General who wasn't thoroughly impressive. They get promoted the old fashioned way, the earn it. bush on the other hand, throws that wonderful flag waving patriot katherine harris a bone.

Love to see a couple Generals approach the white house and chuck their stars over the fence. Wow, who would the flag wavers support then?

[Donnachaidh]

4. Bush can then play Captain Queeg in public

does he have his silver balls to play with? :evilgrin:

[Peace Patriot]

5. I'm not sure Bush has the intelligence of Capt. Queeg (to get into emotional/

psychological conflict), and, although Cheney may have the intelligence, he doesn't have the conscience. You have to have some sort of bottom line grounding in ethical behavior to suffer the sort of breakdown that Capt. Queeg suffered. The critical issue, in military command, as with military command of our nation, is what "checks and balances" are there to prevent the insane or the conscienceless, or the stupid, from issuing insane, conscienceless or colossally stupid orders?

At the moment, all "checks and balances" seem to be in a very precarious state. Someone upthread said, why don't they just go ahead and resign (Iraq is reason enough)?-- but, if they do, they may leave toadies and yes-men in place--people promoted by these insane/conscienceless and/or very stupid leaders. I'm sure it's not an easy decision. Do they abandon their responsibilities, and wash their hands of the matter (Pontius Pilot)--or do they stick it out and try to keep the nation safe in these circumstances, and try to prevent catastrophe?

Further down in the article, we find this:

"Hillary Mann, the National Security Council’s main Iran expert until 2004, said Pace’s repudiation of the administration’s claims (re Iran interfering in Iraq) 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. " (emphasis added)

I think some day--if we survive all this--we may learn the stories, now unheralded, of people in this very bind, in the military and other positions of responsibility, who stuck it out and did their courageous best on our behalf, and on behalf of others in harm's way.

[Johonny]

6. I wonder if there is a chart

Of resigned generals over the last say 20 years. Is it me or has the US burned through an usually large amount of it's senior officers the last 4 years.