Generals threaten to Quit if US attacks Iran?

welsh

welsh

Junkmaster
So apparently not everyone in the DOD is happy with Bush.

US Generals "Will Quit" If Bush Orders Iran Attack
By Michael Smith and Sarah Baxter
TimesOnline

Sunday 25 February 2007

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."
Click to expand...

Should these guys-
(a) get fired
(b) get greater consideration?

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.
Click to expand...

SO do you -
(a) Trust Iran
(b) Get ready for North Korea 2

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.
Click to expand...

Ok, are the Iranians supplying insurgents? Is what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs merely trying to reduce pressure to get aggressive with Iran?

Because someone is feeding these militants guns and money. I would bet its the Saudi money going to the Sunni and Iranian money going to the Shites.

Isn't that kind of obvious?

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".
Click to expand...

Military advisors?

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.
Click to expand...

All that said, one of the problems pre 9-11 was that the Pentagon was not willing to do anything serious to hit Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Every time the Clinton White House went to the Pentatgon they said it could only be done with an major deployment to Afganistan. So the DOD is often rather passive abotu getting involved in wars.
 
1) the USA doesn't have the capacity for such a war (but Israel might try a bombing run anyway).
2) of course it would backfire on american soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
3) the world wont stand for an american preemptive strike. (pretty much all diplomatic credit that the americans have left would be gone)
 
SuAside said:
1) the USA doesn't have the capacity for such a war (but Israel might try a bombing run anyway).
2) of course it would backfire on american soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
3) the world wont stand for an american preemptive strike. (pretty much all diplomatic credit that the americans have left would be gone)
Click to expand...

If Bush gave a shit about any of the above he would never have invaded Iraq
 
It'd be rather amusing if the USA did, in fact, invade Persia. It'd give them a continuous warzone about the size of Europe, full of hostile radicalized opposition on what's probably one of the worst terrains in the world to keep the peace on.

Can somebody say 'Imperial overstretch'? Not that the USA'd lack the resources to stay there, of course - but I doubt public opinion would carry it.
 
I don't think turning the whole middle east into a continuous stretch of warzone would be anything "amusing".
 
Wooz said:
I don't think turning the whole middle east into a continuous stretch of warzone would be anything "amusing".
Click to expand...

peacenik!

Honestly- the Pentagon was fucking useless before 9-11 in getting Osama Bin Laden. If it is unwilling to fight in Iraq, then perhaps we might just as well disband the army and use it for something more productive.
 
welsh said:
peacenik!

Honestly- the Pentagon was fucking useless before 9-11 in getting Osama Bin Laden. If it is unwilling to fight in Iraq, then perhaps we might just as well disband the army and use it for something more productive.
Click to expand...
Something is missing here :scratch: In My Humble Opinion, it was pentagon's will that Osama Bin Laden stood unarmed before 9-11. More than that, even. It IS pentagon's will that Osama Bin Ladan stays unarmed even know, at least in people's mind, because it's very unlikely he isn't already dead...

On thing seems VERY clear to me, at least: the true motives of everything any government does are rarely leaked to the public. I.e., we only know what they want us to know, and thus we (most of us) only think how they want us to think... This may be anything new to many of you, and also, it's probably plain supidity to the rest... Anyway, it's my opinion, and I don't consider it "baseless". But i'm going going to develop it here.

Back ontopic. I understand the urge to "protect" western civilization, but doing so at the cost of inocent lives is just wrong. Even more when there are no certainities... Why don't US send a splinta cell team to kill some key individual? Or agent 47? :twisted:
 
It is always interesting to me. How only those with the inability to look into the future blast all current events. I think that H. G. Wells said it best " Those fools. I told them what would happen." As the blinding blast of a million suns sent them all to the final goodnight.
 
well, according to French intelligence (lawl) their operatives had Osama in their crosshair twice in Afghanistan, but didn't receive clearance from the US to take the shot. (french troops are under US high command in Afghanistan)

to be honnest, if i were one of those snipers, i'd probably have taken the shot anyway.
 
to be honnest, if i were one of those snipers, i'd probably have taken the shot anyway.
Click to expand...

Yea cus if you hadn't you would go nuts like the dude in jarhead :ugly:

On topic: For five generals to make that kind of threat must mean something must be very fuck up in the relations White House - Pentagon - whatever. I mean its probably in the same category as treason in those circles to say something like that.
 
SuAside said:
well, according to French intelligence (lawl) their operatives had Osama in their crosshair twice in Afghanistan, but didn't receive clearance from the US to take the shot. (french troops are under US high command in Afghanistan)
Click to expand...
No. Some journalists claimed that happened, and the French military denied it.

A simple search on "Bin Laden: The Failings of a Manhunt" will give you all the available information.
 
of course they'd deny it... but anyway, we'll never know.

what's up with the namechange btw?
 
From what I can piece together, which isn't much as the documentary hasn't been released yet, the key piece of evidence on the part of the journalists is a voice recording of a French Special Forces soldier admitting this happened. Of course, they have to keep his identity a secret.

Give me ten minutes and I'll have my own recorded interview with an anonymous CIA agent admitting that the CIA, in collusion with the KGB and the Mafia, assassinated JFK. Give me a few days and I'll have the same, but well researched.

The burden of proof is on these journalists.

As for the name change, I became weary of Kotario.
 
A number of centuries past, my paternal ancestors traveled from German regions to Hungary, where they resided until the nineteenth century. I am distantly of German heritage, which makes it more appropriate that 'Kotario,' which was Japanese-esk. Besides.
 
Tannhauser said:
From what I can piece together, which isn't much as the documentary hasn't been released yet, the key piece of evidence on the part of the journalists is a voice recording of a French Special Forces soldier admitting this happened. Of course, they have to keep his identity a secret.

Give me ten minutes and I'll have my own recorded interview with an anonymous CIA agent admitting that the CIA, in collusion with the KGB and the Mafia, assassinated JFK. Give me a few days and I'll have the same, but well researched.

The burden of proof is on these journalists.
Click to expand...

True -and TBH I haven't got a clue about it or care about it- but I wonder about the "The burden of proof is on these journalists." part.
Do you mean that no government would try to hide the truth and only journalists lie?
I don't trust journalists at all,so don't mistake me for standing up for them,but I don't trust any government to state the truth either...so as far as I'm concerned it's up to both parties to prove the other one being faulty and their own statement to be correct.

Anyhow,kudos to these generals that dare to make a statement that has more weight behind it than some protesting mom in a tent in front of the white house will ever have...(unfortunately)
 
Not sure about the French shot. I know that the US has possible shots at Osama prior to 9-11.

(1) there was a missile strike at a terrorist camp, which managed to kill a lot of folks but not Osama. Apparently Osama had left the camp before the missile struck. Not sure if he was there when the missile was fired.

(2) Osama used to visit one of his wives in a complex outside of Kabul. But it was never certain that he would be there and there was evidence of children being present. Also Osama's apparant house was near a medical complex (I think). The US could never really confirm when Osama was there and, given the flight time of a cruise missile, could never be certain that he'd be there when the missile went off- kill lots of people including children.

(3) Osama had a habit of hanging out with Persian Gulf guys going falcon hunting. This is kind of a tourist business- with rich guys going from the Persian Gulf to Afghanistan to hunt for a few weeks. Osama was in the habit of stopping by to do a bit of fund raising. The problem with the hits were- (a) no one was sure when Osama was there, (b) no one could positively ID Osama when he was there, (c) the collateral damage would have been on the royal family of some important US allies- people whom the US had negotiated base rights in the region. Should these people have been killed (regardless of whether the US got Osama) then it might have put US presence in the Persian Gulf at risk. That was too high a price to pay.

(4) The US did have a group of Afghanis watching for Osama but they never got close enough to take a shot. Over time it was believed that these guys were not taking many risks and were unreliable.

(5) At one point the Pakistanis were training a team to go after Osama. The same tean was meant to protect the Ruler of Pakistan. Along came a coup and the team went like dust in the wind.

So there were a number of opportunities to "get" Osama with a limited strike, but there were always problems.

Alternatively the Clinton administration asked for a real Pentagon plan to go after Osama. Essentially the US wanted a special operation group to get Osama. But the Pentagon wasn't helpful. They kept saying that such an operation would require multiple army divisions, carrier battle groups, etc. In fact, the Pentagon withdrew two cruise missile subs from the Indian Ocean that were supposed to launch the shot on Osama essentially at the first chance they could.

Oh and then there was the Predator Drone project- a highly expensive project in which a missile equipped drone would search and destroy Osama. The CIA essentially ran the project but it was very expensive. The richly endowed Pentagon was not very interested in it.

A lot of people blame Osama on Clinton- who was somewhat squeamish about taking political risks- killing civilians, the family of allies, based on dubious evidence. But one could be critical of the Pentagon for providing few options, a criticism leveled by a lot of insiders against the Pentagon.

Seriously, if the Pentagon can't come up with a cheap way to whack one terrorist leader, than why do they get so much fucking money?

OH as far as the Generals and Iran- apparently there was a threat of massive resignations if the US used tactical nukes on Iran- this was big in the news last summer and so that issue and possibility doesn't seem to be on the board anymore. A good thing, I think.
 
Tannhauser said:
A number of centuries past, my paternal ancestors traveled from German regions to Hungary, where they resided until the nineteenth century. I am distantly of German heritage, which makes it more appropriate that 'Kotario,' which was Japanese-esk. Besides.
Click to expand...
well, because japanese references are kinda cool and german is just, well, sucky. :)

but blade runner is definately cool, so ok. ;)
welsh said:
(2) Osama used to visit one of his wives in a complex outside of Kabul. But it was never certain that he would be there and there was evidence of children being present. Also Osama's apparant house was near a medical complex (I think). The US could never really confirm when Osama was there and, given the flight time of a cruise missile, could never be certain that he'd be there when the missile went off- kill lots of people including children.

(3) Osama had a habit of hanging out with Persian Gulf guys going falcon hunting. This is kind of a tourist business- with rich guys going from the Persian Gulf to Afghanistan to hunt for a few weeks. Osama was in the habit of stopping by to do a bit of fund raising. The problem with the hits were- (a) no one was sure when Osama was there, (b) no one could positively ID Osama when he was there, (c) the collateral damage would have been on the royal family of some important US allies- people whom the US had negotiated base rights in the region. Should these people have been killed (regardless of whether the US got Osama) then it might have put US presence in the Persian Gulf at risk. That was too high a price to pay.
Click to expand...
not everything has to be done with 80.000$ smartbombs... a 1 dollar bullet out of a Barrett or a McMillan .50 cal will take a fleshy target out just fine, and has equal range to any laser aiming device needed for your smartbombs. ;)

hence the collateral damage is but a bullshit statement. if you have a marine force recon, SEAL, army rangers, whatever type unit there capable of lasing the target, you can just as well take em out with a bullet. (extraction will be hard, but that's something they're used to)

and if as you say, any of those units is unable to identify Osama on sight, well, maybe you'll need to rethink your whole 'elite' army units... because half their missions involve locating and identifying individuals.
 
Correction. Marine Force Recon is not supposed to get into firefights...

Army Rangers are pretty much the same as the 82nd airborne, only with different insertion methods. They are at the same level, I've been told.

Navy SEALs would do something like that, I presume.

Army special forces (Group 3 or 5 I believe?) have had the most impact on Afghanistan out of all types of special ops.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top