West Point graduates are on guard and standing for no war in Iran. The
generals have said their would quit if Bush orders military to go to war with
Iran.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
****************************************************************************************
WPGAW <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
Published on Sunday, February 25, 2007 by the Sunday Times/UK
US Generals Will Quit If Bush Orders Iran Attack
by Michael Smith and Sarah Baxter in Washington
SOME of Americas 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 dont 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.
Paces view was backed up by British intelligence officials who said the
extent of the Iranian governments involvement in activities inside Iraq by a
small number of Revolutionary Guards was far from clear.
Hillary Mann, the National Security Councils main Iran expert until 2004,
said Paces repudiation of the administrations 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 Irans 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
Rumsfelds handling of the Iraq war said he hoped his former colleagues would
resign in the event of an order to attack. We dont want to take another
initiative unless weve really thought through the consequences of our
strategy, he warned.
© Copyright 2007 Times Newspapers Ltd
###
---------------------------------
Finding fabulous fares is fun.
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel
bargains.
