US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack

#1
Interesting piece by ARRSE's mikesmith,

Times online said:
US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack

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.

Cont/...
 
#2
If this is true (and I'm waiting for confirmation) then it sounds as if the planning process at the Pentagon is in full swing. It would be interesting to see what level these generals are at and what positions they currently hold.
 
#3
They might be resigning sooner than they think:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1253147,00.html

Iran 'Prepared For War'
Updated: 11:17, Sunday February 25, 2007

Iran's deputy foreign minister says its country is prepared "even for war" if the row over its nuclear weapons programme is not resolved.

And the country's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has also warned there will be "no brake, no reverse gear" on nuclear fuel work.

At a conference in the central Iranian city of Isfahan, minister Manouchehr Mohammadi told the gathered audience: "We have prepared ourselves for any situation, even for war."

"If they (the United Nations) issues a second resolution, Iran will not respond and will continue its nuclear activities," he said.

Meanwhile, President Mahmoud remained defiant his country's over nuclear technology.

"Iran has obtained the technology to produce nuclear fuel and Iran's move is like a train ... which has no brake and no reverse gear," he said in a presidential address in Tehran.

The UN issued sanctions on Iran in December over its nuclear work, which the West fears is aimed at building atomic weapons.
Now where did I put my tinfoil hat catalogue?
 
#4
Recce19 said:
"Iran has obtained the technology to produce nuclear fuel and Iran's move is like a train ... which has no brake and no reverse gear," he said in a presidential address in Tehran.
Rather unfortunate turn of phrase considering recent events.
 
#5
hehe missed that. Does that mean we can derail their intentions :plotting:
 
#6
Enriching uranium on embankments could be dangerous to your health?
 

Nehustan

On ROPS
On ROPs
#7
I think the crucial difference here is that the Generals look at the satellite IMINT for Iran and shiver, while George gives a whoop and says 'Come on boys we can win this'
 
#8
In other words with Bush in charge, common sense will not prevail.
 

Nehustan

On ROPS
On ROPs
#9
mistersoft said:
In other words with Bush in charge, common sense will not prevail.

Well Dubya has a world view, I think it ultimately derives from Daddy being a Company man. Its not that he doesn't have common sense, to be honest he knows what cost it will have, its rather he's prepared for a lot bigger loss than currently suffered to secure said worldview, especially when it comes to a small slither of land and current inhabitants in the Eastern Med.. They are, in their minds, far too far down the wrong fork of a Y junction to backtrack (i.e. their bed is made). Their best bet, in their mind, is to push on to cul de sac, and force a way through....
 
#11
Crazy_FOO said:
Typical Sunday Times load of balls
Agreed. However, if the article is true the Pentagon has no commanders just staff officers. If a half dozen staff officers resigned there would be no impact on operations. Also there is a difference between retirement and resignation. By resigning they would give up their pension which isnt a likely prospect.
 
#12
whitecity said:
Interesting piece by ARRSE's mikesmith,

Times online said:
US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack

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.

Cont/...
I really don't understand the logic that George Bush is applying to the Iran situation. I understand that he believes that Iran is supporting attacks on american forces in Iraq. So he understands that Iraq is being destabalised by some Iranian insurgents-or so he says.

So his cunning plan is to launch an attack on Iran.

Yet if Iran is attacked then the rise of Iranian insurgent attacks in Iraq will increase tenfold-does he realise this. His generals may be threatening to quit because if the attack goes ahead and the situation in Iraq becomes even more dangerous for American soldiers then it will be they-the American generals who will have to plan on how to deal with the massive increase in attacks.

Surely an attack on Iran will recruit many, many, more insurgents. So all the present work at bringing stability to Iraq will fly out the window the moment the air strikes on Iran begin. looking at the bigger picture- would any reasonable 'tyrant' launch a nuclear weapon knowing that as soon as he does his own nation will cease to be.
 

Nehustan

On ROPS
On ROPs
#13
Let me do a brief analysis for you 'Might is Right'. With the awesome capability of the US Forces he's willing to play a last man standing gambit. Simple really as I alluded to in my earlier post.
 
#14
Gen Pace has gone on record saying that it would be a bad idea to strike Iran
 
#15
Chief_Joseph said:
Gen Pace has gone on record saying that it would be a bad idea to strike Iran
The last revolt of flag officers was by the Navy in 1949 over defense unification. Usually if someone no longer wants to serve they retire. If the President decides that Iran's nuclear facilities need to be attacked then it will happen. Only after the fact would you see retirements. No one that I know would favor an invasion of Iran but few have any qualms about an air campaign. There may be doubts about the ability of airpower to get all of Iran's dispersed facilities but there are no doubts about being able to at least delay their program. Any air campaign as I have posted before will involve striking Iran's high value targets - nuclear facilities,IRG, air bases, naval bases and ballistic missiles. There are alot of targets but the mission format would resemble the one used against Iraq both in DS and OIF. I suspect the window of opportunity for offensive action will be sometime in the spring to early summer. After that its too close to the primary season. I hope military action wont be necessary but Iran has shown no interest in aborting their nuclear program.

http://www.afa.org/magazine/perspectives/0588revolt.asp
 
#16
The problem is T6 , we can't just hit their suspected enrichment facilities can we?

We can't expect to arbitrarily bomb them and not expect retaliation. We can't commit an act of war and not expect them to at least make a show of defence and counter-attack, as will be their 'legal' right.

So that will mean hitting and attempting to neutralise their Navy , Army , Air Force , possibly mining the Shatt-al Arab and Iranian Ports, cutting their lines of communication etc etc etc, all with the interntion of stopping a massive conventional retaliatory attack.

Of course there's the 5th column, alleged to exist in quantity , because of the reports from the US of IRG running riot.

So do we expect to hold 200K + Iranian human waves with what we have in-country?

So, a substantial troop surge will tip the Iranians off we're about to do them a spot of no good.

Then there's the massive refugee problem , as Iranians look to get out not knowing the level of the action , and Iraqis flee from the areas that look most likely to get the odd Persian Regiment arriving for tea and sweet cakes.

Amanspellingmistake is not likely to take any bombing of his country lying down , and I can't see the Persian people asking him to do it either, they're attacked, they fight. Saddam already proved that maxim

I can't understand why people think that an attack on Iran will not escalate. It's incredible, how can you think that attacking a country like Iran will not provoke a massive conventional response?

How can people be thinking that a 'limited' strike will be taken on the chin?

If you're going to go down this route, you'd better be prepared to hit everything that can possibly launch a hostile response.
 

Nehustan

On ROPS
On ROPs
#17
PartTimePongo said:
The problem is T6 , we can't just hit their suspected enrichment facilities can we?

Just as a quick note, you might easily hit the ones you can see. Thing is here's a little titbit for you T6; this is Persia, the place is pretty old. If you think the cave complexes in Afghanistan posed a problem, Persia will be a whole different story, tactical nukes or not. I'll bet you a bluey that enough centrifuges are so deep the only way would be in a Heroes of Telemark type raid (said before about a year ago), and given your track record in Iran (re: hostages) you don't have the staff.

Oh and did I mention the blood curdling oaths that probably go with knowledge of their local Hades?
 
#18
Nehustan said:
Let me do a brief analysis for you 'Might is Right'. With the awesome capability of the US Forces he's willing to play a last man standing gambit. Simple really as I alluded to in my earlier post.

. . . would that be the same awesome capabilitiy that was going to establish democracy in a heartbeat in Afghanistan and Iraq, and which has been struggling to keep its head above water for at least the last three years - or is it just the one in Dubya's (bourbon damaged/born again fundamentalist) head?
 
#19
PartTimePongo said:
So do we expect to hold 200K + Iranian human waves with what we have in-country?
Get the Iraqis to gas them like they did before. :x
 
#20
T6 actually had a point initially. *shudder*

All this report means is that a bunch of Cols found themselves suddenly becoming tumescent as they read their newspaper and chewed on their cornflakes this morning.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Ford_Prefect Officers 44
T Military History and Militaria 28
X-Inf The Intelligence Cell 6

Similar threads

Latest Threads