US generals 'will quit' if Bush orders Iran attack

The Sunday Times ^ | FEB. 25, 2007 | Michael Smith and Sarah Baxter

[George Creel]

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.

[George Creel]

WE'LL BE FORCED TO DRAFT SOME NEOCON 'GENERALS' TO RUN THE SHOW! THEY KNOW BEST ANYWAY....

[MittFan08]

If they want to resign, don't let the door hit them ...

[oceanview]

let's get the list - so they can all be fired immediately.

in my opinion, part of the problem Bush has had in iraq - has to do with the generals - guys like Abizaid - have done poorly.

[Stars&StripesNE]

I notice it didn't name any Generals. "sources say" is all we can go on.

Is Doug Thompson working in the UK now?

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

The President, as Commander in Chief, is their commanding officer, isn't he?

Would this be considered insubordination?

[xrp]

The story cites "4 or 5 generals/admirals". So...4-5 out of how many hundred?

[John Jorsett]

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.

So, the newspaper knows " a source" who knows some folks in "British intelligence" who know of "four or five" "generals and admirals". Fourth-generation anonymous sourcing is sure good enough for me.

[mylife]

Iran is unlikely to be directly attacked.
this is just sensationalism.

We have Iran surrounded and the international pressure is mounting. There is no need for a strike as of yet.

Europe has far more to lose from Iran tha we do

[ShawTaylor]

Powerline has a better take on this idiotic story than I:

"So we have at least three layers of anonymity between us and the story's headline. Unknown American officers allegedly have told unknown counterparts in British military or intelligence circles that they will resign, and these unidentified persons allegedly passed the word to an anonymous "source with close ties to British intelligence." There is a word for this sort of fourth-hand information. It's called a "rumor."

Apart from references to other news stories, the Times quotes just one person by name: Hillary Mann, who repeats her oft-stated fear that the Bush administration intends to provoke an armed confrontation with Iran. Mann and her husband are both career bureaucrats who quit their jobs in a huff because the administration wasn't following their preferred course of negotiating a "grand bargain between the United States and the Islamic Republic." You can read about their battle against the administration on the Democratic Party's web site."

http://powerlineblog.com/

Essentially, this London Times story is based on nothing more than the insane rants of a notorious Bush-hater, going by the name of Hillary Mann. It's worse than useless.

[BluH2o]

I notice it didn't name any Generals. "sources say" is all we can go on.

This is conjecture by the media attributed to nonexistent sources ... poppycock, pure poppycock.

[theBuckwheat]

This may not be a bad thing. Recall that loony leftist Wesley Clark was a general.

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu9QxFuJF._8A0oJXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB2b2gzdDdtBGNvbG8DZQRsA1dTMQRwb3MDMQRzZWMDc3IEdnRpZAM-/SIG=11tjs1maa/EXP=1172531121/**http%3a//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark

[ShawTaylor]

"poppycock, pure poppycock"

Exactimondo!

[Sprite518]

I highly doubt this is true. Nevertheless, if true, then I do not see how the Generals think its better to wait for Iran to attack first.......

[Phlap]

US generals would attack their mother if ordered. You don't make general without commitment to following orders. This same kind of BS floats up when ever action looms. But it is BS.

[bray]

Why don't they do us all a favor and quit now?? Oh yeah, cushy pensions.

Pray for W and Our Troops

[jrooney]

You are right it is a small number because there are hundreds literally between the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, so this sounds like 1% BIG DEAL. They are losers and their comrades would gladly assist them to the door. If we find the need to attack Iran, we will by Air and Sea with missles. This is just posturing by the left wings factions to try and save Iran from being attacked. It WILL NOT STOP AN ATTACK, IF ONE IS NEEDED.

[oh8eleven]

[Perdogg]

http://www.macsmind.com/wordpress/2007/02/24/michael-smith-bs-alert-2/

[navyguy]

This is just another liberal media outlet trying to gin opposition to self defense.

[Bulldawg Fan]

"US generals 'will quit' if Bush orders Iran attack.....We hope"

I just completed the headline for the newspaper, expressing their true feelings.

[hinckley buzzard]

I think generals are allowed to resign if they want to. And if they can't support their nation's foreign policies, then they should do just that..

[SandyInSeattle]

Let them go.

[Dallas59]

NAMES PLEASE....

[traderrob6]

"let's get the list - so they can all be fired immediately."

Really, the last thing we need is the miltary elite attempting to overide civialin authority by picking and choosing what battles they choose to be involved in.

[jrooney]

Thank you. Mac is always a must needed stop in the blogsphere.

[cll]

"in my opinion, part of the problem Bush has had in iraq - has to do with the generals - guys like Abizaid - have done poorly."

General Abizaid is a fine Officer. Since before and while he was a Captain in Operation Urgent Fury and beyond.

Please remeber that once you get into the big O's, politics get in the way.

Cheers

[stuartcr]

No, officers are free to tender their resignation whenever they want.

[stuartcr]

Over the years here at FR, I've seen many people say we should let the military do their jobs, ie the ones in charge, and leave the politicians out of it. Now it's different, I guess it just depends on...

[Obadiah]

My guess is that Seymour Butts Hersch is yet again the source for this little anti-Bush smear.

[silverleaf]

I doubt this.

Seriously.

[Spruce]

WE'LL BE FORCED TO DRAFT SOME NEOCON 'GENERALS' TO RUN THE SHOW! THEY KNOW BEST ANYWAY..

What the heck is that supposed to mean? Jack*ss.

[billhilly]

Wesley Clark comes to mind anytime a story of this kind comes along. Generals and Admirals retain their rank in perpetuity and generally their moral authority conferred by their position. In fact, the percentage of Flag rank officers who dishonor their positions of trust are far more rare than members of congress, the press or elected officials at any level.

[tobyhill]

Of course they'll resign, they can make more money on the news channels and writing books criticizing the President.

[Cobra64]

Would this be considered insubordination?

A lot of my friends are retired military.

[Publius6961]

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.

Insubordination in times of war involves forfeiture of all pay, dishonorable discharge, and cancellation of all benefits, including retirement.

Jail time would be icing on the cake.

I hope these half-dozen generals are men enough to out themselves now, rather than later.

[AngrySpud]

Officers holding "Regular" commissions may indeed submit their resignations. But those resignations don't have to be accepted on the losers' terms. Reassign them to undesirable billets currently filled by lower-ranking officers, belittle them and let the paperwork be done right, taking months, and months, and ...

[leadpenny]

You're probably not going to get an answer from George. He's no longer with us.

[Publius6961]

“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.”

Well, I will say this.
If occupation is on the agenda the generals may be right.
Just that insubordination is not the proper response. Voluntary early retirement is always an option...

As to the "possible" part? Of course it's possible to attack and destroy their nuclear facilities and all other possible support systems: transportation, communications, ports, highways, bridges, administrative centers...

And then leave and allow them to rebuild their third world paradise.

No invasion or occupation necessary.

The time for winnin their hearts and minds is long past.

[iopscusa]

Abizaid, what a disappointment he has been. I actually thought he was a warrior that understood the culture of the enemy....turns out he may just be another AA/EEO promoted stuffed uniform like Powell or he is not on our side. After seeing him a few times the radar was pinging loudly...too bad...but he has that big fata$$ pension, time to write a stupid book!

[Dave278]

Some lib mediot trying to make news with the made up "sources" scam again.

[Publius6961]

Over the years here at FR, I've seen many people say we should let the military do their jobs, ie the ones in charge, and leave the politicians out of it. Now it's different, I guess it just depends on...

You seem to be blinded silly with ideology. Logic 101.

Not following orders is not doing their job. What part of "military" do you not understand? The CIC gets the final word!

Gheeeez!

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

BREAKING NEWS: McCLELLAN THREATENS TO RESIGN IF FORCED TO ATTACK RICHMOND.

SAYS ARMY'S BARGES DON'T FIT THROUGH POTOMAC LOCKS; NEED MORE TIME TO PREPARE.

[Grampa Dave]

George Creel = another Clintoonian scumbag has been zotted.

[Publius6961]

You're probably not going to get an answer from George. He's no longer with us.

Imagine that...

: )

[Eccl 10:2]

The story cites "4 or 5 generals/admirals". So...4-5 out of how many hundred?

---

Too bad we couldn't get a like amount of senators to do the same thing.

[af_vet_rr]

I seriously doubt this article is true. We aren't going to war with Iran - we can lob missiles and bombs at them all day, but we don't have the troops to send in, and unlike Libya, Iran would be a lot tougher nut to crack. If you can't put the boots on the ground you can't win a war with a big country (and this coming from an old Air Force guy).

Before anybody says "oh well, you can take out their nuclear facilities", the answer is "yes, we can take out their nuclear facilities", but that's just what they'd love. They would immediately flood the Iraq/Iran border with troops and equipment and then we'd have a huge mess in Iraq.

Iran wants to be a martyr so bad - they've been putting themselves in a position where they can claim the spiritual highground in the Muslim world, and having the US attack them would validate that claim. They would pull the "the US told us to back down, and we didn't" card, which would appeal to a lot of angry young Muslims.

[Publius6961]

Glad you're retired.

Say... you never made General, did you?

[leadpenny]

'tweren't I. ;)

[af_vet_rr]

I highly doubt this is true. Nevertheless, if true, then I do not see how the Generals think its better to wait for Iran to attack first.......

Iran is not going to attack us - they want us to attack them instead. Their plan falls apart if they are the aggressor. They want to push forward with their nuclear plans, as a sign of "we should be leading the Muslim world, we are doing this no matter what the US says".

If they attack us, they bring NATO into the picture, which is what they don't want to do, even if it's just getting NATO nations to support us in the UN.

It would validate what Bush has claimed about Iran as well, which is the last thing Iran wants.

The ironic thing is, a war with Iran would certainly spill over into Iraq, which means that Saudi Arabia would step up their support of the Sunnis, which is, again, something that Iran doesn't want.

[af_vet_rr]

Say... you never made General, did you?

So General Publius6961.....where are you going to find troops to go in and hold ground?