« The Lessons of ‘Lawrence of Arabia’
Who’s The “Real” Secretary Of State? »



U.S. Generals Threatening to Resign and … Israel Preparing to Attack Iran?

February 25th, 2007
By Michael van der Galien

Print Print

The Times of London reports that several U.S. generals and admirals are threatening to resign if George Bush gives the order to attack Iran.

“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.

This is quite obviously quite worrisome. If true (which is quite likely) it shows that the Pentagon is, firstly, concerned about the state of the army and, secondly, that the military leaders don’t have lost confidence in the White House / that the relationship between the White House and the Pentagon is extremely bad.

No matter how worrisome the situation, though, Bush et alia are right not to rule out military action. Those who are calling on Bush to rule it out are seemingly willing to let Iran develop nuclear weapons. Bush is right to say that Iran cannot be allowed to develop an atom bomb. Diplomacy should be tried first, yes, but when all else fails, a coalition of the willing should carry out airstrikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities and infrastructure.

I have said before that now is not the right time to attack Iran. There is still time left to achieve the goal - Iran without a nuclear program. Some reports indicate that Iran’s economy is hurting due to sanctions. More severe sanctions should be pursued and implemented. Its economy has to hurt bigtime. Bleed the Mullahs to death.

However, like it or not (and some of the bloggers I link to below don’t) airstrikes / threatening to use force seems to work. As I wrote a while ago:
‘If the U.S. and European countries are not willing to use force against Iran, Iran will not change its policies, of that we can be quite sure. And if one threatens to use force, one should be prepared to use it (if absolutely necessary).’

The generals and admirals have good points, but… from a policy perspective I do not quite see how Iran can be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It’s far too dangerous. Also: do they oppose attacking Iran no matter what (while Bush is President), or do they simply oppose attacking Iran now (or say within one year), or without preparing for it adequately?

Others on this:
Kevin Hayden at The American Street
Allahpundit at Hot Air
Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo

In related news, read this post by Jules Crittenden: The Daily Telegraph reported yesterday that Israel is “negotiating with the United States for permission to fly over Iraq as part of a plan to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.”

Jules comments: “I highly doubt the Israelis are going to do this. But you never know.”

I’m with Jules.

UPDATE
Also read this post by Jules; it’s a great round-up of blogposts and newspaper articles about Iran.

UPDATE II
And read this post by Ed Morrissey:

We cannot attack Iran without gathering many more resources than we did for Iraq. Iran is three times the size of Iraq, and its terrain presents a much higher degree of difficulty than the relatively flat Iraq. Their military, while underresourced, is not in the same dreadful state of readiness that we saw in Iraq. Military strikes on Iran could not wipe out their defenses at the onset of action, and the war would result in a conflagration that would halt oil supplies to the entire world. That’s a last-gasp option, and everyone knows it…

If the US decides to attack Iran, we need to be sure we have people in charge who believe in the mission. Right now, I don’t think it’s a good idea, and I’m not surprised to find out that some senior staff officers at the Pentagon agree with that.

Again, to make this perfectly clear: I believe that Iran shouldn’t be attacked now / any time soon but… Iran can also not be allowed to develop an atom bomb. Military strikes are the last resort and there is still time to persue the goal - to prevent Iran from developing WMD’s - through peaceful means.



This entry was posted on Sunday, February 25th, 2007 at 5:51 am and is filed under Israel, Iran, Military, Politics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

 
close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

« The Lessons of ‘Lawrence of Arabia’
Who’s The “Real” Secretary Of State? »


By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.