Generals will quit rather than follow Bush to Iran

[bikewrench]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece
Top military brass will quit rather than follow Bush to war with Iran. That to me is one of the most damning statements on Bush's foreign policy strategies that I've heard. Idiots like Bill O'Reily lambast Hollywood types and Cindy Sheehan among others for speaking out and "showing our enemies" division that implies weakness. It does not get much more divided than the warriors in the Pentagon publicly disagreeing with the war criminals in the White House. Maybe mcjaret can comment on the legal, if not the philosophical, difference between a four star general refusing to follow an order he disagrees with by simply taking retirement vs. a 1st Lt. refusing to deploy and suffering a court martial.

[bgbill]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece
Top military brass will quit rather than follow Bush to war with Iran. That to me is one of the most damning statements on Bush's foreign policy strategies that I've heard. Idiots like Bill O'Reily lambast Hollywood types and Cindy Sheehan among others for speaking out and "showing our enemies" division that implies weakness. It does not get much more divided than the warriors in the Pentagon publicly disagreeing with the war criminals in the White House. Maybe mcjaret can comment on the legal, if not the philosophical, difference between a four star general refusing to follow an order he disagrees with by simply taking retirement vs. a 1st Lt. refusing to deploy and suffering a court martial.

I don't think a general can just quit.

If they refuse to follow orders from the President, they should be court martialed, just because they are a 4 star General, does not allow them to not follow orders.

[jackpine savage]

They can retire

[Wayward Son]

Do you think this is true? It may be, but why? How would they find out such a thing? Seems to me that under the UCMJ any officer openly discussing plans to disobey orders he may get would indeed be setting himself up for a courts martial, particularly if he got them & refused.

[jfjf]

Did you read the artical in Stars and Stripes a whle ago? They clearly have a huge issue with Bush and essentially forced the "resignation" of Rummy. Has there ever been such an overt vote of no confidence by the military in a written publication?

[Wayward Son]

Do you know who owns & runs the Stars & Stripes? if not, you should be aware that it's not the military.

[stickitfishy]

Good for those generals. Cheney's puppet has gotten us in enough trouble with the world already! :D

[DIVERTOM]

I don't like the idea of fighting unjust wars but a soldier cannot decide
which is which, he is trained to fight. When commanded to go to war he
must. It is the voters who must decide what person holds this office of
power, and since less than fifty per cent of eligible voters vote this is the
greater problem. It's like people don't care about what goes on in
Washington. Then when they don't like what happens there they complain.
Vote in intelligent and patriotic people who care about America and her
citizens and get rid of powerful groups who pull the strings and we would
not have to worry about just and unjust wars.

[Bill McIntyre]

I don't think a general can just quit.

If they refuse to follow orders from the President, they should be court martialed, just because they are a 4 star General, does not allow them to not follow orders.

An officer can "generally" quit any time. If he is not eligible for retirement he can just resign his commission. If he is eligible for retirement he can submit a request to retire.

I said "generally" because there are many exceptions. For instance, after I accepted orders to flight school, I was committed to another 5 years of service so they could get their money's worth. When an officer accepts change of duty station orders or a promotion, he is generally obligated to remain on active duty for some relatively short period of time. During the Vietnam war, you couldn't resign after receipt of orders to Vietnam. They told you to ask again when you got back.

But legalities aside, what if a General asked to retire after being ordered to lead an attack on Iran, either as commander of an operational unit or simply facilitating the attack from his post in Washington or elsewhere? As long as he didn't refuse to do his job until he was allowed to retire, has he really failed to obey an order?

What if he says "well, OK, if you really want me to lead that division or air wing in the attack, I'll do it, but I'd rather just retire?" And does the President really want to have a General running a war when he has asked to retire because of his lack of agreement with the goal?

I think the President would have a big problem telling these guys that they couldn't retire. I'll defer to mcjaret for legal niceties that I may be missing.

[Mikerotch]

The number of military personnel who would want out of any legitimate, constitutional act of war would be near zero. The fact that there are many, many, active duty personnel (all of which volunteered for service) of all ranks who are raising their voices with regard to the current boondoggle in Iraq and the potential boondoggle in Iran indicates their understanding of the uselessness of such endeavors. Establishing a "democracy" in foreign lands is in no way a legitimate application of their oath.

Mikerotch, Advocate of Constitutionally Declared Wars Only

[spaghetti]

We have just a little news about that here in Europe. We've been reported that generals' dont argue about any political or constitutional issue for a war to Iran, but they just think that the US armed forces are too weak and stressed for that at the moment.
Is it true?

[SeaAggie]

Thats seems like the type of article that would be big news here in the US and yet its from a British news site? Do you think that these "highly placed defence and intelligence sources" prefer a foriegn news service? All reporters that give mystery sources are suspect in my mind.

I am not saying that all flag officers blindly follow the President, but the odds of a mass exodus when we attack are slim to none.

I seem to recall an active duty marine general publicly speaking out against Clinton back in the day. He didnt last long.

[Christof]

what if a General asked to retire after being ordered to lead an attack on Iran, either as commander of an operational unit or simply facilitating the attack from his post in Washington or elsewhere? As long as he didn't refuse to do his job until he was allowed to retire, has he really failed to obey an order? I think that is a very good point Bill, and here is my thought on it....
These guys are supposed to be pretty bright individuals, I hope they didnt get their comission for being stupid.. That said, I think there is plenty of notice how the tide is turning, i.e., most of us see what is brewing with Iran, if you are not willing to participate, get the hell out now...
But in reality, they love their power and position, and probably want to retain it as long as possible.. But to me, that is putting self before country and should not be practiced by those sworn to uphold the commands of the whitehouse... If they do not like the smell of the soup, they should get out of the kitchen... What kind of example are they setting for the low-paid, under appreciated enlisted man that actually has to go FIGHT the war??
Seems chickenshiteddedness is running rampant in this country... "I want my cake and eat it too".....
That is my take, but I could be completely FOS....

[Christof]

And I forgot to touch on this.... I really believe that all the Iran hype being spewed (typical "brainwash the masses technique) now is due to Israel forcing a move by us to protect them against their percieved threat.....
I know a few Iranians, and although we constantly see the "Down with America" and "Kill the Jews" pieces on the airwaves, most are live and let live in their way of thinking...
As far as I'm concerned, Israel should not have been allowed to develop nukes (when they did, a jetfighter was their only real threat), and their threat of nuking Iran makes them just as bad as Iran in my book....
Irans income comes from oil.... Do you really think they would end their own country by nuking Israel? I dont.... Martyrdome on a countrywide scale is not what the leaders of Iran have in mind, contrary to what the Gov't, Israel, and Fox news would have us believe...

[Christof]

Hey Pargo....
Hopefully I wont be turning this into another Israeli thread by commenting, but come on now.. Israel aggresses all the time for even the smallest reason. Intel tells them where a wanted man is, they pour into an area (across borders) and hammers the shit out of them... Iran may be going against what the UN wants by exploring nuclear technology, but that does not give Israel the right to threaten nuking, and Israel threatening anything cannot be taken lightly. They are one country that does not make idle threats. So then we are faced with a choice of, "do we allow Israel to launch a limited nuke strike to destroy the threat, or do we get involved?"... That seems to be the options we have been handed, and I believe the reason for all the accelerated hype we are now seeing on a daily basis of what a threat Iran is to us...
Next thing you know, we will be knee deep in the shit again...
Israel has some legitimate concerns, but the constant hammering of "we are a poor little nation that the whole world is against" is a big part of our problem....
I say, let em nuke Iran, and then face the consequences.... Time for us to let them handle their own problems... Aside from the lack of oil resources, I think the world would be better off without a middle east period.... Of course, the worldwide radioactive fallout would be a problem...

How about we make Israel get rid of the nukes, then maybe they all will? Israel has one of the best fighting forces in the world, and could conventionally whip anyones ass over there.. Why do they need nukes???

[Wayward Son]

have you listened to what the president of Iran has been saying?

[Bill McIntyre]

We have just a little news about that here in Europe. We've been reported that generals' dont argue about any political or constitutional issue for a war to Iran, but they just think that the US armed forces are too weak and stressed for that at the moment.
Is it true?

I think its definitely true. An article on the subject in yesterday's LA Times quoted the anonymous generals as asking where the hell they were going to get the men and material. After all, the escalation in Iraq is already straining us to the breaking point. Generals have publicly said that units are not back in the states long enough to reform, retrain, and reequip before going back again. Wives and kids are asking husbands and dads just how long they are going to have to do without them. Its not as if we were fighting the Soviet Union on the plains of Europe for our survival. People are figuring out that Iraq was not a war that needed to be fought, and questioning whether we can add another war without a draft.

National Guard units are finding that the previously announced "guarantees" on how long they would be back before going again have now been revised, and that is likely to cause them big retention and recruiting problems. People join the Guard with the expectation that they will be called out to deal with floods, civil unrest, naturual disasters, etc. but they don't expect that they will be used just like active duty units. They have civilian jobs, and employers can only be expected to stand for so much of this before they decide they need employees that can be counted upon.

Without a draft, there is no way we can take on another war, and I don't think a draft is going to happen.

[mcjaret]

Retirement or the threat of retirement by General officers as a matter of protest has historical precedence. Colin Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, threated to retire in 1993 when Clinton attempted to eliminate all limits on homosexual service. That led to "don't ask, don't tell." During the War Between the States, several Generals on both sides resigned or retired during to policy conflicts. Most 4 stars have more than 30 years of service so hard to justify refusing and the Presidents have preferred to let them go rather than to leave them running a command and their mouths if they weren't in line with policy.

As one person said, General's like their positiion and power. They spent their entire lives getting to that point so giving it all up is quite a sacrifice. Additionally, if they haven't served at least 2 years in their current rank, they might have to retire at a lower grade. That hurts the pocket for many years after.

I don't think they've court-martialed a General for policy disagreements since Billy Mitchell (1925?), and history proved he was right. Was a big embarrassment for the Army, and no one wants to go there again. Plenty of people waiting in the wings who want to be the big cheese and are willing to bite their tounges so really no downside to allowing the retirement.

[Christof]

Christof, If you as an individual with normal reasoning powers were to consider using weapons of mass destruction you would take into consideration that the enemy will reciprocate and the effect this will have on your population. Dictators of Muslim fundamentalist countries do not follow this process, they just act, as has already been demonstrated. Why? because god is great and they are heaven bound. Israel's military strategies are a direct result of dealing with this since Israel became a state in 1948. As a child in elementary school in Israel bomb raid drills and bomb shelters in every apartment building were just part of everyday life for me. The US public is only now starting to have an inkling of what this is like.
Well from what I have been told (by muslim Iranians) is that for even those that believe that, it does not include wiping out your own people and they in turn go to heaven too... It is a choice made by that individual, they die for their God, and in return have a place in heaven... What you are saying is that one man could press the button, causing the annihilation of his fellow countrymen, and they all would go to heaven as martyrs... That is not how it works for them. He then would be reponsible for the death of the others that unwillingly died and be held accountable...
Also, yes I have read Irans presidents words and also saw the interview with him on tv... His words can be interpreted in many ways.. His "Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth" comment that is used all too often was, in his words, a statement about the illegitimacy of that country, how it came about (illegally in his view), and shouldnt exist as a country.... Take it however you want... But I believe our president has said that the countries in the "Axis of evil" are a threat and "need to be dealt with".... I guess that gives other countries the legitimate right to say then that war against us is justified?
We have done more to screw up, both militarily and monetarily, more countries than Iran could ever hope to.... What makes us any better than them?
I also find the BS hype on TV amusing how we need to attack Iran because they are selling weapons to the insurgents and other countries not friendly to us.... I guess Russia should have attacked us then when we were giving arms and stinger missles to Osama and the Mujahadeen when they were fighting Russia, or the multitudes of other countries we have sent weapons to for purposes of war?

[spaghetti]

As long as America is the world leading superpower (politically, militarily, economically and culturally), it's America's interest to keep the world on this balance (and Israel is a part of it, oil supply is a part of it et cetera et cetera). Any change in the world's established strategic balance will obviously turn to a situation in wich America has less influence than before on the rest of the world.
That's why I think that for America it's mandatory to continue its sort of "imperial policy". But it's got to be done wisely.
An imperial policy is based on influence and deterrence, it does not necessarily imply the actual use of military strength on the battle field against any potential enemy. But they must have a scaring perception of America's strength.
You don't need to bomb them all any day now, but they must be aware that you do have the capability to beat the sh.. out of them. It's called deterrence.
So when it comes the day that America actually moves its troops, you MUST give a deadly effective demonstration of strength, you MUST achieve your goals, otherwise the others will get the impression that you're not so strong as you claim.
Consequence: you will loose the power of deterrence, and any potential enemy will raise his head and become a real threat.
Now what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan? Years of war, 3000 americans dead and 23000 wounded, billions spent, but you're still very very far from gaining control of these two small, poor, underdevelopped, miserable countries. This is very dangerous: the world starts thinking that America is not as strong as it claims...
So in short, if you decide to attack Iran, be sure that you can make it, or stay away of it.

[Christof]

You hit it right on the head.... We carry a big stick but dont have the stomach anymore to use that stick.... Deterrence is not possible without the enemy BELIEVING that you will strike... No one honestly believes we are as tough as we espouse anymore. Hell, we wont even attack a mosque filled with enemy shooting at us anymore for mere PC reasons... Mr. Al Sadr has no fear of us whatsoever because of that very reason... Had we done as we have in other wars, blow the shit out of them no matter where they hid, they would shiver at the very thought of pissing us off.. It all started in Vietnam with Nixons not allowing the bombing of N. Vietnam for political reasons which only emboldened the NVA (who were on the brink of surrender at the time)....
I believe that one country that WILL use their weapons of deterrence is Israel. A book that many of you should read is "The Sampson Option" written by an Israeli about their goal and achiement of nuclear weapons... In short, the "Sampson Option" is a supposid resolution (Israel denies it exists) that states that they will never again loose control of Jerusalem, and if the threat of losing it arises, they will annihilate the region rather than lose it... He claims it as the reason for obtaining nuclear weapons. There really is no other sensical reason for them to develop a nuke in an era when their threats were all conventional weapons...
Iran does not threaten us. It supposidly threatens Israel. If we go to war with them, it will be for that reason only. My stand is this... If Israel would continue forthwith with the plans of Ariel Sharon and allow statehood to Palestine, stop intrusions across that border, return ALL occupied territory (including Shabah Farms to Syria), etc., and they are attacked, then I say go balls to the walls to help them out.... But until they do all they can to achieve that, then we shouldnt get ourselves into a huge war that will inevetibly hurt this country for years to come..

[Bill McIntyre]

Hell, we wont even attack a mosque filled with enemy shooting at us anymore for mere PC reasons...

No, PC had nothing to do with it. Our leadership simply thought it would be counterproductive and turn even more of the population against us, making it even more difficult to ever stabilize the place so we could declare victory and leave.

It may or may not have been the right decision, but don't try to blame a desire to be PC.

[Christof]

"Win their hearts and minds" in the war arena IS as PC as it gets Bill.... We tried it in Vietnam, didnt work... In WWII, it was simple shock and awe... I am no military genius, but I knew when the Fallujah and Al Sadr shit started that they would need to go Saddam on their ass if they were ever to achieve control.... Radicals cannot be convinced of anything approaching common sense. They do understand annihilation though... Am I the only one that understands why Saddam was able to keep the minority in power and relatively safe during his reign??
I feel they were more worried about what the world would think of attacking the mosques than what those that already hated us would think... I dont think you can get any worse in your opinion of us than hate and wanting us exterminated, which is where they were at the time... The rest needed to fear us. The end result was that we could be beaten if the opposing side simply continued to not play by the rules, and we would succumb to popular opinion...

[spaghetti]

For me the big error in Iraq and Afghanistan is that you spoiled the credibility of America as a world's leader nation, capable to understand what's going on in the world and achieve its goals. You're not achieving, you lost credibility. But I don't think you should "hit harder" to get things right. The damage has been done yet, and no military option can mend it, not anymore.
The error was political, not military: the Us armed forces overrun Saddam's army and took Baghdad in 4 weeks, your military couldn't do any better job than this, that was a great military "hi-light", the world was impressed.
But apart of that, your politicians totally failed to preview what the "post-Saddam" issues could be. Because the true bloody MESS started after the defeat of Saddam's army, and it seems that this kind of mess took your leaders by surprise.
Did you ever play chess? Don't make a move before you have considered all its potential consequences either in a short, medium and even long term. And this is one point of weakness for America: the biggest miliytary instrument is led by poor strategic decision-makers, because in Iraq your political leaders showed to the whole world that they were uncapable to forecast the consequences of their action.

[Bill McIntyre]

Well said.

[mnguy]

Seems contradictory to me.

Not really. There is a difference between Israel having and potentially using nukes and the USA having and potentially using nukes.

[Bill McIntyre]

And this is one point of weakness for America: the biggest miliytary instrument is led by poor strategic decision-makers, because in Iraq your political leaders showed to the whole world that they were uncapable to forecast the consequences of their action.

And speaking of those geniuses- there is a report on the net today that says that in 2003 after we rolled over Iraq, the Iranians were frightened, so they gave a memo to the Swiss Ambassor to Iran, who in turn delivered it to Karl Rove, indicating a willingness to negotiate.

And what the Iranians agreed to discuss as a framework of the negotiations was how to disarm the Hezbollah, how to end support to Hamas and Islamic Jihad, how to open up the nuclear program, how to help the United States stabilize Iraq, and, in short, that the government there would not be along sectarian lines, and also how to sign onto the Beirut Declaration, which is basically a formal recognition of the two-state solution. These are far-reaching compromises that Iran potentially would have agreed to in the negotiations, but the Bush administration decided simply not to respond to the proposal. One reporter says that, according to high level people in the administration that she has talked too, they did have a discussion about this at the highest level in the Bush administration, and basically the hard line of the Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld basically ensured that they would not proceed with the negotiations. In fact, they actually reprimanded the Swiss ambassador for having delivered it.

In a hearing last week, Condi Rice denied every seeing the memo, but it seems unthinkable that the Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor would not have been in on the discussions.

So when Iran was weak and we thought we were dealing from strength, we refused to negotiate. And now that they are stronger and have hardened their line, we refuse to negotiate them and try to cover up the fact that we passed up an opportunity to get a much better deal than we could get now.

[mnguy]

Yeah, why? The US has already used it, Israel has not.

Well the big difference is that we are not in Israel and therefore, I for one at least, don't give a rat's hairy pink ass what happens to them.

We are, however, in the USA and I do have a vested interest in how well this country is doing. Being a citizen of this country also gives me a false semblance of control over what goes down, even though individually I can't do shit. Therefore the difference between Israel's nukes and the USA's nukes is that I don't care if that entire section of the world becomes a glass crater so long as it's a crater that I wanted made.

[bikewrench]

The REAL mistake we as a country made happened before 9/11. We "elected" a group of children and f***ing madmen to lead the greatest power on Earth. Unfortunately we happened to do it just before a critical time in World History and now we are paying the price. This administration is profoundly incapable of running a laundramat nevermind a world power in a time of crisis. The world in general and this country in particular (as it stands in world politics) is in as precarious a position as it has ever been. I can't imagine any good way out of this and aparently no one else can either. I am not optimistic.

[Christof]

The REAL mistake we as a country made happened before 9/11. We "elected" a group of children and f***ing madmen to lead the greatest power on Earth. Unfortunately we happened to do it just before a critical time in World History and now we are paying the price. This administration is profoundly incapable of running a laundramat nevermind a world power in a time of crisis. The world in general and this country in particular (as it stands in world politics) is in as precarious a position as it has ever been. I can't imagine any good way out of this and aparently no one else can either. I am not optimistic.
I agree, but also think that Hillary, Pelosi, and the likes could do no better... Imagine Hillary on PMS.... Man, that is scary.....
Like I said, read the "Sampson Option" book.... Israel gave us quite a screwing in that time period... They had enough arms and backing from the US, UN, and many other nations as that they were safe from being overrun.. They didnt need a nuke... We let them have one, then India and Pakistan got them, now Iran wants them.. That is why we shouldnt have let them have one or, since they lied to us while obtaining it, should have made them get rid of them... It locked us into a "deal with the devil" due to the implications of them being all too willing to use it...
I can guarantee you this. If we dont fix the problem with Iran, Israel will attack them and could give two shits how it affects us...

[bikewrench]

I can guarantee you this. If we dont fix the problem with Iran, Israel will attack them and could give two shits how it affects us...
I believe that. I'm not going to debate the Israeli issue. Is it related to the overall Middle east quagmire? Sure. Can you bring up any previous event/issue and relate it to current events? Sure. But Israel getting "the bomb" is not the issue today. The issue is that the Bush admin made a single, specific decision to invade Iraq and overthrow its government when they were fundamentally unable to pull it off. Israel has nothing to do with that.

[SPEARIT]

I am posting this only as some history regarding the interaction between the JCS and the CinC for those interested.
http://www.popasmoke.com/notam2/showthread.php?p=19589#post19589

[jackpine savage]

Anyone else here other than myself that would love to have Condi Rice explain US foreign policy to them in private wearing her birthday suit?

Are you serious? She is one ugly broad, but what ever floats your boat I suppose.

[spaghetti]

Ugly? If she's ugly, then european newspapers must be cheating. Here's how she's pictured over here:

http://grannygeek.us/wp-content/Condoleezza-Rice-R.jpg

[jackpine savage]

With an airbrush even I would look good. :D

[Bill McIntyre]

She looks OK with her mouth shut. But when she speaks, she has that pained look as if she had a stick up her ass.

[spaghetti]

With an airbrush even I would look good. :D
I was just kidding, Savage. I'm sort of aware that beautiful women are made quite different, okay very different.
Let's put it this way: I'd pick Henry Kissinger or Zbigniew Brzezinsky or James Baker better than her both for the duty and for a beauty contest.

[Bill McIntyre]

Its how she talks that drives me crazy. She sounds as if she is about to break into tears.

[bikewrench]

Its how she talks that drives me crazy. She sounds as if she is about to break into tears.
She left her previous job as Provost of Stanford in order to take her current job, no wonder she always sounds as if she is going to cry. :D

[jackpine savage]

Any person who looks up to George Bush as an authority on anything beyond shoveling a warm pile of hog manure is very deluded

[Mikerotch]

Any person who looks up to George Bush as an authority on anything beyond shoveling a warm pile of hog manure is very deluded

Actually, Jack, I don't think he has any hog manure experience. That said, the potential list of items he could be an authority on is nearing zero.

Mikerotch, True Hog Manure Expert

[Killer&Griller]

Any person who looks up to George Bush as an authority on anything beyond shoveling a warm pile of hog manure is very deluded

Actually, that said, the potential list of items he could be an authority on is nearing zero. ERROR, ERROR, ERROR. Keep in mind that this is coming from a Rep., he is still an authority in SPENDING. :D

[jackpine savage]

Damn, the last two post were definitely the funniest of this thread.