Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Unprecedented: Generals to quit if Bush attacks Iran

Posted by Evan Derkacz at 9:28 AM on February 26, 2007.


AND: UN says US nuke intel is useless...
aboy
boy who cried wolf

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

Several months prior to the unveiling of the Bush Administration's Shock and Awe campaign on Iraq White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card said, "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."

Likewise, the marketing for an attack on Iran -- arguably the Administration's Main Event from the start -- has been in the works for some time, though it's picked up a significant head of steam lately.

There have been problems with the product, however, with two significant new ones cropping up today. First, dissent in the highest ranks of the military with regard to an unwise and immoral idea:

"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."

The Generals call it a decision of "conscience" and the Times of London notes that this would be no ordinary event:

"'American generals usually stay and fight until they get fired,' said a Pentagon source."

At the same time, the UN has essentially said that American intelligence sucks (read: not to be trusted):

officials said the CIA and other Western spy services had provided sensitive information to the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency at least since 2002, when Iran's long-secret nuclear program was exposed. But none of the tips about supposed secret weapons sites provided clear evidence that the Islamic Republic was developing illicit weapons.

"Since 2002, pretty much all the intelligence that's come to us has proved to be wrong," a senior diplomat at the IAEA said. Another official here described the agency's intelligence stream as "very cold now" because "so little panned out."

ACTION: MoveOn has a new petition demanding that President Bush get authorization from Congress before making any move on Iran. Sign HERE.

Digg!

Tagged as: iran, iraq, military, intelligence, un, iaea

Evan Derkacz is an AlterNet editor. He writes and edits PEEK, the blog of blogs.


Blago: It Just Keeps Getting Stranger
Have you noticed that Blagojevich appears to be stark raving mad?
Post by Steve Benen. January 9, 2009.
Obama: 'If Paul Krugman Has a Good Idea … Then We're Going to Do It'
Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman has been a frequent critic of President-elect Obama.
Post by Amanda Terkel. January 9, 2009.
Kucinich Speaks Out Against Congress' Blind Support of Israel
"We must take a new direction in the Middle East.
Post by Staff. January 9, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Resign after an attack?
Posted by: fanny666 on Feb 26, 2007 9:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about speaking out now?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: esign after an attack? Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: resign after an attack? Posted by: NoPCZone
When...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Feb 26, 2007 10:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When men who have dedicated their lives to killing other human beings and to an oranization that stresses following orders above all else develop a conscience because of YOUR actions... you might want to think carefully about what you are doing or planning on doing.

I'm talking to YOU, Bush.

But, then... we all know thinking and being carefull are not things you actually bother doing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Speak Out Now
Posted by: Jeanne on Feb 26, 2007 12:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These generals/admirals should speak out loud and clear now. They should go on the news to decry bush's plot. Unless their reservations are voiced ahead of time, they might as well shut up, retire, and collect their pensions. It won't do a whit of good after the fact.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

YOU MEAN TAKE YOUR BAT AND BALL AND GO HOME?
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Feb 26, 2007 2:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If this is about conscience why not speak out now? Why wait for Iran? Seems to me that Iraq is bad enough. I'm never sure about "sources close" to anything or anybody. Sounds like a Hollywood rumor. Bush does as he damn well pleases and generals and admirals won't make a difference. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Murdoch's Times and Conscientious Generals...
Posted by: lessbread on Feb 26, 2007 4:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's not forget who owns the London Times: Rupert Murdoch [1]. Whether it's the UK, the US, China or Australia, Murdoch's media formula appears to be "tell the reader what he or she most wants to hear regardless of whether it's supported by the facts." The British public does not want war with Iran. It could well be that Murdoch is seeking to pacify their concerns by soothing them with calming thoughts: "Don't worry, don't get upset. You don't have to do anything to stop the war yourself, the generals will do it for you." And if this message filters back to United States, all the better for Murdoch's favorites over here.

Another thing to consider is that a US attack on Iran will most likely be carried out by the US Navy and Air Force [2]. So the resignation of a handful of US Army generals won't likely impact that attack directly. And given the US corporate media's infatuation with high tech fireworks, these resignations would most likely get lost in the coverage of the "shock and awe" spectacular. Now, what would make an impact is if one or two of those generals commanded a few divisions to surround the White House in order to arrest the criminals that currently occupy it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Maniacs vs. reason; guess which side doesn't care.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Feb 26, 2007 8:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Petitions don't matter;
Pointing out faulty or "ginned-up" intelligence about Iraq/Iran doesn't matter;
"Strongly worded letters" to the White House don't matter;
Nonbinding resolutions don't matter;
These things become almost embarrassing in their uselessness, WHEN THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ADMINISTRATION WILL DO WHATEVER THE HELL THEY FEEL LIKE, NO MATTER WHAT ANYBODY SAYS!!!!

The ONLY thing that will resolve this situation is to remove the president and vice president, secretary of state, and attorney general from office – and since our "leaders" neither have the courage, nor the integrity, nor the honesty to do such a thing, we are all going to be faced with watching our nation be destroyed.

I suppose signing a petition is better than nothing; but in our current lunatic dictatorship, just barely. What we need is "impeachment!" being shouted so loudly from so many mountaintops that the s**theads we sent to Washington will have no choice but to comply. You don't deal with murderous madmen by hoping they'll listen to reason.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cheney and Iran Intelligence
Posted by: gwpinetree on Feb 27, 2007 7:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I understand that Valerie Plame's bailiwick was Iranian nuclear efforts.

I wonder if our intelligence sucks because Cheney outed her?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Questioning the CIC is treason!
Posted by: sdm14792 on Feb 27, 2007 9:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For any serving military personnel of any rank, questioning or challenging the Commander-in-Chief, no matter how incompetent or how big an imbecile President Cheney is, is treason. Though it hasn't happened since WW2, those convicted of treason can be executed. Thus, the truly competent generals must resign and end their military careers before they can speak intelligently.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It doesn't matter if every general in the Pentagon quits
Posted by: colleenwhalen on Feb 27, 2007 6:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So what if Pentagon generals resign in protest?

It would not stop Bush from dropping a nuclear bomb on Iran as a "pre-emptive strike".

Bush is a sociopath and won't listen to reason.

He needs to be impeached along with Cheney and his entire cabinent needs to be on trial for war crimes against humanity.

Several generals already spoke out against Bush and nothing happened except a very brief flurry in the news and then all was forgotten.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Resign now!
Posted by: blitzmesser on Mar 3, 2007 8:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why do they need to wait until the jerk attacks? I would advise them to resign immediately!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]