US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack view story

Comments (14)

1. • Albionshores

   Interestingly a similar thing happened immediately after the Iraq invasion was over and as the occupation phase started. Google it:
   http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=US+officer+resign+Iraq+2003&btnG=Search

   • (0 Kudos received)
2. • calinazaret

   It's good to see some generals still have balls enough to think for themselves.

   • (0 Kudos received)
3. • ih8mondays

   If they quit, what exactly will that accomplish? It's not that there's no one there to replace them. For McBush, that would probably be the best thing that will happen as the next one to replace those who quit will probably be ones that they can "keep in line" with their agenda.

   • (0 Kudos received)
4. • Albionshores

   @ih8mondays
   hi dude,
   In my opinion it accomplishes loads! Especially to them, but to others too, it means everything.

   First of all it is a real blow to the credibility of the administration or the attack - it energises its rebuttal. It completely nullifies the false-nationalist patriotic argument, the one that Lewis Sinclair warned about. You know crosses and flag one. It sends an almighty signal out to those troops serving under them or those who have served under them. It is not a decision made lightly by them - and that is why it accomplishes so much.

   It says that these are men of high standing in our society and higher understanding in these military matters.....and they say NO!

   You can't just replace generals and admirals. They're not shelf stackers or rest room attendants. When the same thing happened with the Iraq invasion look who they were replaced with. There have been two generals that have taken charge of the Iraqi occupation that came having a long CV but not a single hour as a commander in combat. That only happens when the head shed walks.

   When the likes of Eaton or Fallon leave a room unexpectedly the list to replace them is short. Getting somebody to fill their chair is easy; getting someone with their experience to fill their boots is not.

   “When you feel the country – to its extreme detriment – is going in the wrong direction, and that your views might have some impact, you have a duty to speak out.”

   http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20070923-9999-1n23generals.html

   • (0 Kudos received)
5. • Albionshores

   See related articles regarding a Guardian article today about covert ops being increased in Iran and it being reported that,

   "there was considerable resistance from US generals and the defence secretary, Robert Gates, to White House pressure for an all-out attack."

   • (0 Kudos received)
6. • Philonius

   I'd rather see those generals take the Shrub into custody than just resign. Now THAT would be ballsy.

   • (0 Kudos received)
7. • ih8mondays

   @Philonius Not sure if a military coup would improve things. q.v. Burma, Pakistan, a handful of African countries, etc. The problem is that the reins of government switch hands from one group with a one-track mind to another group with a one-track mind. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

   • (0 Kudos received)
8. • ih8mondays

   @Albionshores
   > Getting somebody to fill their chair is easy; getting someone with their experience to fill their boots is not.

   That is exactly what is so worrisome about this. We have had that happen here in the Philippines where the much beloved (by the troops) Marine Corps commander resigned his position. His replacement is one of those "pen-and-paper" Generals with virtually *zero* field combat experience. The result: we now have a resurgence of Radical Islamic groups in Mindanao.

   When those *with* experience and common sense turn their backs and walk away, you are left with nothing but these pen-and-paper Generals. It would be better if they kept their positions, where they are in a position to argue and say "No!"

   For me the best thing that would send a signal to McBush and his wayward policies is a massive and total desertion by field commanders and their troops.

   • (0 Kudos received)
9. • Albionshores

   @ih8mondays
   With respect its a different scenario. A domestic scenario. If it was a domestic situation in the Gulf then I'd agree, the officers should not hand over power to a yes-lap dog. However for an officer to speak out it is important for his honour, his credibility, his position to be in tact. Refusing an order or causing a mutiny whilst still serving would alienate him. Resign...maintain your rank and protect yourself from credibility attack...then speak out. And the American people do listen to such people, they aren't without authority. General Eisenhower certainly had the people's ear.

   That said the Generals and Admirals that do speak out whilst still serving are just retired anyways e.g. Admiral Fallon and General Shinseki. Fallon said 'no to war with Iran' and was history, Shinseki told the Senate's Armed Services Committee that if you attack Iraq with a view to occupation then it would take 700,000 or the country would begin to break up. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz publicly ridiculed him for it and was history. History has already proved Shinseki right. But in office or retired it is not changing the policymakers.....it just means that the soldiers loyal to those experienced officers put their faith in them whilst they are still there when they should really be asking themselves whether they should follow their COs example and resign.

   What it does mean is that the combat effectiveness....the chances of success in the region are panning. It is in itself a last argument to give to those most adamant about war. Not only is there no evidence to support pro-war claims, not only are military analysts and centers saying the consequences of an attack would be catastrophic and create the antithesis; escalation and proliferation but the best men for the job are even refusing to do it - their honour intact through resignation so no persecution of their character is possible.

   • (0 Kudos received)
10. • ih8mondays

    @Albionshores I wholeheartedly agree with your viewpoint and I wish it were really that simple. But as you said yourself: none of the resignations have affected policymakers. This is why I don't think this would be an effective strategy nor will it send out a "strong signal" to anyone. Also why quit after Bush orders the attack?!? Why not quit *now* as a sign of protest?

    I pointed out the case here in the Philippines because of what happened *immediately* after their beloved CO (Gen. Miranda) resigned. http://baratillo.net/?p=357 I pointed this out because *this* is what *should* happen if top-brass resignations are a "strong signal" to others in the ranks. These officers believed in their principles and stood by them and were willing to take the heat for it. Even if it meant jail time and losing their retirement benefits!

    • (0 Kudos received)
11. • Albionshores

    @ih8mondays
    People are speaking out now....and being removed from their positions of authority, either being relocated or being 'told' they'd accept their resignation - making positions untenable. But why not willingly quit now....because it has not yet happened. The sphere of influence is greatest and the particularly crime not yet manifest. it is a matter of honour; in the event of an attack honourable men would say the position is untennable. Just like the IAEA Director General has said.

    The decisons taken don't effect the policymakers in the sense that they don't listen to their advice or still feel compelled to push their agenda. The resignations though make it much more difficult for them to carry it out. Much more. It adds to the growing mountain of evidence in the no war pile and that, however slowly, filters down to the real power base. The people and their support. Sure corporation, big government and the banking system is where they build their power but without the people it means nothing. Like Orwell said....if there is to be hope then it is with the Plebs.

    Please don't get me wrong....I fully admire the actions of the Philippine Generals. I was trying to say that the problem the Philippine Generals faced lay in the Philippines - a domestic problem, and there I agree with you....they should have stayed on and put the power back to those who deserved it. The people. A Philippino empowering Philippino people...that is the only way regime change should happen....internally. It is the only way that works. Iraq or Iran isn't a domestic problem it is a problem with foreign policy. If a General's orders are in Iraq and he disagrees with them then the right thing, in my opinion, is to speak out and if the policy is handed down to him than at the earliest opportunity to say that he can no longer fill the role on ethical grounds - resign and then address the US Administration from within as a citizen who is held in the upmost respect. He did his job to the best of his ability but never compromised his morals.

    His influence lies with the people's respect and his reputation. If he is to continue to exert that influence and to be effective then that is what he must do. Both serve the interests of the people whilst making moves to protect his reputation against those with a war agenda who would damn it for disagreeing with them. That is why I believe resignation both works and is the way forward and not just straight out refusal of duty whilst maintaining command in a foreign campaign.

    Foreign campaign......resign and use public standing and reputation to denounce foreign policy.
    Domestic campaign.....refuse to resign and confront the powergrab on the people's behalf.

    Attack Iran.....resign.
    NSPD51 enacted......march on Capitol.

    • (0 Kudos received)
12. • ih8mondays

    @Albionshores I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding as to what I was trying to say. Perhaps it's better if I say it bluntly:

    Those who are in the position to do something about this should do *something* about this instead of just quitting and "denouncing" what the administration is so intent on doing. As with the previous experience with Iraq has shown, quitting and "denouncing" only delayed the inevitable. I looked at it as if it was a case of "You can whine all you want, but I'm still going to do whatever the hell I want."

    Personally I hope this scenario with Iran does not happen. I really hope that this pissing contest between Israel, Iran and the US will blow over without incident.

    On a slightly related note, whatever happened to those articles of impeachment that Sen. Kucinich set forth recently? I was off the intertoobs for almost a week last week and I am just now catching up on current events.

    • (0 Kudos received)
13. • Albionshores

    @ih8mondays
    Yeah I think we're 95+% in agreement. I think we just disagree in that I think resigning is achieving something. If they effectively resisted direct orders whilst maintaining office they'd damage themselves and the policymakers would be easily able to remove them and then their reputation would be easily dashed by those with an agenda to do so. I don't know what they could do in Iraq as a commander that would yield results in changing foreign policy. Refuse orders and they're out - it may even put their men in further danger in the interim though. Resign and it goes on record and they live to fight another day and to address the actual problem.

    But importantly we both agree where it matters. Something needs to be done and what is happening is wrong.
    Regarding the Kuccinich thing I've not really been following it. Stuttering through the bureaucracy I should imagine. That too is important though. What happens when all this is over? Surely people will be flocking to say 'I was against the administration all along'. Kuccinich has killed that one dead. Did you back impeachment or not?

    • (0 Kudos received)
14. • ih8mondays

    @Albionshores One thing about the recent impeachment attempt: it seems to have disappeared from most of the mainstream media outlets that I go to such as Reuters, Washington Post, CNN, BBC, and apparently even Huffingtonpost (if you can consider them "mainstream"). There are no recent updates. Maybe Sen. Kucinich should have thrown in a sex scandal or two in his articles of impeachment, it seems that sort of thing always gets everyone all worked up ;-)

    • (0 Kudos received)

Add Your Comment US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack

Login now to post your comment.