The Sunday Times of London reports:
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.
Now, I don't necessarily put great store in the credibility of newspapers. Especially not a single newspaper without confirmation from other sources. And most especially not a single foreign newspaper claiming inside knowledge of U.S. government internal affairs.
But let's suspend our disbelief for a bit and consider the implications of top generals resigning. What will it mean if they do? Is it something they should do, and under what circumstances?
The report continues:
Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.“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.
Would the resignation of a half a dozen senior officers stop President Bush from bombing Iran, if that's what he really wants to do? Would it make one witt of difference to the Congress? Change one senator's mind who might be more worried about the 2008 election? Would these generals even get media coverage for more than a day or two -- maybe less, buried among all the footage of planes flying, missiles launching, bombs exploding? Which makes for higher television ratings?
Might it not possibly just open up that many more positions to be filled by generals willing to demonstrate the right kind of political loyalty to the president?
I am a child of the '60s. I graduated from high school in 1972. Entered ROTC in 1973. Got my commission in 1977. All of my ROTC cadre, and most of my officer basic course instructors were Vietnam vets. And the one thing they all told us was, the generals should have resigned. Moreover, Colin Powell said in his autobiography, the generals should have resigned. If my memory serves, he said the fact that they did not was a betrayal to the soldiers and officers of his generation. Wes Clark has also said that the father of a good friend of his went to his deathbed regretting that he had not resigned. I have always assumed that must have been Creighton Abrams himself, but it really doesn't matter. There is no doubt at all that many many people who could have made a difference, chose not to, and lived to regret it.
I only hope the generals in the Pentagon today won't look back in ten or twenty years and feel the same way.
