Revolt of the Generals

According to Sy Hersh (hat tip: Josh Marshall), the administration's overall Middle East strategy has shifted to effectively siding with the Sunnis (Saudi Arabia, al Qaeda, Iraqi insurgents) against the Shiites (Iran, Hezbollah, the government we installed in Iraq) in order to stop Iran from...something. It's never quite clear.

And part of this strategy is, of course, preparing for war:

In recent months, the former intelligence official told me, a special planning group has been established in the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, charged with creating a contingency bombing plan for Iran that can be implemented, upon orders from the President, within twenty-four hours.

Which of course would make war a fait accompli, and any efforts to stop it irrelevant and ineffectual.

And it gets better: according to the London Times, the most effective resistance to this catastrophic clusterfuck in the making may be the generals:

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.

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.”

I'm a little dubious about this...except that we do have other indications of unrest in the ranks:

General Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said recently there was “zero chance” of a war with Iran. He played down claims by US intelligence that the Iranian government was responsible for supplying insurgents in Iraq, forcing Bush on the defensive....

Hillary Mann, the National Security Council’s main Iran expert until 2004, said Pace’s repudiation of the administration’s claims was a sign of grave discontent at the top.

“He is a very serious and a very loyal soldier,” she said. “It is extraordinary for him to have made these comments publicly, and it suggests there are serious problems between the White House, the National Security Council and the Pentagon.”

So there's good evidence that the people who would actually be in charge of prosecuting Bush's war are horrified at the prospect, and may well be actively resisting it.

On yet another hand, the Air Force is apparently more complaisant...and they'd be the ones doing the bombing.

We're in some scary territory, folks. Under any other president, this sort of thing would be intolerable (anybody remember how the military undermined Clinton?). This administration, though--these people are so far off the deep end that military revolt against civilian control might actually be the least worst thing that happens.