Posted on 05/25/2004 12:05:33 AM PDT by Veracious Poet
A brand name author with many admirers in the military criticized the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, citing it as proof that "good men make mistakes."
That same writer said he almost "came to blows" with a leading war supporter, former Pentagon adviser Richard Perle.
The author is Tom Clancy.
The hawkish master of such million-selling thrillers as "Patriot Games" and "The Hunt for Red October" now finds himself adding to the criticism of the Iraq war, and not only through his own comments.
His latest book, "Battle Ready," is a collaboration with another war critic, retired Marine Gen. Anthony C. Zinni. "Battle Ready" looks at Zinni's long military career, dating back to the Vietnam War, and includes harsh remarks by Zinni about the current conflict.
In an interview Monday with The Associated Press, Clancy and Zinni sat side by side in a hotel conference room in midtown Manhattan, mutual admirers who said they agreed on most issues, despite "one or two" spirited "discussions" during the book's planning.
'Good Men Make Mistakes'
Zinni has openly attacked the war, but Clancy reluctantly acknowledged his own concerns. He declined repeatedly to comment on the war, before saying that it lacked a "casus belli," or suitable provocation.
"It troubles me greatly to say that, because I've met President Bush," Clancy said. "He's a good guy. ... I think he's well-grounded, both morally and philosophically. But good men make mistakes."
"Battle Ready" was published Monday with a first printing of 438,700. It is the fourth in Clancy's "Commanders" series, in which military leaders reflect on their careers and discuss military strategy.
"In the movies, military leaders are all drunken Nazis," said Clancy, who has worked on books about retired Gen. Chuck Horner, who led U.S. Central Command Air Forces during the Gulf War, and retired Gen. Carl Stiner, whose missions included the capture of Panama leader Manuel Noriega.
"In fact, these are very bright people who regard the soldiers and Marines under them as their own kids. I thought the people needed to know about that. These are good guys, and smart guys."
Very Different Men
While the 57-year-old Clancy is tall and thin, with bony arms and round, sunken eyes, the 60-year-old Zinni has the short, stocky build of an ex-Marine. He served as commander in chief of the U.S. Central Command from 1997 to 2000 and as a special Middle East envoy from 2001-2003.
But even as an envoy, Zinni spoke out against invading Iraq, regarding it as disastrous for Middle East peace and a distraction from the war against terrorism. On Monday, he said getting rid of Saddam Hussein was not worth the price.
"He's a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go," Zinni said. "But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4,500 wounded - some of them terribly - $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and our reputation and our image in the world, particularly in that region, shattered."
In discussing the Iraq war, both Clancy and Zinni singled out the Department of Defense for criticism. Clancy recalled a prewar encounter in Washington during which he "almost came to blows" with Richard Perle, a Pentagon adviser at the time and a longtime advocate of the invasion.
"He was saying how [Secretary of State] Colin Powell was being a wuss because he was overly concerned with the lives of the troops," Clancy said. "And I said, 'Look ..., he's supposed to think that way!' And Perle didn't agree with me on that. People like that worry me."
Both Clancy and Zinni praised President Bush but would not commit to voting for him. Clancy said that voting for Sen. John Kerry, the Democrats' presumptive nominee, would be "a stretch for me," but wouldn't say that he was supporting Bush.
Zinni, a registered Republican who voted for Bush in 2000, said he could not support the president's re-election "if the current strategists in the defense department are going to be carried over."
Zinni makes a point of answering all questions, just as he prides himself on speaking out against Iraq. He called it a lesson learned from Vietnam, when "we were all imprinted with the idea that we can't let this come about again." Clancy, meanwhile, was more close-mouthed, and not only about his views on Iraq. When asked what Jack Ryan, the fictional hero of "Patriot Games" and other Clancy novels, would have thought of the war, the author offered an enigmatic smile.
"I don't like to comment on works in progress," he said.
***PING***
So do hack authors.
Let us remember who the true enemies are.
He said we would need 500,000 troops to bring Saddam down and take Bagdad !
He said there would be 5-10 thousand US killed doing it !
Zinni has gone off the deep end lately and is trying to prove his theory when he was wrong.
Any deaths suck as well as wounded GI's but if anyone asked a month before the war would you trade 500 combat deaths for the capture of Iraq/Saddam with less then 2% of the oil wells damaged and 36 countries helping most of us would say it's a good deal !
He sold his soul to Hollywood. Tried to take it back, but eventually let go of it again.
True patriots are measured in deeds, not words.
Great points. The coalition won the war in spectacular fashion. It will go down in history as one of the greatest military offensives ever. The insurgency has actually been fairly mild compared to what it could have been (ie - WMD attacks on cities by Saddam loyalist).
Are you sure you read the book ? The nuclear strike Ryan opposes in "The Sum of All Fears" is not against the guilty party's capital, since the guilty party is not Iran in this book but a terrorist group more reminiscent of the PLO (and also since Qom, the targeted city is not the Iranian capital).
No he didn't. It took 500,000 to get Iraq out of Kuwait in Gulf War I.
General Zinni's plan would deploy 250,000 up to 300,000 depending on the resistance during occupation.
Generals Powell, Scowcroft, Shinseki, and even Weasel Clark concurred.
He said there would be 5-10 thousand US killed doing it !
Uhmm where'd you get that? Maybe you confused former SecNav James Webb w/ Gen. Zinni.
Agree w/Clancy; Pres. Bush is a good man. Also have my misgivings about Iraq, but think it's still too early to tell if 'mistake' turns out not to be a mistake and begins the transformation of the region. If that's the case, look for Pres. Bush in the History books alongside Lincoln, Roosevelt, etc.
BTW, VPoet, are you a Edwin Arlington Robinson fan?
"Miniver Cheevey (sp?) child of scorn,
grew lean as he assailed the seasons...
Beautiful language, eh?
I must ahve missed it--where is the part about Perle and Clancy's interaction?
Tumultuously void of a clean scheme Whereon to build, whereof to formulate, The legion life that riots in mankind Goes ever plunging upward, up and down, Most like some crazy regiment at arms, Undisciplined of aught but Ignorance, And ever led resourcelessly along To brainless carnage by drunk trumpeters.
Edwin Arlington Robinson was a great poet.
"I must have missed it--where is the part about Perle and Clancy's interaction?"
Clancy recalled a prewar encounter in Washington during which he "almost came to blows" with Richard Perle, a Pentagon adviser at the time and a longtime advocate of the invasion. "He [Perle] was saying how [Secretary of State] Colin Powell was being a wuss because he was overly concerned with the lives of the troops," Clancy said. "And I said, 'Look ..., he's supposed to think that way!' And Perle didn't agree with me on that. People like that worry me."
Clancy and Zinni were on Hannity & Colmes last night. Colmes asked Clancy something, Clancy shot him down and sat back with his arms crossed. I can't remember what it was about, it was weird. Zinni spoke for the next 7-8 mins alone, arguing with both Sean and Alan. Finally Sean got Tom involved again, and got him to say he was "probably" going to vote for Bush this year.
Actually, he did not say it would take 250,000 to 300,000 to handle any "resistance during occupation."
He often said it would take that many to keep the three major factions from a major civil war as soon as Saddam was removed from power.
Zinni was a great guy...who turned out to be as wrong as all the rest of us. There was no civil war that began as soon as Saddam was removed from power.
He also said we would need tens of thousands of troops to protect the oil fields from Saddam-who would blow them all up as soon as the war started. Again, we all agreed with him. He was as wrong as all of us...but that may have been partly because we did focus so much of our effort to ensure that did not happen.
We are one year into what averages 4 years to accomplish. I am confident things will turn out fine. Others are not. Neither group can "prove" their point yet because it is in the future.
Zinni has always been very hesitant to use force. He was very nervous about Desert Thunder and Desert Fox in 1998, and often had to be pushed by President Clinton even to take action. Again, not saying that makes him a bad guy...just incredibly cautious. One of the reasons I believe he supported Bush, even though he is from a Democratic family, is because he thought Clinton and Cohen were too forceful in the Middle East.
By Richard Miniter
Part one of an exclusive four-part series of excerpts. Clinton administration counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke attended a meeting with Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Attorney General Janet Reno, and others. Several others were in the room, including Leon Fuerth, Gore's national security advisor; Jim Steinberg, the deputy National Security Advisor; and Michael Sheehan, the State Department's coordinator for counterterrorism. An American warship had been attacked without warning in a "friendly" harbor — and, at the time, no one knew if the ship's pumps could keep it afloat for the night. Now they had to decide what to do about it.
Mr. Clarke had no doubts about whom to punish. The Joint Chiefs of Staff had compiled thick binders of bin Laden and Taliban targets in Afghanistan, complete with satellite photographs and GPS bomb coordinates — the Pentagon's "target decks." The detailed plan was "to level" every bin Laden training camp and compound in Afghanistan as well as key Taliban buildings in Kabul and Kandahar. "Let's blow them up," Clarke said. . . . Around the table, Clarke heard only objections — not a mandate for action.
This is how Clarke remembers the meeting, which has never before been described in the press. . . . Attorney General Janet Reno insisted that they had no clear idea who had actually carried out the attack. The "Justice [Department] also noted, as always, that any use of force had to be consistent with international law, i.e. not retaliation but self protection from future attack," Clarke told the author. Reno could not be reached for comment.
Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet joined Reno in insisting on an investigation before launching a retaliatory strike. Tenet "did not want a months-long investigation," CIA spokesman Bill Harlow said. "He simply believed that before the United States attacked, it ought to know for sure who was behind the Cole bombing." While Tenet noted that the CIA had not reached a conclusion about what terror group was behind the surprise attack on the USS Cole, "he said personally he thought that it would turn out to be al Qaeda," Clarke recalls.
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was also against a counterstrike — but for diplomatic reasons. "We're desperately trying to halt the fighting that has broken out between Israel and the Palestinians," Albright said. Clarke recalls her saying, "Bombing Muslims wouldn't be helpful at this time." Some two weeks earlier, Ariel Sharon had visited the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, which touched off a wave of violence known as the "second Intifada" and threatened to completely destroy the Clinton Administration's hopes for Middle East peace settlement.
Mr. Clarke remembers other objections from the State Department. "State noted that we had been bombing Iraq and Serbia and were getting the reputation internationally as a mad bomber nation that could only address its problems that way." "It would be irresponsible," a spokeswoman for Albright told the author, for the Secretary of State, as America's chief diplomat, not to consider the diplomatic impact of a missile strike that might try but would quite likely fail to kill bin Laden.
Albright urged continued diplomatic efforts to persuade the Taliban to turn over bin Laden. Those efforts had been going on for more than two years and had gone nowhere. It was unlikely that the Taliban would ever voluntarily turn over its strongest internal ally. . . .
Secretary of Defense Cohen also did not favor a retaliatory strike, according to Mr. Clarke. The attack "was not sufficient provocation," Clarke remembers Cohen saying, or words to that effect. Cohen thought that any military strike needed a "clear and compelling justification," Clarke recalls. (Cohen, despite repeated phone calls over more than one week, failed to respond to interview requests.) Cohen also noted that General Anthony Zinni, then head of CENTCOM, was concerned that a major bombing campaign would cause domestic unrest in Pakistan (where bin Laden enjoyed strong support among extremists) and hurt the U.S. military's relationship with that nation.
Mr. Cohen's views were perfectly in accord with those of the top uniformed officers and Clinton's political appointees at the Pentagon, Sheehan told the author. "It was the entire Pentagon," he added. The chief lesson that the Defense Department seemed to draw from the assault on the USS Cole was the need for better security for its ships, what was invariably called "force protection." Listening to Cohen and later talking to top military officers, Sheehan, a former member of Special Forces before joining the State Department, told the author that he was "stunned" and "taken aback" by their views. "This phenomenon I cannot explain," he said. Why didn't they want to go hit back at those who had just murdered American servicemen without warning or provocation?
The issue was hotly debated. Some of the principals were concerned that bin Laden might somehow survive the cruise-missile attack and appear in another triumphant press conference. Clarke countered by saying that they could say that they were only targeting terrorist infrastructure. If they got bin Laden, they could take that as a bonus. Others worried about target information. At the time, Clarke said that he had very reliable and specific information about bin Laden's location. And so on. Each objection was countered and answered with a yet another objection.
In the end, for a variety of reasons, the principals were against Mr. Clarke's retaliation plan by a margin of seven to one against. Mr. Clarke was the sole one in favor. Bin Laden would get away — again.
ISLAMABAD, Oct 7: Former US Centcom chief, General Anthony Zinni, is arriving here on Oct 24 in his capacity as a director of a multinational company which wants to invest in Pakistan's telecommunication industry. A Pakistani-American who is a partner in Gen Zinni's company, claims that the initial investment will be between $120 million to $150 million that might expand to $5 billion over a period of 10 years.
Zinni did not want to go after the murderers of the USS Cole sailors because he didn't want to harm relations with Muslim Pakistan...now we can see why...150 million reasons why. I wonder if he cut Clancy in on this sweet deal with his Muslim friends.
It's been 10-15 years, and I don't have a copy handy, so perhaps I've got some of the details wrong. I'll take your word for it, but it seems to me that I remember that the reason Mr. Clark and his team targets the Mullah for assassination in either that or a later novel is because the Mullah gave extensive material support to those who did the Nuke strike in Colorado. Could be wrong, if I am apologies to Mr. Clancy. But my point was that it seemed, as a plot device in a novel, a pretty weak "swap" in combat terms: one deranged Mullah for one American city, with the Americans getting the worst end of the deal.
Then again, to be fair, I keep reading his novels as they come out (along with most of his non-fiction offerings, which I really enjoy), so I must not dislike them *too* much or I'd quit reading. Not a big deal, just my .02 cents.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.