Americans `conned' into backing war, ex-general asserts

Chicago Tribune ^ | Dec. 31, 2003 | Thomas Ricks

[Rennes Templar]

Former Central Command chief Anthony Zinni denounces `ideologues' in Bush administration

Anthony Zinni's opposition to U.S. policy on Iraq began on the monsoon-ridden afternoon of Nov. 3, 1970. He was lying on a Vietnamese mountainside west of Da Nang, three rounds from an AK-47 assault rifle in his side and back. He could feel his lifeblood seeping into the ground as he slipped in and out of consciousness.

He had plenty of time to think in the following months while recuperating in a military hospital in Hawaii. Among other things, he promised himself that, "If I'm ever in a position to say what I think is right, I will. . . . I don't care what happens to my career."

[dennisw]

Zinni's policy depended entirely on the predictability of a madman with WMD, programs, a history of using them, open support of terrorists, support of the Islamic suicide cultists who have repeatedly threatened the US, Israel, the West, Christians and Jews.

Key word being predictability. We did unto him (and his sons) before he did unto us. Or helped others do unto us. The war on terror focuses on preemptive action thus a huge statement was made to the ArabMuslimTerrorist world when we entered Iraq to put down some rabid dogs. Mad dogs that are considered the norm for rulers in the Arab world. We aim to change that thinking.

[Qatar-6]

Never claimed to be a Patton

Just a guy who's spent most of the past two years deployed

Who has seen a hell of a lot more of the Middle East than you have

Being a girl is no excuse anymore, armchair hero. You can still enlist

Put your ass where your mouth is why don't you.

[Matchett-PI]

(((PING)))

[sinkspur]

What, in your mind, explains Zinni's journey to the dark side?

You've defended him here, and he seems to be carrying out some sort of verbal vendetta. His version of events has been discredited.

Or maybe he's just jealous that he missed all the action.

[gatorbait]

Rumsfeld did not care about mass graves when he openly supported Hussein while Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians and Kurds

Did't the initial pro-Iraq efforts begin under Carter? I am thinking overtures were made in late 79 .

[Qatar-6]

Sink I don't think he's on the dark side

I know the man well enough to believe he's sincere

I wish he hadn't talked to Ricks, I strongly suspect he was misquoted

I don't blame him for his opposition, there are downsides to this war. I personally believe it's still worth it (and will be redeploying again in a few days). But I recognize that a lot of the downsides Zinni points out are real possibilities

Like I said before, he's 40/60 - Im 60/40.

His is an informed opinion. So is mine. We have an honest disagreement. I still respect the man

This stuff about political motivation is just silly. I've worked for the man. A less political general I never met

Clark on the other hand..... He's a real piece of work

Question Rumsfeld or Israel on the Free Republic and the full mooners come out of the woodwork

None of us is perfect, I wish he hadn't spoken out but I know this for sure:

- He must believe he's doing right

- There is no motivation to further himself in this

I will not sit idly by and let one of the best people I've met in 29 years of service be maligned by vicious fools

All the best

Qatar-6

[cynicom]

Just perhaps he has conned you also???

[Qatar-6]

I doubt it

But if given the choice, I'd rather be gullible than paranoid

What's that behind you?

[the invisib1e hand]

Americans `conned' into backing war, ex-general asserts

bet I can guess where he stands on the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy...

[cynicom]

Doubt you have been conned? Not sure? Seems not too many people agree with you. Also the public pronouncements by Zinni speak for themselves.

[Matchett-PI]

If you don't mind, I'm soliciting your comments on each of the points made here:

"...For nearly 25 years, America has been under attack by Muslim fundamentalists - attacks virtually unanswered by all presidents as far back as Jimmy Carter.

We've somehow confused the systematic massacre of Americans for random acts of violence, though the collective onslaught - catalogued even incompletely - seems in retrospect to be a clear declaration of war:

• 1979 - The US Embassy in Iran was overrun by Islamic extremists who captured 66 Americans and held 53 of them for 444 days.

• 1983 - The US Embassy in Beirut was targeted by a truck bomb that killed 63.

• 1983 - The US Marine barracks in Beirut was destroyed by a truck bomb that killed 242 Americans.

• 1988 - US Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins, on a UN mission in Lebanon, was abducted, tortured, and hanged.

• 1988 - A bomb on Pan Am Flight 103 went off over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 259 on board and 11 people on the ground.

• 1993 - Terrorists drove an explosives-laden truck into the basement of the World Trade Center in New York City, killing six.

• 1993 - Followers of Osama bin Laden killed 18 American soldiers in an ambush on the streets of Mogadishu, Somalia.

• 1996 - The Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia was destroyed by a tanker-truck bomb killing 19 Americans.

• 1998 - US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were simultaneously attacked by truck bombs killing 301.

• 2000 - The USS Cole was attacked in the port city of Yemen; 17 died.

Halfhearted rescue attempts, trade embargoes, and a smattering of cruise missiles thrown at the problem by former leaders had no follow-through, no long-term commitment necessary to stave off the continued systematic attacks. Not until George Bush vowed to protect the US from those who sought to destroy it - even if he had to stand without the support of UN allies.

I can't rely on the contenders from my own party to follow Bush's course. Only three of the nine running in Democratic primaries are viable candidates, and none is willing to risk political comfort to pledge a presidency to the messy business of routing terrorists and their sponsor nations. Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, and John Kerry are now all against the war in Iraq, though both General Clark and Senator Kerry supported it once, and may again.

But I'm tired of presidents fluent in the language of doublespeak.

Bush isn't timid about disappointing a nation used to instant gratification. He has reminded us repeatedly that the war on terror will be long, and people will die in the process. Many on both sides have died already. Yet Bush was resolute when he began by defending America in Afghanistan following Sept. 11. He then brought the fight to Iraq at a time when experts around the world were convinced Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons and was actively pursuing a nuclear arsenal.

And let's not forget the geography of the region.

Iraq borders Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, with Qatar not far away. We know that 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudis. We know there's increasing dissatisfaction with the House of Saud among their own countrymen because of the family's ties to the US. We also know that terrorist attacks within Saudi borders are on the increase by those emboldened by Muslims' discontent. Middle Eastern experts speculate that all this points to cracks in the palace walls of the House of Saud.

Imagine if Saudi Arabia had been overtaken by Islamic extremists while Hussein was still in power. A significant portion of the world's oil reserves would be controlled by those bent on destroying the US. It's conceivable Hussein would have attempted another invasion of Kuwait.

The forward-thinking, big-picture scenario demanded the US protect itself from enemies gaining control of America's access to oil because oil still controls America.

It's a lesson we should have learned following the oil crisis of the '70s, but again we chose to ignore the inevitable at our own peril. Imagine if our enemies had been so empowered; what would the impact have been on the US?

It's conjecture, but all a leader has to base his decisions on are the events of the past, the news of the present, and his concern for tomorrow. Remember how absurd the terrorists' goals for the first WTC attack seemed at the time?

Bush alerted terrorists around the world that the US is no longer the hesitant giant it was after the Vietnam experience. We've licked our wounds and found our footing. We are fighting back. ..." ~ P. A. MacKinnon 12/30/03 CSM

[Qatar-6]

The fact that most of the people on this thread don't agree with me troubles me not at all

Most of the people on this thread could not name all the countries of the middle east without consulting their encyclopedia.

Serious Middle East analysts can debate this and come down honestly on both sides

To my mind the guy who's got it about right in the opinion pages is Ralph Peters

As for the rest, shrill political partisans who will not tolerate even the slightest difference of opinion with their party line

I'm not mad at Zinni and I'm in the war

I doubt you'll find a lot of people over there who pay any attention to opinion one way or the other, we're too busy just doing it

Zinni served brilliantly as CINCCENT. He helped set us up for success.

I'd wager he's done a lot more for his country than most of the people who malign him

[cynicom]

Typical, when one cannot produce the facts, deflect the debate onto those that have a different opinion.

[gatorbait]

What I am thinking, the Rumsfeld-Saddam pics are from what , 83? I get the idea that this was one of those enemy of my enemy things, but I am prety sure whatever initial, and perhaps best deals Saddam got from us was prior to 1981.
It is one of those moments in Realpolitik that several hot showers are needed after practicing it.

[gatorbait]

Clark on the other hand..... He's a real piece of work

Qatar, I think you are being too kind about Clark.

[gatorbait]

I think we are right to back into Iraq and get it semi cleaned up, at least now the US has a handle on a couple of things. I do think ,seriously, that WMDs or the makings for them , will show up.Hells Bells, they're still finding ammo dumps around Verdun from 1916,so even with all the wonder technology,it still comes down to patience, good hunting and luck.

As far as General Zinni, he is within his rights as a citizen to speak, just wish it had NOT been to Ricks and the Compost. I truly believe his timing and the circumstances are terrible. Of course, as has been discussed on forum and off, Genera Zinni's apparent about face is puzzling and I have to wonder what exactly is going on. I am not so out of it to know that sometime political combat is played out in such a way and that he may well be trying to get a message out. Again though, going to Ricks and that paper just does not sit right. Something about Ricks bothers me.

Ah well,any thoughts?