Posted on 05/22/2004 5:41:40 PM PDT by b4its2late
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gen. Zinni: 'They've Screwed Up' May 21, 2004
Accusing top Pentagon officials of "dereliction of duty," retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni says staying the course in Iraq isn't a reasonable option.
"The course is headed over Niagara Falls. I think it's time to change course a little bit or at least hold somebody responsible for putting you on this course," he tells CBS News Correspondent Steve Kroft in an interview to be broadcast on 60 Minutes, Sunday, May 23, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
The current situation in Iraq was destined to happen, says Zinni, because planning for the war and its aftermath has been flawed all along.
"There has been poor strategic thinking in this...poor operational planning and execution on the ground," says Zinni, who served as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Central Command from 1997 to 2000.
Zinni blames the poor planning on the civilian policymakers in the administration, known as neo-conservatives, who saw the invasion as a way to stabilize the region and support Israel. He believes these people, who include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense, have hijacked U.S. foreign policy.
"They promoted it and pushed [the war]... even to the point of creating their own intelligence to match their needs. Then they should bear the responsibility," Zinni tells Kroft.
In his upcoming book, "Battle Ready," written with Tom Clancy, Zinni writes of the poor planning in harsh terms. "In the lead-up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw, at minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility; at worst, lying, incompetence and corruption," he writes.
Zinni explains to Kroft, "I think there was dereliction in insufficient forces being put on the ground and [in not] fully understanding the military dimensions of the plan."
He still believes the situation is salvageable if the United States can communicate more effectively with the Iraqi people and demonstrate a better image to them.
The enlistment of the U.N. and other countries to participate in the mission is also crucial, he says. Without these things, says Zinni, "We are going to be looking for quick exits. I don't believe we're there now, and I wouldn't want to see us fail here."
Also central to success in Iraq is more troops, from the United States and especially other countries, to control violence and patrol borders, he says.
Zinni feels that undertaking the war with the minimum of troops paved the way for the security problems the U.S. faces there now, the violence Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently admitted he hadn't anticipated.
"He should not have been surprised," says Zinni. "There were a number of people who before we even engaged in this conflict felt strongly that we underestimated...the scope of the problems we would have in [Iraq]."
The fact that no one in the administration has paid for the blunder irks Zinni. "But regardless of whose responsibility [it is]...it should be evident to everybody that they've screwed up, and whose heads are rolling on this?"
You wouldn't. Zinni himself said that the decision was his and his alone...not Franks.
Sorry...I have no desire or intention of joining your little band of brudders.
You're welcome, I thought it best to set the facts straight since most of these people don't have a clue.
BTW, Zinni accepted the responsibility for that because he was the senior officer on the JCS at that time, not because he personally ordered it.
In addition, reports say there were no picket boats protecting the Cole while in port, all weapons were locked up and no deck officers or security had weapons or could defend the ship from the bombers. How is it that the Cole could be sent defenseless to a terrorist haven, where the ambassador had just closed the embassy and fled, and be left to refuel in a port with absolutely no force protection?
It was because of the "doctrine of the ambassador soldier."
The US State Department was responsible for the doctrine of the ambassador soldier, not Zinni or Franks or anyone else at CentCom.
As usual, the flamers around here are too busy attacking the messenger and not the message to get their facts straight.
Sad, sad days at FR.
Gen. Anthony Zinni, one-time commander of USCENTCOM, or the United States Central Command, said social and political changes that have occurred in Yemen in the last decade and the country's willingness to broaden its contacts with the United States prompted Central Command to slowly and deliberately open up cooperative efforts with the Red Sea nation.
Zinni retired as Centcom's commander three months ago.
That cooperation with Yemen, he said, has consisted of limited military to military contact, and the signing of a contract opening up Yemeni shipping lanes to U.S. military craft patrolling the Persian Gulf to enforce U.N. sanctions in place against Iraq.
Under that contract, now some 18 months old, 23 U.S. vessels have visited the southern Yemeni port of Aden to be refueled, all without incident.
"The refueling of that ship in Aden," Zinni said Wednesday, "...Was my decision. I pass the buck on to nobody."
Of course not, Constitutional Patriots are not compatible with your Neo-Con politick. 
If it meant anything I might even be able to work up enough enthusiasm to be impressed.
Wow, you actually found the truth (BTW, that's exactly what I posted earlier).
Truly amazing, but you forgot to mention the part about the "doctrine of the ambassador soldier".
Do you even know what that was?
If you check out all of Zinni's testimony as well as the other testimony given during the hearings, you'll see that the Cole disaster was predicated by Zinni's policies and his desire to appease the Clinton White House...who wanted to extend a hand to a terrorist supporting nation.
Jack Nicholson said it best...but why go there. Your perception of truth is on par with your political rhetoric...very noisy and without substance.
A suicidal recipe for inevitable disaster.
Careful...he'll start throwing big words at you...and gasp...even some cute little graphics.
We can debate Zinni's judgment on Yemen till cows come home (Bush thought highly of him -- appointed him midEast envoy), but it's interesting that the Zinni-bashers don't seem to want us to notice that Schwarzkopf agreed with Zinni that invading Iraq was a mistake. I haven't seen any posts tearing into Schwarzkopf ... yet. Now that I've mentioned him, except some knees to jerk and some posts to start calling himi names. (They can't call him a liberal Democrat, because he campaigned hard for Bush. And I'd like to see them call Stormin Norman an incompetent general - remember a little victory called Desert Storm?)
But...but...but Zinni has to be a great general...he doesn't like the President.
Nothing to debate there Chamberlainbuff, Zinni is a dangerous and political arse.
Yes...what's a day without a Quisling. It's no wonder that he doesn't believe we should be discussing Zinni's guilt over the Cole. He was promoting Zinni earlier and had forgotten about the Cole...now that their pet anti-Bush general has been revealed, well...let's not talk about it.
Incompetent? No. In fact, Schwarzkopf did voice some reservations publicly in March of last year...things like giving the U.N. more time. But since the real deal has happened the good general hasn't voiced any concerns or objections.
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.