Gen. Zinni: 'They've Screwed Up' (New 60 Minutes hit piece)

CBS News.com ^ | Sunday, May 23, at 7 p.m. ET/PT. | Steve Kroft

[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?"

[CWOJackson]

Well then he's obviously well qualified...for the anti-Bush, defeatist crowd.

[Veracious Poet]

Using a "k", for the "C" in the word "camp", is the same as the Commie leftists using a "k",instead of the proper C,when writing America.Perhaps you might care to reflect upon/rethink this tactic.

It's not the same thing and you know it...you're not going to associate me with such trash due to a common literary tool, just because "Commie leftists" have used it in a way I would never attempt.

That's akin to prosecuting an innocent person for another's crimes.

[Dane]

Just heard some of the interview on Drudge.

armchair general n: retired General Anthony Zinni

[auggy]

"Let's put it this way. The General who said more troops would be required was canned. The budget man who said it would cost 200 billion was canned. Those who told the President we would be greeted with flowers and the oil wells would gush cash to pay for the war are still around. Why?"

I would like to know who were the Generals that were canned and when did Franks tell President Bush we would be greeted with flowers and gushing oil?

I'd like to know how a general that still says we should have waited for a UN resolution, has any credibility at all?

[Ethrane]

Never did I think that I would live to see the day that a retired USMC General would take to the street to criticize the CIC of the US Military.

Not that he doesn't have the right to criticize, just that it is SO anti-marine corps.

[CWOJackson]

"...in case you haven't checked lately your kamp is in the minority and will quickly become known..."

It's not just your choice of lettering that gives you away. What kamp is it you're in that sides with Michael Moore?

[willgetsome]

I don't get it.....


What does Zinni hope to accomplish by making these remarks?

Does he think this will help our war effort?

Does he think that this will make the task of our troops any easier?

[CWOJackson]

Apparently his book profits mean far more to him then his personal honor.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

[CWOJackson]

He didn't care about the crew of the USS Cole...he doesn't care about the troops on the ground either.

[Proud Legions]

I guess I am missing your point here. I agree with much of what you say on the Cole, though I think you are exaggerating the level of force protection levels. You make it sound as if there was no force protection at all. There was some, though I of course will agree with you that there obviously was not enough.

But what does that have to do with the original post?

I think we do a disservice to GEN Zinni to claim he is either some sort of nut or a coward. He clearly is a great man who has given much to his country.

BUT, that does not mean he is right about everything, just as none of our retired (or active) 4-Star Generals is right about everything. If they were, by definition they would all have to agree on all issues.

He did think we would need more troops for the war, but he was clearly WRONG about why. I heard him say many times we would need more forces to (1) keep Saddam from burning down all the oilfields and thus ruining the Iraqi economy for many years, as well as causing great environmental damage, and (2) to keep the Kurds and Shia and Sunni from immediately starting a major country-wide civil war. The civil war theory is why he was so nervous about using force against Saddam. I would say he badly missed on both those theories. Becasue he was wrong does not mean he is a bad guy...most of us feared those two issues. That is why Pres Bush made certain we had covered those two bases in our war planning. But it does show that he was more wrong than right, and that Bush nevertheless listened to him.

Zinni did not say anything in the 30+ months I was working beneath him about post-war insurgency (other than the three aforementioned groups against each other). I challenge you or anyone to find any reverence to that in any speech or briefing he or Centcom gave.

Again, does not mean he is a bad guy. Just shows how even Zinni guessed wrong! We all do the best we can, and adapt as we go.

I do think that Zinni and some of the rest, including those on FR, should do less Monday morning quarterbacking and more supporting of our troops. Those of us who have been there or are in contact with someone over there know just how much of a moral killer statements by Zinni and others can be. Zinni had the same thing happen to him earlier in his career, and was very bitter about it. I am surprised how he seems to have forgotten. And you would be surprised how many troops over there read FR.

Whew. Having said all that, do you have an opinion as to what we should do? (Other than complain about the President).

[Veracious Poet]

Since your lot doesn't consider President Bush to be a Conservative at all,why do you care if he loses?

Actually, I voted for Bush in 2000 based upon his conservative rhetoric. I have supported many of Bush's actions, including invading Afghanistan, but have problems with certain "Neo-Con" actions he has taken as of late.

My sincerest hope would be that Bush would return to hard-core conservative values, pursue the WOT in more realistic ways and take care of some SERIOUS business here at home (illegal immigration, outsourcing etc.).

I know certain people may disagree with trying to push Bush in a more conservative direction, but they're not gonna stop me from trying...

[Proud Legions]

Hmmm,

As I said before, last I heard Schwarzkopf was gearing up to help in Bush's reelcetion bid. Have you heard otherwise? If so, can I have a link?

[CWOJackson]

You still haven't told us who your kamp is?

[nopardons]

Yes and obviously,yes.

[CWOJackson]

Actually, Chamberlainbuff is citing a comment made by him in March 2003, where he didn't necessarily oppose it but wanted to wait for more U.N. and coalition support. Since then Schwarzkopf has not been public regarding the war.

Of course Chamberlainbuff also quoted weasley clark as being a general opposed to the war.

[CWOJackson]

He wants to push the President in a conservative direction? Apparently he thinks Michael Moore is conservative.

[Proud Legions]

Hmmm,

Neither of those men were canned for anything to do with the War in Iraq. Shinseki's tenure as C-o-S was up anyway, and he was on thin water because of a number of decisions he made from berets to Transformation.

[CWOJackson]

So dude, about this majority "kamp" you're in. Care to share it with everyone?

[mrsmith]

"What does Zinni hope to accomplish by making these remarks? "

Election as junior Democratic Senator for Hawaii.

The general is on a "campaign".