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?"

[churchillbuff]

Twas not a great victory or great generalship.

Tell me please, where Stormin Norman made mistakes in his generalling of Desert Storm? (Just as I predicted - even one of the most respected generals gets dumped on by know-nothings here who've never put on a US uniform, but can't abide anyone, even a decorated combat leader, who honestly disagrees with them about Iraq)

[kabar]

You missed the point. There was no need for great generalship, just the pedestrian application of overwhelming force. Schwartzkopf didn't make any major mistakes. It was no contest.

I was in Saudi Arabia during Desert Shield/Storm and visted Kuwait a few days after the war was over. I toured the burning oilfields and the mile of death.

Just as I predicted - even one of the most respected generals gets dumped on by know-nothings here who've never put on a US uniform, but can't abide anyone, even a decorated combat leader, who honestly disagrees with them about Iraq)

I served as a naval officer for 8 years including a year in Vietnam during the Tet offensive. Where did you serve?

[WhiskeyPapa]

We will have to win swimming upstream and we will.

I guess we'll have to. The Bush administration has shot us in both feet.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Do Americans recognize the blatant bias of the media?

General, Zinni is not in the media.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

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?

Because the president is a puppet.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Zinni sound like whats his name...that smarmy guy who didn't get a powerful position in the Bush administration, so wrote some kind of book about how everyone but himself is stupid or at the very least incompetent....

You probably mean Paul O'Neil.

He was perhaps the first to let on that Bush planned to attack Iraq even before 9/11.

From the Washington Post:

"The book, "Battle Ready," is by novelist Tom Clancy, with Zinni and Tony Koltz. Zinni was U.S. special envoy to the Middle East for Secretary of State Colin L. Powell from November 2002 to March 2003. In several interviews and statements at the time, Bush mentioned Zinni's presence in the region as one reason for his optimism about the peace process and said he was looking forward to his recommendations. Referring to himself and Vice President Cheney, Bush said during an exchange with reporters in the Oval Office, "We both trust General Zinni."

Walt

[dread78645]

And your point about the ships being cut out by Bush Sr and Cheney. Again, don't get carried away here. Bush and Cheney did in fact cut the military after the end of the Cold War. But Clinton took those cuts and drove them much, much deeper...at least in the Army. Many of us believe the levels Bush Sr planned are about right in today's world. Those cuts that Clinton added to the original cuts are what many of us see is where the problem came from.

Geo. HW Bush's 1991-92 budget hit the Navy with a 21% cut (the Army and AF were in the 30% range).

People losses where only about 75,000 (compared to the Army's 245,000); but the draw-down hurt operations pretty bad.
Went from 2 battleships to 0, 87 attack subs to around 50 (plus or minus the Virginia class), 14 carriers to 12 (and ran the dogshi+ out of USS America before sending her to scrap), cut out half a generation of cruisers, a whole new class of frigates.
MSC (sea-lift to move tanks and trigger-pullers from here to there) went down to around 22 ships; it needs at least 40 to move 2 armored divisions within 30 days according to the "plan"; fleet oilers went from 35 to 21 (that's why USS Cole was in Aden).

All in all, the plan would have taken the Navy from Reagan's 545 ships down to just under 400 ships by 1995.

Along came Billy-Jeff and a bean-counter Les Aspin with a "Bottom-up-review" that proposed a 330 ship fleet by 1998. Amazingly, Clinton didn't much mess w/ the Navy budget, but the other services got whacked again.

[TheOldRepublic]

That's the spirit! Of Valley Forge, Iwo Jima...or something

[evad]

Hack, Clarke, Zinni..the same ole endless parade of Quagmire a$$ holes (with or without a book)

[Zechariah11]

General, Zinni is not in the media.

He is a stooge of the liberal media, a political opponent of the war effort, an ally of the French and Al-Qaida.

Three cheers for youTokyo Rose wannabes of our day.

[Zechariah11]

That's the spirit! Of Valley Forge, Iwo Jima...or something

Whiskey man would have taken a swig of his flask, cursed the generalship of Washington, and taken his musket home. After the war, he would have still been chugging it down and telling all what a gallant hero he was.

[Petronski]

Referring to himself and Vice President Cheney, Bush said during an exchange with reporters in the Oval Office, "We both trust General Zinni."

I guess Messrs. Bush and Cheney have learned that lesson the hard way.

[WhiskeyPapa]

I guess Messrs. Bush and Cheney have learned that lesson the hard way.

From CBS.com:

"Zinni believes this was a war the generals didn’t want – but it was a war the civilians wanted.

But he wasn’t the only former military leader with doubts about the invasion of Iraq. Former General and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf, former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, and former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki all voiced their reservations.

“I can't speak for all generals, certainly. But I know we felt that this situation was contained. Saddam was effectively contained. The no-fly, no-drive zones. The sanctions that were imposed on him,” says Zinni."

KIA in Iraq as of today: 793

All this "I love America, I love our service people," (not necessarily from you) sounds a bit hollow when you contemplate what's going on and yes, the KIA in Iraq totals 793 as of today.

People need to wake up.

Walt

[Petronski]

Total Allied casualties on D-Day are estimated at 10,000, including 2500 dead. British casualties on D-Day have been estimated at approximately 2700. The Canadians lost 946 casualties. The US forces lost 6603 men.

That's one day.

Total fatalities in IRAQI FREEDOM have been astoundingly low.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Total fatalities in IRAQI FREEDOM have been astoundingly low.

And completely unnecessary.

Walt

[Petronski]

And completely unnecessary

Spoken like someone who did NOT live in Saddam's Iraq.

[wingnuts'nbolts]

If I am not mistaken Gen Zinni is Clinton appointee who never served in combat. An armchair General appointed by a coward who lied and hid from military service Clinton's military goal was to render it toothless. He almost succeeded.

[WhiskeyPapa]

And completely unnecessary

Spoken like someone who did NOT live in Saddam's Iraq.

Saddam torturing or murdering people under his control in Iraq did not impinge on our vital national interests. Or maybe you wanted to have 793 KIA and $500,000,000,000 deficits.

Wake up.

Walt

[Petronski]

Your rhetoric is a long series of nonsequiturs. Did we spend $500 billion dollars on Iraq? Perhaps you have a citation?

You have no mind for strategic thought. IRAQI FREEDOM is a response to an intersection of many US interests (like liberating the population, rooting out al Qaida tumors, establishing a stabilizing presence in the Gulf, capturing or killing Saddam, etc.). In the process, we've exposed a massive fraud against US taxpayers perpetrated by the UN, to the benefit of 'allies' like France (whose fickleness or outright emnity has been demonstrated once again).

I think strategic thought is beyond your comprehension. And after all, since you're already free, who cares about anybody else?

I got my freedom, says WP. I got mine.

[evad]

"We both trust General Zinni."
I guess Messrs. Bush and Cheney have learned that lesson the hard way.

Not necessarily..
it would depend on what they meant by 'trust'.

I also trust the little general, and I'm not exactly a fan.