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?"
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?
He's lost a LOT of respect in the Corps for running his mouth like this.
Yep the same Andy Rooney who took on Bush on Afghanistan being a "safe harbor" for terrorists and said that can't be because Afghanistan is a landlocked country.
And the same Andy Rooney who trashed "The Passion of the Christ".
I see the way you put it and in 1943 you would probably be doing the same ankle biting about World War II that you are doing now.
No why about it.
There is a war being waged. Is the war being waged 100% perfectly, no, and no war will ever be, but that doesn't mean that this war will be won. It will be won.
Despite ankle biters like you, whose main objective is to criticize Bush and not the terrorists who actually want to kill us all.
Are you, snook, related to the people who heckled Guiliani earlier this week?
I hope Bish and Rumsfeld release to the public the war plans for an invasion of Iraq developed by CENTCOM when Zinni was the Cdr. It's time to show these Monday morning quarterbacks for what they are. While they are at it they can release his plans for overthrowing the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
It pisses me off to see the criticisms of two military campaigns that were unprecedented in their swiftness and their decisiveness. I'd like to know how Gen. Zinni planned to occupy both nations as well. It's not like the military was then procuring the equipment for occupation duties that hindsight has revealed to be necessary.
"Let's put it this way. The General who said more troops would be required was canned."
forgot his name, but as I remember the plan it was dangerously simplistic in nature and something that belonged in WWII. Just having more troops on the ground without the intelligence that is needed to use it would have just made more targets. The dynamics of Iraq concerning the different ethnic groups, tribal loyalties and just saying use the overwhelming numbers to stop everything would have made the situation worse.
When you can't respond, change the subject. Intelligent posting has ceased.
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?
Not changing the subject at all. You want a perfect war and you will never get it.
JMO, but I am glad that Bush and Co. are running the war effort against the terrorists rather than Gore/Kerry/Clinton and Co.
Dumb. Best to get rid of fools.
Snook is implying that Zinni was canned because he said more troops were required. Nevermind the fact this guy was gone in 2000.
"Let's put it this way."
That's exactly the way they would put it on DU. Why aren't you there? They could use a person of such obvious bias and with so shallow a view of events.
He was good enough to be appointed Mid-East Envoy after he retired, but he's suddenly forgotten everything he spent his professional life learning??
This crap of bashing anybody who is critical of The Annointed, regardless of their qualification to offer an informed opinion, is un-American.
And he wasn't known for consorting with Iranian spies...
You know you're in good company when justine raimondo is your friend. justine did an support piece on Zinni for Pravda back in January. In it he points out how Zinni decribed himself as a "Hagel-Lugar-Powell Republican".
Sorry the 'intelligence' we have relied upon came from Chalabi and cock watching. More troops on the ground would have given us more fire power and the desired 'overwhelming' force. We need troops to win this.
I'll grant that,...but then again I have less respect for the Iraqi General taking over the prison who immediately blamed the prior incident on the past command. Character trait of a junior lieutenant about to be disciplined when he blames the past on a past officer.
FWIW, considering the pausity of information coming out of the area and focused on a handful of incidents, each controlled by less than squad sized units, I tend to think the events are well controlled or orchestrated by others. The big prize seems to be battling for re-election or promoting socialism or condoning whatever power shift occurs in the region.
For example, all of the reported conflicts could be the consequence of less than a 100 man dedicated force with diverse interests, but all seeking to set up their seniors.
I have seen Wiccans who have extensive links to socialist groups in the military, in senior billets, who plot little events similar in lack of ethics like the prison photos or the Berg beheading and have been promoted in consequence.
The real problem is discerning who is friend or foe, not only over there, but here as well.
IMHO, the game isn't obvious but is heavily wrapped in a fog of war. DOn't get me wrong, there are plenty of obvious bad guys over there and many good guys with enough work to keep them busy 24 hrs a day and then some, but our focus on the Al-Quada might actually empower more threatening terrorists at home from socialist groups.
Al-Quada and the Wahabbism are definite threats, which our operations, I believe have shifted their COG towards their own turf and we have a greater likelihood of nipping a contagion in the bud by continuing our presence in that region.
I suspect Zinni's read on UN coalition is more associated with weighing all the powers in balance for that region, and not as influenced by a socialist zeal as some might play it.
There's obviously a lot not being said, especially regarding the preponderance of forces in the region and their operations.
So justine is a fan of his. I am not surprised.
Zinni going on 60 minutes is akin to writing an article for Pravda, IMO.
Oh, don't sell the General short. He's also done a gig on NPR...he covers all the bases.
No just democrat leftist ones(60 minutes, et al.).
Also when chalabi was found out, he was given the heave ho, despite the embarassment.
If Clinton/Gore/Kerry found out he was an Iranaian spy, he would probably get a raise, to keep quiet.
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.