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?"
One reason was because those types were proven wrong first with Gulf War I and then in Afghanistan.
There is a certain type of general who always will say more troops are needed. But the kind of problems we are having in Iraq are not obviously, to me anyway, related to troop numbers. In pitched combat, we almost always prevail. That would indicate that we have enough troops but are having problems with fine-tuning the best strategy. War cannot always go smoothly.
Talking about people who are still around, what about George Tenet?
Many of the folks who moved to the top under Bill Clinton were definitely of a totalitarian bent of mind. It's time for a purge of their ranks!
A gig with Al Franken and Error America is probably up next.
He better hurry up.
I worked with him from 1998-2000. A good guy and very respected among troops. But...
Has always been a Democrat who admittedly broke ranks with his family and voted Republican one time (for Bush in 2000).
Was a Clinton favorite, and has always been a big UN fan.
Has always been against military action against Iraq. Was very hesitant about the 1998 bombing during Desert Fox, to the consternation of all his subordinate Generals. Not because, as they thought, it did not go far enough, but because he feared we were pushing Saddam, and more importantly the other mid-east Arab leaders, too hard.
A great warrior, but ever since Somilia has been clearly on the dove side of almost any military action anywhere.
No insult intended to the man. I would not even claim I could fill his shoes. I just keep everything he says in perspective knowing his opinions. GEN Franks always held him in high respect, but I do not believe they agreed about the need for force against Saddam. Franks, who spent more years there than Zinni, never believed Saddam would give in to international pressure and would have to be taken out.
I only wish these retired Generals would realize what they do to moral when they talk too much, especially when they were not involved with the decision making.
And who was President in 1997 when this guy was appointed CincCent? 'Nuff said.
Isn't this the General who told Clinton is was safe for our ships to refuel in Yemen? Wasn't it he the guy in charge when the Cole got bombed?
With all due respect, you are either a liar, or you simply don't know what you are talking about. Zinni was NO Patton, he was a self-aggrandizing Clinton apologist who sold his soul for rank. Zinni lost respect in the Pentagon a long time ago over his preference that Clinton only use Cruise Missiles in attacks on Iraq, so that no men might be lost on his watch. He expected to be CJCS under Al Gore and when Gore lost, Zinni lost his effin' mind and forgot where he came from.
It's due to Zinni's former boss, The Impeached One, that we only had the "minimum of troops" available. The rest had either been RIF'd, or just not re-upped rather than serve under "The Stain", or were tied down in places like the Balkans, fighting against the wrong people in some cases. Bet he didn't mention that, did he?
Ok I'll bite.
1.) You don't know where or what our intelligence is was or came from. You know what you have been told.
2.) With more troops - would we have covered ground faster? Lost fewer troops? This is not a conventional war - we totally dominated the conventional aspects. Your position is the same as Zinni and the other military strategists who are on the outs - the "more troops would make things better" strategy/opinion. You and he are entitled to your opinions - please understand that that is what you have - an opinion.
3.) The issues here are A.) Finding fault with the comander in chief during war time, and B. Media bias - presenting one side of a story with no counterpoint. Pure simple straightforward unabashed bias.
4.) What is Zinni's motivation for this interview? Selling his book? Sour Grapes? The whole thing stinks - he is not a pundit. Would he be interviewed on CBS if his opinion was that the administration has done everything right? Really?
5.) 20/20 hindsight - If Martinez had got one more out for the Red Sox last season the world would be a different place. It must be fun to sit on the sidelines and make fun of the guys doing the work and making the hard decisions.
Zinni is an ass for taking this interview. Regardless of his background or career, by doing this I would not trust him, and anyone who didn't trust his judgement before this appears to have made a wise choice. He is not attempting to help the situation - he is taking an opportunity to hit his political opponents when they will not be given a forum to respond. No real man would do that. I'm embarrassed that he is a Marine.
Diva's Husband
Yep, he would be that military and regional genius.
He was openly humiliated if I recall correctly.
Well heck, being humiliated is far better then being dead when you're wrong. He sure got off better then the USS Cole sailors over his mistakes.
1. Because he was an incompetent general that the troops despised. His most significent contribution was the purchase of hundreds of thousands of black berets from China which insulted the Rangers who had earned them and embarrassed the troops who had to wear them. Oh yes, and we never had to have 200,000 troops there. The troops we needed he failed to train.
2. Don't know.
3. Because we WERE greeted with flowers by 75% of the population. Because we are already 4 years ahead of where we were in either Japan or Germany right now. They should still be there.
We removed a dictator, entrenched for 30 years, COMPLETELY BUILT (not re-build) their infrastructure, eliminated the Republican Guard, trained a new NATIONAL Police force, a new military, opened schools, and hospitals in a here-to-fore unheard of number, restarted the Iraqi oil pipeline to prewar levels.
We did this while fighting terrorists in the form of Al Qaeda, the fedeyeen, and several other terrorists groups from within Iraq itself, from Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Iran. We continue to battle with fanatical followers of Clerics like Al Sadr ALL the while taking care NOT to hurt civilians nor damage Mosques or violate the numerous HOLY CITIES, and we do ALL OF THIS, while our own country is cowering with doubt about our President, our SECDEF, our Military and our MISSION.
And even more self-flaggelation is occuring as the PRESS/MEDIA skewers our country 24/7 as we openly HOLD investigations and Courts Martial for abuses that would PALE next to the most benign of Saddam's torture techniques. Finally all of this has happened in just 13 months with the INCREDIBLY LOW number of 581 KIA's.
Knowing that all of this and so much more has happened, I say our TROOPS should be damned proud of what they have accomplished, it is a UNBELEIVABLE and REMARKABLE achievement, in such a tremendously short period of time.
I believe that is called the "Thank you, sir! Please, may I have another?" wing of the Republican Party.
These are foremost the words of a future Dem Senate candidate.
Yep, that's the way it is with guys like Zinni, they criticize everyone else and never own up to their own mistakes. Or maybe that's WHY they are so busy pointing out everyone elses problems, they hope people won't notice or remember their failures.
-"In his upcoming book
You don't have to read past this line."-
That's when I stopped.
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.