Posted on 05/25/2004 5:31:02 AM PDT by jstolarczyk
A brand name author with many admirers in the military criticized the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, citing it as proof that "good men make mistakes."
That same writer said he almost "came to blows" with a leading war supporter, former Pentagon adviser Richard Perle.
The author is Tom Clancy.
The hawkish master of such million-selling thrillers as "Patriot Games" and "The Hunt for Red October" now finds himself adding to the criticism of the Iraq war, and not only through his own comments.
His latest book, "Battle Ready," is a collaboration with another war critic, retired Marine Gen. Anthony C. Zinni. "Battle Ready" looks at Zinni’s long military career, dating back to the Vietnam War, and includes harsh remarks by Zinni about the current conflict.
In an interview Monday with The Associated Press, Clancy and Zinni sat side by side in a hotel conference room in midtown Manhattan, mutual admirers who said they agreed on most issues, despite "one or two" spirited "discussions" during the book’s planning.
‘Good Men Make Mistakes’
Zinni has openly attacked the war, but Clancy reluctantly acknowledged his own concerns. He declined repeatedly to comment on the war, before saying that it lacked a "casus belli," or suitable provocation.
"It troubles me greatly to say that, because I’ve met President Bush," Clancy said. "He’s a good guy. ... I think he’s well-grounded, both morally and philosophically. But good men make mistakes."
"Battle Ready" was published Monday with a first printing of 438,700. It is the fourth in Clancy’s "Commanders" series, in which military leaders reflect on their careers and discuss military strategy.
"In the movies, military leaders are all drunken Nazis," said Clancy, who has worked on books about retired Gen. Chuck Horner, who led U.S. Central Command Air Forces during the Gulf War, and retired Gen. Carl Stiner, whose missions included the capture of Panama leader Manuel Noriega.
"In fact, these are very bright people who regard the soldiers and Marines under them as their own kids. I thought the people needed to know about that. These are good guys, and smart guys."
Very Different Men
While the 57-year-old Clancy is tall and thin, with bony arms and round, sunken eyes, the 60-year-old Zinni has the short, stocky build of an ex-Marine. He served as commander in chief of the U.S. Central Command from 1997 to 2000 and as a special Middle East envoy from 2001-2003.
But even as an envoy, Zinni spoke out against invading Iraq, regarding it as disastrous for Middle East peace and a distraction from the war against terrorism. On Monday, he said getting rid of Saddam Hussein was not worth the price.
"He’s a bad guy. He’s a terrible guy and he should go," Zinni said. "But I don’t think it’s worth 800 troops dead, 4,500 wounded — some of them terribly — $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and our reputation and our image in the world, particularly in that region, shattered."
In discussing the Iraq war, both Clancy and Zinni singled out the Department of Defense for criticism. Clancy recalled a prewar encounter in Washington during which he "almost came to blows" with Richard Perle, a Pentagon adviser at the time and a longtime advocate of the invasion.
"He was saying how [Secretary of State] Colin Powell was being a wuss because he was overly concerned with the lives of the troops," Clancy said. "And I said, ‘Look ..., he’s supposed to think that way!’ And Perle didn’t agree with me on that. People like that worry me."
Both Clancy and Zinni praised President Bush but would not commit to voting for him. Clancy said that voting for Sen. John Kerry, the Democrats’ presumptive nominee, would be "a stretch for me," but wouldn’t say that he was supporting Bush.
Zinni, a registered Republican who voted for Bush in 2000, said he could not support the president’s re-election "if the current strategists in the defense department are going to be carried over."
Zinni makes a point of answering all questions, just as he prides himself on speaking out against Iraq. He called it a lesson learned from Vietnam, when "we were all imprinted with the idea that we can’t let this come about again."
Clancy, meanwhile, was more close-mouthed, and not only about his views on Iraq. When asked what Jack Ryan, the fictional hero of "Patriot Games" and other Clancy novels, would have thought of the war, the author offered an enigmatic smile.
"I don’t like to comment on works in progress," he said.
There is a world of meaningful difference between writing about Jack Ryan... and actually being Jack Ryan.
You have now, officially, forgotten that difference.
How embarrassing. For you.
Whose picture has he been using on his book covers?
His novels have been 200 pages too long since Cardinal of the Kremlin, and the last good one was Debt of Honor. I've read all the following ones, and they've all been great disappointments. He seems to have divorced his talent abot the same time he divorced his wife (and tried to rip her off in the property settlement, too).
"I don’t like to comment on works in progress," he said.
How ironic.
With Michael Moore winning at Cannes and Hillary on TV every day bad-mouthing Pres. Bush, I guess these "conservatives" just want to get in on the action and get some of that media love too.
But for the record, Clancy said last night on Fox after the president's speech that he would vote for Bush in Nov.
A feeling I am altogether too familiar with. Surely for entirely different reasons. There are other issues.
You mentioned offhand anti war/anti bush comments on Law and Order.
Today on the radio, I heard an ad for AOL high speed. They said something like, "so you got your kids an Internet connection. MISSION NOT ACCOMPLISHED." THey then went on to tell us that AOL is better for kids.
I was completely offended by that swipe at our President and our soldiers.
Good Men Make Mistakes
Yeah--one of 'em is named Red Rabbit.
When Sean asked him if he would vote for Bush this fall, Clancy said "probably".
The problem of 9/11 seems to have been forgotten by these people and many others. Sure, Afghanistan was the obvious place to have a military option and take that away as a base for al Qaeda, but what are we supposed to do after Afghanistan? Just let a Saddam Hussein continue on? What is this with them forgetting the history of Saddam Hussein and the fact that we had a previous war with him that resulted in numerous UN resolutions that were NEVER followed and we weren't supposed to be concerned with Iraq?? Everyone was in belief that Iraq had and continued to work on WMD-what is this with them saying we should just have believed Saddam Hussein when he offered no proof and always stonewalled on following through with complete inspections?? This is what infuriates me because it is clear Saddam Hussein is not the kind of person with whom we could just trust after 9/11. He didn't live up to agreements to end the first Gulf War and we are now better off without him and his henchmen in power.
I think Clancy got his wings clipped and he no longer has the run of the Pentagon. He was privy to some prety secret stuff once upon a time.
It is the right of free people in a free country to criticize the government.
Then why does he not help the pressident instead of hurt the President. When are we going ot get the true story of Falluja. It is not just the Rats that are weak kneed decadents. The whole country cannot seem to near a fight. Under 600 combat deaths in a year and they are crying doom. What is worng with us?
True, but anyone who nearly engaged in a fist-fight with Richard Perle is OK in my book (Tom Clancy pun intended).
His last decent work was "Sum of All Fears". Then he sold out the story to a Hollywood PC rewrite and ruined that one, too.
Straw man argument. Nowhere in the article to which you are responding is it stated -- or even hinted at -- that Tom Clancy has no inherent right to "criticize the government."
Zinni wanted to be harder on Israel.
He and his ilk have let the Islamic cults roam the globe for decades, murdering innocents with impunity.
We tried it "his" way under Clinton, when he was a ME "expert", envoy.
Then 9/11. I would say he failed in his negotiations with the cults.
Claney is a fiction writer, he has no real decisions to make.
Didn't he write "Red Storm Rising"? That was before Jack Ryan came on board. A great book.
And I was within my rights last night as I held his new book, written in collaberation with General Jew Hater Zinni, and I paged through it, examined it, considered it, and for the first time EVER I have decided NOT to purchase a Tom Clancy book.
As I set it back on the shelf, I was sending a message to Mr. Clancy - ignore your base at your own peril.
These people are jerks. They figure if they continue to bash a President, whom I think is doing a terrific job, that people will be lulled (in this case saturated to death) into believing them. It's people like George Soros, who I wonder is an American citizen. If anyone believes this man is in this fight for anything other than his own personal wealth; they need to get off those fluffy clouds they are sitting on and come back down to earth. Does anyone really think this man cares for anyone but himself and his wealth? Maybe we should investigate exactly what this man does for a living.
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.