Skip to comments.Former US general says Rumsfeld should quit over Iraq
Posted on 04/02/2006 9:38:54 PM PDT by Prost1
WASHINGTON (AFP) - A former senior US military commander, Anthony Zinni, called for the dismissal of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld over critical mistakes made in the Iraq war.
Zinni, who headed the US Central Command from 1997 to 2000, was asked if anyone should lose their job over how Washington has managed its Iraq policy.
"Secretary of defense to begin with," he told NBC's "Meet the Press" program.
"Integrity and getting on with the mission and doing it right is more important than loyalty. Both are great traits, but integrity, honesty and performance and competence have to outweigh, in this business, loyalty," the former Marine Corps general said.
Zinni has called for a high-level shake-up at the Pentagon since late 2003, the same year the United States invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam Hussein.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
What is not disclosed is how much money Zinni has made since retirement from his Arab friends. We know Colin Powell became an overnight multi-millionaire because he had to disclose his net worth when he became SecState.
Zinni, on the other hand, is a Director of several US companies involved in Pentagon business and Security.
A full disclosure is most appropriate!
Where was he when Clinton bombed aspirin factories and Chinese embassies.
Zinni is a putz.
"Where was he when Clinton bombed aspirin factories and Chinese embassies?"
CinC of Centcom, I believe....but that was ok.
It did not disturb his relationships with the Saudis and other Shieks.
Is Zinni a foreign lobbyist? Does he work for the Saudis or earn money from the Saudis or other Arabs as Colin Powell and other former military leaders/government officials?
With the lead-in you provided the detractors deserve a full investigation prior to any scrutiny of Rummy.
"A full disclosure is most appropriate!" applies to them most appropriately and helps prove the value of the adage that "the guilty dog barks first".
As I recall Rumsfeld thought there were some generals who needed firing. I think Zinni was one of them.
"Zinni, who has close ties to Colin Powell and the Oil Shieks, has never been happy with the Iraq foreign policy."
However, I tend to agree with the General, at least to the point where I believe that the execution of the Iraq invasion was poorly handled.
Anyone who's studied Iraq, even for a quick seminar, should've seen lots of these problems coming. Quite frankly, we're finding out why it took a SOB like Saddam to stay in power, much less run the place. The tribal and ethnic rivalries were simmering, and once the lid was off those old scores were bound to be settled. Anyone in their right mind would've seen the Iranian interferance.
I got the feeling going into the war that the Administration was spending almost all of its time thinking about how to win the combat, a little time selling the idea to the American people, and absolutely no time thinking about what life would be like after the combat phase.
Zinni should have been s***canned over the Cole but he had already retired.
As a matter of full-disclosure.
I know Zinni was a 4star Marine General and the Centcom chief following Gulf War 1.
I also know after he retired, he became a board member of several defense and intelligence agencies and has had extensive trips to the middle east visiting the oil emirates.
I also know that Zinni has never supported military action to depose Saddam or democratize the middle east. This would shake up the emirates and kingdoms (his benefactors, I believe).
I also believe he is one of Colin Powell's spokesman and Rumsfeld knows who is directing this latest attack.
While the Dems yell about Haliburton, they never make a peep about Rockefeller! Rockefeller/Saudi Crude.
Powell, Zinni and associates (Kissinger, et al).
The waters are murky and deep because our "patriots" are so fond of our real enemies.
From my point of view, it has appeared that the Bush administration weighed it's actions heavily on what the commanders in the field said they needed.
I've seen some things I didn't quite feel comfortable with over the past few years, but I don't think any war campaign is waged perfectly. Situations morph and operations are adapted.
If Bush had taken some of the actions current detractors might have suggested, when they failed those same detractors would have been damning Bush for not taking the actions he actually did.
Of course the Bush administration hasn't met with 100% success. Will any campaign lasting more than six months? No. There will be great successes and painful losses.
If I thought Bush were guility of negligence, or Rumsfeld was an incompetent, I'd be the one to air my views. As of this date, I still cannot do so.
I think this administration has done it's level best to conduct the most appropriate campaign in Iraq that it could, and to this point I agree with it and support the team completely.
I tink our troops are for the most part well served by the Bush team. I wish I could say the same for the anti-Bush anti-war forces, who for a little face time are willing to sell our troops down the river without a second thought.
No I'm not buying it that they are doing this for the troops. Voicing differences in public is a poor way to increase support for this administration's policy, and the resultant support for troops. The terrorists see this carping, and realize that we are not unified.
That is the message that simply cannot be sent in time of war, providing you want to win.
"several defense and intelligence agencies..."
omitted "companies". Zinni is on the Board of Directors of companies doing defense and intell business.
Ether we win it and change the course of history for the better. Or, we cut and run like Zinni and others like him are wont to do, and we will have more 9/11's for the foreseeable future.
I personally don't care what anyone thinks or what/who gets broken or killed as long as it is noone in these United States.
Noone is all knowing to the point that they could have predicted what would happen after Saddam was eliminated. He, like Tito, kept the lid on all the factions through multiple means including fear. So the place fell apart. There was nothing there anyway.
"They could have run 10,000 different simulations of post combat Iraq and still not have foreseen what the experience is now."
Like no one would see that the Kurds, Shiites and Sunis wouldn't rise up against one another? No one could foresee the various factions and tribes within those groups settling old scores?
This part of the world hadn't governed itself in over a thousand years before they got their independence, and even then what they got was a country drawn up by Brits and Frogs who had no clue what they were doing.
One couldn't foresee the hedgerows, but they sure could foresee the surrender of the Vichy French, and the reprisals that followed, non?
The Iraq campaign continues to be an overall success IMO.
All challenges of this magnitude are subject to ups and downs.
Our leadership has been steady and our troops are skilled, valiant and professional.
That is a winning combination in a campaign of endurance.
Tony Koltz not Bernard Trainor.
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.