For Vietnam Vet Anthony Zinni, Another War on Shaky Territory

Washington Post ^ | Tuesday, December 23, 2003; | Thomas E. Ricks

[SUSSA]

Anthony C. Zinni's opposition to U.S. policy on Iraq began on the monsoon-ridden afternoon of Nov. 3, 1970. He was lying on a Vietnamese mountainside west of Da Nang, three rounds from an AK-47 assault rifle in his side and back. He could feel his lifeblood seeping into the ground as he slipped in and out of consciousness.

He had plenty of time to think in the following months while recuperating in a military hospital in Hawaii. Among other things, he promised himself that, "If I'm ever in a position to say what I think is right, I will. . . . I don't care what happens to my career."

That time has arrived.

[KantianBurke]

Yes but unlike Weasley Clark, he has nothing to gain by making these statements. He's retired and not running for election. His remarks should at least be aired.

[sinkspur]

I always think military heros are worth hearing about military matters. And I usually believe them before I believe politicians.

Why? What gives a military "hero" (Wesley Clark is a "hero", too) more credibility than an entire Defense Department staff?

Zinni bombed in the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, so he's got a mixed record.

[CWOJackson]

"Bush seems to have thought highly of him and his abilities."

As an envoy, yes. Heck, pat buchanan was a half way decent speech writer...sure didn't make him presidential material.

[SUSSA]

Clark is running for office. He has an agenda. this guy has nothing to gain.

[SUSSA]

The general isn't running for office. That alone makes his opinion worth considering.

[rocksblues]

"Zinni, like many generals, is viewing this war through the prism of the last war. It is a mistake generals often make."

Absolutely correct. All you have to do is watch the History Channel.

[Miss Marple]

Because he isn't running for office he has nothing to gain?

There are lots of things to be gained besides political office: positions on boards, speaking engagements, book contracts, and the ability to shoot arrows at officers whom you dislike.

I am not saying that any of these is his motive. He may, in fact, be sincere about his criticism. That does not make him correct, however.

[CWOJackson]

And how do you know what the general is or isn't doing now? Are you sure he isn't running for office?

Are you sure a democrat nominee hasn't offered him SoD?

LOL! The only qualification of his you like is he disagrees with the President.

[MinuteGal]

The general didn't achieve the rank he did by NOT being a politician.

He's out of the loop now. Does he see every bit of private news and secret intel that crosses the president's desk or is relayed to him by officers in the war zone or by his own defense and state departments? I think not.

Another liberal mind-setted old war dog, going by his "feelings", experience in past wars, and to heck with facts (all of which he's not privvy to).

Leni

[shrinkermd]

"I think a weakened, fragmented, chaotic Iraq, which could happen if this isn't done carefully, is more dangerous in the long run than a contained Saddam is now," he told reporters in 1998. "I don't think these questions have been thought through or answered." It was a warning for which Iraq hawks such as Paul D. Wolfowitz, then an academic and now the No. 2 official at the Pentagon, attacked him in print at the time.

"Now, five years later, Zinni fears it is an outcome toward which U.S.-occupied Iraq may be drifting. Nor does he think the capture of Hussein is likely to make much difference, beyond boosting U.S. troop morale and providing closure for his victims. "Since we've failed thus far to capitalize" on opportunities in Iraq, he says, "I don't have confidence we will do it now. I believe the only way it will work now is for the Iraqis themselves to somehow take charge and turn things around. Our policy, strategy, tactics, et cetera, are still screwed up."

The problem is one of strategy (policy) and tactics (military implementation). The good general is an expert at the latter and not the former. Actually, he simply parrots the excuses the Clinton Administration made for not doing anything about Sadaam. He probably also hates Wolfowitz and anyone else who wants to use force to obviate a threat to both us and Israel.

[sinkspur]

Bush seems to have thought highly of him and his abilities.

Apparently not enough to put him in Paul Bremer's place.

What's your deal? Is Zinni a relative?

[KantianBurke]

According to the article, he did have a plan in place to occupy Iraq:

"So early in 1999 he ordered that plans be devised for the possibility of the U.S. military having to occupy Iraq. Under the code name "Desert Crossing," the resulting document called for a nationwide civilian occupation authority, with offices in each of Iraq's 18 provinces. That plan contrasts sharply, he notes, with the reality of the Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.S. occupation power, which for months this year had almost no presence outside Baghdad -- an absence that some Army generals say has increased their burden in Iraq."

[SUSSA]

Right you are. Nor does it make him wrong or suspect. His service coupled with the fact that he isn't seeking office should at least mean people consider what he says.

You are most reasonable in your reasoning.

[muawiyah]

Is he a war hero?

Getting wounded means nothing more than you were wounded. Going there is kind of heroic, but just exactly what was it this guy did to be heroic beyond what was the case of every other guy who went to war?

Sounds like he "went over" some time back. Every time they dig up another mass grave in Iraq, the suggestion gets stronger that guys like Zinni think folks like the Iraqis are just another bunch of ragheads who he, and his friends, believe to be undeserving of basic human rights.

So, what kind of hero is this guy?

[Miss Marple]

The duties of the proposed Coalition Provisional Authority provincial offices are being carried out by the military. Yes, it is a burden on the military. However, it seems to me that the military has been more efficient and successful than an army of bureaucrats.

[sinkspur]

His service coupled with the fact that he isn't seeking office should at least mean people consider what he says.

It's been considered and rejected.

[Trickyguy]

There is one credential he is lacking...he's not the commander-in-chief.

As if the mentally confused and incoherent George Bush should be?

[M1911A1]

The General makes a good case that starting the war in Iraq was ill condidered. I believe that reasonable people can believe this (it was pre-emptive, the major domestic selling point, WMD, have yet to turn up, etc.).

However, started it was, and now we are there. I did not see his proposed course of action in this article, unless it involves turning back the clock.

I respect General Zinni. It may turn out that our efforts in Iraq do not turn out to our advantage, and in retrospect he will seem wise. But unless he has some proposal that I haven't heard, I think it would be best if he save this kind of talk for the next conflict.

[MEG33]

Piffle

[sinkspur]

As if the mentally confused and incoherent George Bush should be?

Yes. He was elected CIC by the American people. Your opinion is not shared by the vast majority of voters, which will no doubt keep you irritated for the next four years.