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.

[verity]

These jar jeads never learn. :~)

[geedee]

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

I don't believe the above is what people are arguing with you about. Look towards the top of the thread . . . where you show you're not "open-minded" and are only willing to listen to opinions when they coincide with yours . . . when you claimed the Administration is spinning things.

You can't call one side of a debating team "spinners" or liars, then claim to be righteous and open-minded. Hence, FReepers are taking you to task.

By the way, I actually considered Zinni's opinions for a nano-second or two . . . until I remembered how well he'd done in the Middle East.

Good Generals are, thank God, damned reluctant to go to war. They know better than most about all the horrors entailed. But they're looking through military tunnel-vision and are as comfortable outside their regimented worlds as Pee Wee Herman is in St. Catherine's Nunnery.

When you need brain surgery, I suggest you not hand the scalpel to a dentist.

Some wars are necessary. I give you mass graves, torture chambers, a terrified populace, a dominated region, 9-11, WMD's that either still exist or did exist at one time, gazillions of oil-dollars in the hands of an anti-Semitic madman, and a world full of terrorists who thought they could murder innocent Americans with impunity as proof of that necessity.

[razorback-bert]

Gen. Benedict Arnold thought we couldn't win either.

[KantianBurke]

I give you mass graves, torture chambers, a terrified populace, a dominated region, 9-11, WMD's that either still exist or did exist at one time, gazillions of oil-dollars in the hands of an anti-Semitic madman, and a world full of terrorists who thought they could murder innocent Americans with impunity as proof of that necessity.

Not to nitpick but I HOPE we didn't go into Iraq due to the bolded reasons. We can and should send our troops into harms way if and when our national security is threatened as was the case in Iraq. NOT though every time a petty tyrant abuses his people. Bluntly, its not our problem and its not worth risking our fighting men and women's lives.

[M1911A1]

I hardly think General Zinni is a traitor. I think he has reservations about our cassis belli that any reasonable person might have. His status brings these reservations added weight, in his case.

I do think that now is not the time for him to engage in public second guessing, but I have little doubt that his motives are pure.

[fourhorsemen]

Retired General Anthony Zinni is a decorated Vietnam War veteran, four-star Marine general and former Central Command Chief in Charge of all U.S. Forces in the Persian Gulf Region. In addition Zinni Was Selected Personally by George W. Bush as U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East in 2001. He's not some anti-war hippy.

Perhaps, but he appears to have gone off the deep end. As a military vet he ought to know that sometimes the best policy is proactive engagement. Sun Tzu teaches that you fight on your own terms at a time of your own choosing. You don't wait to be struck.

[CWOJackson]

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

Careful, with comments like that he'll be calling you a brilliant military genius next.

[cajun-jack]

the problem is that we try to "play nice"....I/we went thru that in Nam...can't shoot here..can't engage the enenmy here cause we are in a friendly fire zone..i was in phu bai for christsakes...the friendly fire zone designation came because there was a very very small village about 500 meters from our perimeter wire.

If a sapper came into our wire and set off a trip flare or was spotted, we had to call the officer of the guard prior to engage unless we were being fired upon.

You can fight a "nice" war, but you damn sure can't win one!!

[dts32041]

Smedly Butler your replacement has arrived.

[shrinkermd]

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

Are you suggesting he had one no invasion plan in 1998 and a military takeover in 1999? The good general seems to change with the political winds. On one hand he wants no part of an Iraq war, then, on the other hand like many generals always wants more troops than necessary to do the job. Perhaps he is a McCainiac who wanted a whole army in Afghanistan when we continue to do the job with 11,000 or about a division. I think the good general is just angry with Bush, Wolfowitz and the Jews in that order.

[geedee]

Not to nitpick . . .

LOL. But you did nitpick. My list wasn't intended to be in order of importance. And I agree with you . . . to a point.

Yes, our national security SHOULD be the primary, overwhelming reason why we use force . . . but one has to be forward-looking enough to realize when the continued "bad habits" of another sovereign nation will eventually effect us. Saudi Arabia for example. I don't know when the "radicalization" of Islam started being taught in the Saudi and Saudi-connected schools but we should've stepped to the plate as soon as we noticed it. I suspect it probably became widespread during the Carter Administration . . . but it's immaterial when it started. We should've seen how it would affect us and we should've done something about it.

But, then, that's from 20/20 hindsight.

But just because threats to our citizenry and sovereignty are the primary reasons for war, that doesn't mean we shouldn't acknowledge all the other good things accomplished because of our military action. God knows our enemies, both domestic and foreign, will point out EVERY minute item that might be wrong about our action.

[KantianBurke]

"but one has to be forward-looking enough to realize when the continued "bad habits" of another sovereign nation will eventually effect us. Saudi Arabia for example."

The problem with that type of policy is that sometimes there are greater dangers present than someone's "bad habits." For example we had to play nice nice with Iraq during the Cold War and the Iran/Iraq War. To follow a foreign policy based on enforcing human rights ect will end just as it did when Jimmy Carter put it into practice - failure and accusations of hypocrisy. A more appropriate manner in dealing with bad habits is the "speak softly but carry a big stick" diplomacy route.

[geedee]

A more appropriate manner in dealing with bad habits is the "speak softly but carry a big stick" diplomacy route.

As we should've done with the Saudis.

And again, I've NEVER said we should go to war JUST because of human rights abuses. But it's purty good icing on the cake when one can rid the world of a mass murderer while we're also protecting our own national interest.

[Hugin]

One of the negative side-effects of the Vietnam experience is that it created a defeatist expectation among many of the officers who served there, a sort of "can't do" attitude. One result was the Powell doctrine; never go to war unless you have overwhelming military power, total public support, and a well defined exit strategy. That's fine when you have the luxury of picking and choosing what wars to fight; it's a terrible idea when you are attacked. had the Brits followed the Powell doctrine Argentina would still have the Falklands.

In war you don't always have the luxury of having everything lined up perfectly ahead of time. Sometimes you have to go with what you've got and find a way to make it happen. That's what Rumsfeld's restructuring of the military is all about. And that's why he has gotten rid of a lot of Vietnam era generals who aren't willing to adapt, improvise and overcome. Zinni is no doubt a patriot and a fine soldier, but he is exactly the wrong kind of thinker for the war we are in today.

George McClellan had a fine record of service and said we were fighting a war that could not be won also. Meanwhile Gens. Grant and Sherman simply went out and won it.

[dts32041]

WAR IS A RACKET

Smedley Butler circa 1930

After fighting the banana wars.

Marines have a tendency to bitch like this.

[faithincowboys]

SO we should have done nothing after 9-11? Why wasn't he against Afghanistan? That was the Soviet's Vietnam after all. Doing anything was risky? Not doing anything was even riskier. I think doing Iraq how we did it set a lot of people who hate us back on their heels. I am glad about that. Zinni is a guy whose tool Nam-ed out. The men who fought that war are generally too screwed up to be good foreign policy guys. That war was too sour and it made them one note anti-force johnnys.

[af_vet_1981]

He's not some anti-war hippy.

He is publicly challenging our Commander-In-Chief during time of war. He is giving aid and comfort to our enemies. You tell me what that makes him.

[AndyJackson]

You know old generals - always losing the last war.

[hosepipe]

[ Zinni still talks like an old-school Marine -- a big-shouldered, weight-lifting, working-class Philadelphian ]

Meaningless!...is he a democrat ?... If he is he is clueless.. probably on military matters too!.. to remain a democrat with the democrat partys recriminations over at least the past 12 years is unconcionable and speaks to a possible treasonous bent... Disagree!, Weasely Clark is another good example.. still disagree, then you're probably stupid..

[AndyJackson]

George McClellan had a fine record of service and said we were fighting a war that could not be won also. Meanwhile Gens. Grant and Sherman simply went out and won it.

McClellan was the inside the beltway choice. Grant wasn't allowed inside the beltway. Just goes to show - some things never change.