In the rush to engage in ad hominen attack, the responses to my post on Gen. Zinni presume much. They assume that I agree with his assessment and conclusion. In fact, all I counsel is to not disregard what he says in the crush to be an apolgist for a foreign/military polciy that is being subjected to rational and thoughtful challenge.
My own opinion, while of no significance in the larger picture, is that the offensive operation was proper and timely. The after action occupation has been a victim of a force structure that is inconsistent with the mission to be performed. The SecDef's "transformation" has a sound philosophical underpinning but is too heavily influenced by those movers & shakers in the defense industrial complex who have serious vested interests in the changes on the horizon.
A rote condemnation of critics of policy like Clark, Zinni, Colonel Pat Hayes, and the others is a confession of abdicating the critical thought process expected of educated and thinking persons to those in the Administration's spin machine.
O Captain, I never disregarded his wise counsel.I am more interested in his motives.Frankly,I am well disturbed by his recent statements and those of Clark who has had more twists than a carnival pretzel .
I agree that there have been some mixed signals, but , frankly, I think Zinni has joined the chorus of former officers still wanting to be relevant.He also has joined the Admiral Crowe club of giving aid and comfort to a political party hellbent on the destruction of the institutions he is alleged to hold dear.
No spin, I just think Zinni must realize what's in his FBI file.