I voted, and it was a hard vote to make. It was for resignation. While I believe Secretary Rumsfeld is very intelligent, well intentioned and did what he thought best in the planning and execution of Operation Iraqi Freedom; he, along with General Tommy Franks, Paul Bremer, and Doug Feith (and several others); is responsible for the counterinsurgency on the brink of civil war we now face.
Mistakes are always made in these types of endeavors; good commanders learn from those mistakes and make course changes. IMHO Secretary Rumsfeld let his extremist dedication to “transformation” drive his decision-making process and his personality drove his reluctance to admit error when errors were made.
I, like many others here, applauded when he took on the Mainstream Media’s biased reporting. Still, even the MSM can be right at times. They called it an insurgency when the SECDEF denied it and they were spot-on. They reported on the ethnic and religious divisions and how it could very well lead to civil war and the SECDEF brushed it aside.
Of particular concern to me was the lack of planning and attention given to OIF Phase IV operations. Bottom-line, that phase was an abortion – everything from planning, troop levels to provide security during the post-1 May 2003 “Golden Hour”, the stove-piped chain of command between the military and the CPA, Bremer’s dissolution of the Iraqi Army and de-Baathification policies, to the military’s interpretation of Rumsfeld’s, Frank’s and later Sanchez’s commander’s intent that had our forces fighting one war while our enemy was fighting another.
I’ll get off the soapbox now; this is hard because I still believe it is critical to our national security interests to win in Iraq. Still, one of my heroes – often maligned on this board – General Anthony Zinni warned us early on to the situation we would face in Iraq and by extension the ripple effects throughout the Middle East.
People like Zinni should be running the show now – not Rumsfeld… We require people who understand the nature of the war and are willing enough to take mistakes in stride and provide the guidance to implement necessary changes to endure we achieve victory.
"Still, one of my heroes – often maligned on this board – General Anthony Zinni warned us early on to the situation we would face in Iraq and by extension the ripple effects throughout the Middle East."
_____________________________________________________________________________
In an interview on "Meet the Press," Gen. Zinni said, "And what bothered me [was that] ... I was hearing a depiction of the intelligence that didn't fit what I knew. There was no solid proof, that I ever saw, that Saddam [Hussein] had [weapons of mass destruction]."
In early 2000, Gen. Zinni told Congress, "Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf region" and added, "Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research, [and] retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions ... Even if Baghdad reversed its course and surrendered all WMD capabilities, it retains scientific, technical and industrial infrastructure to replace agents and munitions within weeks or months."
Those two public statements by Gen. Zinni, one while on active duty and presumably under oath before Congress and the other after retiring from the military, are contradictory. Whom do you believe, Zinni 2000 or Zinni 2006?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1617837/posts?page=27#27
Consider the example of retired Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni. General Zinni, the former commander of U.S. Central Command, has been a long-time critic of Bush Administration policies in the Middle East and the war effort. During the early years of the Bush Administration, General Zinni was a special U.S. envoy to the Middle East, charged with mediating talks between Israel and the Palestinians. But Zinni proved to be an ineffective negotiator, and displayed a slightly lopsided approach in dealing with the two sides. On his first trip to the region as an envoy, Zinni criticized Israel for building settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, while demanding to know that the Sharon government was "prepared to do" if the Palestinians offered a cease fire. Needless to say, Zinni's tone didn't exactly endear him--or his efforts--to the Israelis.
After leaving the administration, General Zinni elevated his rhetoric, telling CBS's 60 Minutes that the U.S. went to war in Iraq to strengthen Israel. He also attributed failures in Iraq to the policies developed by administration neo-cons--many of whom are Jewish. Israeli Insider magazine labeled Zinni's remarks as anti-Semitic--a charge that the former general rejects. I'm not prepared to label General Zinni as an anti-Semite, but his assertion about the alleged influence of Jewish influences and officials is disturbing, and unworthy of a former Middle East envoy.
http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2006/04/generals-revolt.html