Say what?
Posted on 10/10/2002 12:29:16 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
|
Gen. Zinni Says Containing Iraq Can Work
Thu Oct 10, 1:05 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The former commander of U.S. forces in the Gulf spoke out on Thursday against attacking Iraq, saying a policy of containment would work and Washington had at least five higher priorities in the Middle East.
"I think this wolf (Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)) can be left for another shot. There are plenty of wolves on the sled," said retired Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni. "I'm not convinced we need to do this now. I believe he is ... containable at this moment," he told the annual meeting of the Middle East Institute, a Washington think-tank. Zinni has been an outspoken critic of an attack on Iraq, and is familiar with Middle Eastern leaders and has been a mediator between Israelis and Palestinians. Under the Democratic Clinton administration, Zinni was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Central Command, which runs American forces in the Middle East. The Republican Bush administration sent him to the Middle East to try to arrange a truce between Israel and the Palestinians. Zinni said in his experience fighting rarely accomplished what politicians intended. "If we look at this (attacking Iraq) as the beginning of a chain of events that means that we intend to do this through violent action, we're on the wrong course," he said. "First of all, I don't see that that's necessary. Secondly, I think that war and violence are a very last resort and we have to be careful how we apply it, especially now, in our position in the world," he said. He said the U.S. priorities in the Middle East should be putting Middle East peace talks back on track, ensuring that Iran continues to move toward reform, helping Afghanistan (news - web sites) and other central Asian states, patching up relations with Arab states and reopening dialogue with the people of the region. "I would take those priorities before this one (Iraq). My personal view is I think this isn't number one, it's maybe sixth or seventh," he added.
|
This should have been taken care of in 1998, but I suppose there was not enough political will at the time.
Anthony Ritter Zinni
Say what?
My personal view is that it's good Zinni is retired. We have a war to win.
1. putting Middle East peace talks back on track
Iraq is financially assiting the terrorist attacking Israel. Only overthrowing Iraq will cease that assistance.
2. ensuring that Iran continues to move toward reform
With a democratic Afghanistan and Iraq on Iran's boarder combined with President Bush highlighting the Iran's evil government, Iran should continue toward reform. Overthrowing Iraq and replacing it with a true democracy will help push Iran to reform.
3. helping Afghanistan and other central Asian states, patching up relations with Arab states
The best way for this to happen is to stop state-sponsorship of terrorism. We have pushed Afghanistan and Pakistan toward reform. It's time to push Iraq.
4.reopening dialogue with the people of the region.
What the heck does this mean? The United States has always been deeply involved in dialog with the people of the Middle East region. Overthrowing Iraq and replacing it with a democractic government will likely increase dialog even more.
The only problem is that it doesn't work when all you have is two dummies.
Zinni's argument was the same one Clinton used, which only cost us 3,000 civilians and $100 billion. And the hit on the Cole. And the hits on our embassies. And the hits on our servicemen in Saudi Arabia, and other countries.
If U.S. civilians aren't worth the lives of a few "dead servicemen, why bother with defending the Country at all. I guess the issue is whether it's better to take the fight to the enemy, and fight on their tuff, or fight on U.S. soil. Or, whether anything is worth fighting for. Or, whether you'd only fight wars led by Democrats.
SFS - CDR, USNR
The U.S. presence is “a force for stability in the region,” the commander said. “I don’t think anyone has a crystal ball and can predict when Saddam will go away. He is still a threat and [regional allies] appreciate us being there providing a deterrent to that threat. Our vital interests require our presence.”
From 1997:
Asked whether Saddam Hussein is capable of using chemical and biological warfare, Zinni replied, "I spent seven months in northern Iraq. I went into the Kurdish villages that were gassed. I went into villages where no stone stood upon stone, and the villagers told me that five times the villages were destroyed. We still detected traces of the chemicals in those areas and couldn't let the Kurds go back into those villages.
"He used it in the Iran-Iraq war. He's used it against the marsh Arabs. So he's used it against brother Arabs. He used it against brother Muslims." If, indeed, Saddam Hussein possesses those weapons, Zinni said, "it's clear" he will use them.
Calling Saddam Hussein "dangerous," Zinni said, "I would not want to predict his intentions. I purely look at his capabilities; those exist. As I said, he's still in violation of some of the sanctions that are in place to support the resolutions, and until he is fully compliant, I think we have to be ready to take military action and to respond because he still poses a threat."
The likelihood of a military confrontation is unpredictable, Zinni said, adding, "I think we have to fully expect that it could be a possibility that this would occur. I am not sure how desperate (Saddam Hussein) is. He is a man that doesn't act rationally. I have seen the results of his handiwork, firsthand. It's sickening. And it seems to me he has little value for human life. And if it's a question of being in power, I think he'd resort to any act."
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.