Say what?
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.
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."
When? In twelve more years?
In the penultimate paragraph Mylroie concludes: "Given how decisive America's defeat of Iraq seemed in 1991, Saddam has accomplished a significant part of his program. He has secured the critical goal of ending UN weapons inspections, and he is now free to rebuild an arsenal of unconventional armaments. he has also succeeded in thoroughly confusing America as to the nature of the terrorist threat it has faced since the World Trade Center bombing. He is free, it would appear, to carry out more terrorist attacks, possibly even unconventional terrorism, as long as he can make it appear to be the work of a loose network of Muslim extremists." And thus Laurie Mylroie predicts Saddam Hussein will continue to attack American citizens and interests. At a minimum, we should expect attempted bombings and other attacks in the year 2001 and beyond. And so, the question about Saddam Hussein remains, what is to be done?The dust jacket of Study of Revenge lists laudatory comments from former Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey, former Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard N. Perle, former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Jeanne J. Kirkpatrick, former CIA chief of counterterrorism Vincent Cannistraro, and the former director of the New York FBI Office James M. Fox. And these comments are well-earned. Study of Revenge reads well and it sets a new high standard for investigative literature; it is the product of thorough and painstaking research, and its conclusions are sobering.
Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, January, 2001
Who sent the anthrax, Admiral?
A complete moron who oversaw the Middle East while Clinton was in office. Need I say more.
Semper Fi....unless it isnt politically expedient huh? Nitwit.