General Zinni: "They've screwed up..."

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Bullypulpit, May 23, 2004.

  1. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    <center><h1><a href=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml>Dereliction of Dutyy</a></h1></center>



    <blockquote>The current situation in Iraq was destined to happen, says Zinni, because planning for the war and its aftermath has been flawed all along.

    "There has been poor strategic thinking in this...poor operational planning and execution on the ground," says Zinni, who served as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Central Command from 1997 to 2000.

    Zinni blames the poor planning on the civilian policymakers in the administration, known as neo-conservatives, who saw the invasion as a way to stabilize the region and support Israel. He believes these people, who include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense, have hijacked U.S. foreign policy.

    "They promoted it and pushed [the war]... even to the point of creating their own intelligence to match their needs. Then they should bear the responsibility," Zinni tells Kroft.</blockquote>

    Why is it that retired, and active duty, top US brass continue to criticize and excoriate Dubbyuh's cabal of neocon chickenhawks for their pursuit and conduct of the war in Iraq? Why does the input of civilian, ideologically driven policy wonks out weight the input from experienced, battle-tested officers?

    McArthur was right.
     
  2. HGROKIT
    Offline

    HGROKIT Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,398
    Thanks Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Federal Way WA, USA
    Ratings:
    +19
    Because the civilian and retired folks you seem to lend so much credibility are just that - retired. I would not think they have access to all the intelligence/information to make an informed opinion and therefore are arm chair QB's with 20/20 hindsight.

    Seems to be a common theme with the anti-war camp. Find disruptive and negative information from any source irrespective of any real knowledge of "actual" facts that soure may have. Rhetoric and opinion can be formed to support any position. That is called "Spin".

    The one thing I have noted from all of the detractors, they are quick on the critique bandwagon, but slow with any constructive suggestions or any clear-cut poicies. And no - "We sholdn't be there" is not a suggestion.

    Shouldn't your post be on "Anti-USA"?
     
  3. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    Sorry, but General Zinny is very much in the loop as a Midddle East envoy for much of Dubbyuh's miguided and ill-considered adventurism in that region. :teeth:
     
  4. pegwinn
    Offline

    pegwinn Top of the Food Chain

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,549
    Thanks Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +329


    Uno: Retired people are not stupid. The good-ol-boy network is alive and well. Also, the proper term is 'retained' as they are drawing "retainer" pay unless they have over 30 years service. Believe me, retired policy makers and general/flag officers are giving advice. Besides, Gen Zinni is in the loop, as he went on to a diplomatic career as well. So far, he's about the only anti-anything I am willing to listen to. That doesn't mean GWB is wrong. It means that Zinni may be right as well.

    Dos: Please provide proof that "active duty, top US brass continue to criticize and excoriate Dubbyuh's cabal of neocon chickenhawks.....". Otherwize bow out while it is still safe.
     
  5. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    <center><h1><a href=http://www.newhouse.com/archive/wood041304.html>Army Strategist Criticizes Bush Administration Conduct of Iraq War</a></h1></center>

    <blockquote>BY DAVID WOOD


    WASHINGTON -- In a broadside fired at the conduct of the war in Iraq, a senior Army strategist has accused the Bush administration of seeking to win "quickly and on the cheap" while ignoring the more critical strategic aim of creating a stable, democratic nation.

    While the United States easily won the initial battles that toppled Saddam Hussein a year ago, the administration "either misunderstood or, worse, wished away" the difficulties of transforming that victory into the larger political goal, Army Lt. Col. Antulio J. Echevarria of the U.S. Army War College writes in a new paper.

    President Bush and other senior officials have consistently cited this larger context for intervening in Iraq: establishing democracy there as a foothold to transform the Middle East and win the global war on terrorism.

    Yet the Pentagon's civilian leadership, centered in the office of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, focused "on achieving rapid military victories" with a force "equipped only to win battles, not wars," Echevarria, director of national security studies at the War College's Strategic Studies Institute, writes in the paper published in March.</blockquote>

    For a link to the paper itself, go <a href=http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/2004/wayofwar/wayofwar.htm>here</a>
    The paper itself is in pdf format.

    And let's not forget the emeber of the JCS who was relieved of his command just weeks before his retirement because he dared to criticize the administrations plans for war in Iraq.
     
  6. Comrade
    Offline

    Comrade Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,873
    Thanks Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Seattle, WA.
    Ratings:
    +167
    No, McArthur had his ass handed to him for challenging the legitimate and legal authority which constitutionally superceded his own ego.

    Any General, war hero or not, which challenges the elected civilian Commander in Chief, deserves to be hogtied and dragged home for immediate discharge, honorable or not. MacArthur deserved to be cut down at the knees and retired for directly opposing Truman's administration in Peacetime Japan.

    At some point all uniformed military swear an oath to follow the constitution while in service, and while in service insubordination against one's commander in chief is a traitorous act for a General, and capital offense.

    The power a General directly wields, demands utmost responsibility due to the UTTER DIRE THREAT of a coup via direct military means by those under his command.

    In our Democracy, a retired General is free to say or do as he pleases, however, I consider it a stain upon Zinni's personal honor for denouncing our current Commander in Chief while in command.

    No matter how he disagree's with the CIC and his leadership, how dare he cast doubt upon the leadership now engaged in active wartime deployment, and undermine the morale of the troops in the field.

    If it were anyone else, I would no problem with his partisan grudge. As far as I'm concerned, he is a REMF who can ESAD.
     
  7. st8_o_mind
    Offline

    st8_o_mind Guest

    Ratings:
    +0

    [From today's Washington Post] -- Referring to himself and Vice President Cheney, Bush said during an exchange with reporters in the Oval Office, "We both trust General Zinni."


    Not exactly hindsight. Forsight: As reported by the Center for Defense Information Sept. 13, 2002, Zinni said:

    "Something seriously lacking in the Bush Whitehouse. Attacking Iraq now will cause a lot of problems. I think the debate right now that's going on is very healthy. If you ask me my opinion, Gen. Scowcroft, Gen. Powell, Gen. Schwarzkopf, Gen. Zinni, maybe all see this the same way.

    It might be interesting to wonder why all the generals see it the same way, and all those that never fired a shot in anger and are really hell bent to go to war see it a different way. That's usually the way it is in history.

    But let me tell you what the problem is now as I see it, if you need to weigh this: what are your priorities in the region? That's the first issue in my mind.

    The Middle East peace process, in my mind, has to be a higher priority.

    Winning the war on terrorism has to be a higher priority."

    full transcript: http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/generalsview.cfm


    Also before the war, the serving Army Chief of Staff, Eric Shinseki, estimated several houndred thousand troops would be needed in Iraq.

    Bush fired him. At the time, the party line was that "we would be greated as liberators."

    Zinni wrote [also from today's Wash Post]: "Everybody in the military knew he was right. But the party line down fromthe Pentagon decreed that the number was half that, and he was pilloried."



    QUOTE]Originally posted by HGROKIT Shouldn't your post be on "Anti-USA"? [/B][/QUOTE]

    Zinni wrote that he was moved to speak out by "false rationales pressented as a justification; a flawed strategy; lack of planning; the unnecessary alienation of our allies; the underestimation of the task; the\ unnecessary distraction from real threats; and the unbearable strain dumped on our overstretched military."


    What is "Anti-USA" is attempts to gag critics of a failed Iraq policy in the guise of patriotism. We've invested too much of our blood and treasure, and the stakes are too high in both Iraq and the war against terrorism, to blow it by blindly following the blind in a failed military misadventure. Winning is the only option. To do that we should start by dumping Bush in November and get a Commander in Chief that will, at the least, tell us the truth. As Zinni pointed out on "60 Minutes" last night, "The Course is headed over Niagara Falls, I think it's time to change course a little bit or at least hold somebody responsible for putting you on this course."
     
  8. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    Because our military is commanded by civilians, by design.
     
  9. st8_o_mind
    Offline

    st8_o_mind Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    As Thomas Friedman put it, in a column titled "Restoring Our Honor":

    "This administration needs to undertake a total overhaul of its Iraq policy; otherwise, it is courting a total disaster for us all. That
    overhaul needs to begin with President Bush firing Secretary of
    Defense Donald Rumsfeld -- today, not tomorrow or next month, today."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/06/opinion/06FRIE.html?th
     
  10. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Fire Rummy to save our honor ?? As far as I'm concerned we never lost it. But lets say the admin throws the libs a scapegoat so they can feel "powerful". Who would you replace him with and what makes you think after reviewing the current situation that he would do anything different?
     

Share This Page