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

[Bullypulpit]

<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.

 

[HGROKIT]

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"?

 

[Bullypulpit]

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:

 

[pegwinn]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
(snipped, if you want the story, click the original posts link)

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.

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.

 

[Bullypulpit]

<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.

 

[Comrade]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
<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.

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.

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by HGROKIT
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...

[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."

Originally posted by HGROKIT ...and therefore are arm chair QB's with 20/20 hindsight. [/B]

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."

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Why does the input of civilian, ideologically driven policy wonks out weight the input from experienced, battle-tested officers?

Because our military is commanded by civilians, by design.

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by HGROKIT
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.

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

 

[dilloduck]

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?

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by dilloduck
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?

The Friedman called for a complete overhaul of US policy in Iraq to avoid disaster and suggested firing Rummy as a first step. I agree with you that it would be largely symbolic, particularly if it did not represent any real change in policy.

As for a replacement, how about retired gen. anthony zinny. I hear he is available.

 

[dilloduck]

A complete overhaul of the Iraq policy? How about suggesting one place to start?

 

[knock it off]

From the Wall Street Journal:

Bush Dreams of Changing Not Just Regime but Region
A Pro-U.S., Democratic Area Is a Goal
That Has Israeli, Neoconservative Roots

By ROBERT S. GREENBERGER and KARBY LEGGETT
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
March 21, 2003

As he sends American troops and planes into Iraq, President Bush has in mind more than changing a country. His dream is to make the entire Middle East a different place, and one safer for American interests.

The vision is appealing: a region that, after a regime change in Baghdad, has pro-American governments in the Arab world's three most important countries, Egypt, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. In the long run, that changes the dynamic of the region, making it more friendly to Washington and spreading democracy. Reducing the influence of radicals helps make Palestinians more amenable to an agreement with Israel.

It's a dream that has grown slowly over the last half-dozen years, from seeds first sown by a small group of neoconservative thinkers laboring in the quiet vineyards of policy think tanks during the Clinton administration. President Bush has come to embrace it in the traumatic days since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, so that he now sees disarming Iraq as only the beginning of the good that can come from ousting Saddam Hussein.

How realistic is the dream? In the short run, it's entirely possible the attack on Iraq could produce trends that run in the opposite direction, especially if the war doesn't go well. The influence of radicals may grow, fertilized by anger at America's intrusion onto Arab soil. Friendly governments such as that in Egypt, where demonstrators angry over the bombing of Iraq clashed with police Thursday, may pull back from the U.S. for a time.
And the impact of the war on the region's intractable Palestinian problem -- the one that ultimately has to be resolved to truly calm the region's waters -- is highly uncertain. If the war goes well and the elimination of a radical regime in the region creates pressure on the Palestinians to move away from confrontation, the path to peace with Israel might widen. But the result could be a backlash if Palestinians think increased U.S. dominance of the region means any negotiations will come more on the terms of America's staunch ally in Israel. That might leave the problem
further from resolution.

The story of how Mr. Bush came to embrace the vision began with a family quarrel among Republicans. It picked up strength in the late-1990s with the failure of the Oslo peace accords between Israel and Palestinians, which strengthened hawks in Israel and Washington who were advocating more-muscular policies toward Arabs. And finally it emerged as a centerpiece of American policy with a president looking for a new theory of the region after it gave rise to the most deadly attack ever on American soil.
One of the places the idea was born was the Project for the New American Century, which was a fledgling and unnoticed neoconservative think tank in 1998. That's when it told Mr. Clinton the time had come to depose Saddam Hussein.

In a letter to Mr. Clinton put together by the group's director, former intelligence official Gary Schmitt, the group declared: "The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term this means a willingness to undertake military action. ... In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power."
It was an audacious declaration in many ways. The group had only one full-time staffer and an intern.

But it managed to get its message signed by 18 national-security hawks. Many of them focused on Iraq because they viewed Mr. Hussein as a disruptive force who, with a record of invading his neighbors, intimidated moderate forces in the region. They also saw his continued rule as epitomizing all that was wrong with the Clinton administration's foreign policy: a lack of clear purpose, a willingness to act based on political expediency rather than moral principles, and an unwillingness to use sufficient military power to bend Mr. Hussein to America's will.

Such messages usually are lost in the din of the countless think tanks that reside in downtown Washington. But in this case, the message grew -- and became especially important as, over the next few years, more and more of the signers moved into the foreign-policy camp of presidential contender George W. Bush.
Even before the 1998 letter to President Clinton, the idea of using regime change in Baghdad to foster Middle East stability was around. In a 1996 memo to then newly elected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Richard Perle, a hard-liner from the Reagan administration, proposed replacing Mr. Hussein with Jordan's King Hussein as part of an audacious plan to strengthen Israel. Mr. Perle, who headed a study group, was trying to produce a change that would secure Israel's "streets and borders" by forcing significant change in the Arab world. Mr. Perle later signed the letter to Mr. Clinton.

Similar Conclusions
Through this same period, some Israeli thinkers had begun examining what drove countries to war, and moved toward similar conclusions about basic changes in the Arab world. Uzi Arad, director of Israel's Institute of Policy and Strategy and former adviser to Mr. Netanyahu, followed the research closely. The result was what he now refers to as the "Theory of Democratic Peace," where the checks and balances built into democratic systems prevent a single individual from pursuing a militaristic course that leads to war.

Mr. Arad says the research has had a fundamental impact on the way the Bush administration views the Middle East and its long history of violence. "The evidence was irrefutable: Democracies do not attack democracies," he says. Though they don't advertise the fact much, U.S. officials share the view that moves toward more democracy in the long run would increase stability in allies such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia as well as in Iraq.

In the U.S., these issues brought to the surface old splits among isolationists, pragmatists and globalists in the Republican party. A number of neoconservatives, nostalgic for the Reagan era, were determined to reassert America's strong presence in the world. Though they advocated such stands as higher defense spending and a tougher policy on China, much of the debate centered on Iraq.

Two of them, William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, and Robert Kagan, who had worked in the Reagan administration, wrote a 1996 article warning that "conservatives are adrift" and clamoring for an American "benevolent hegemony." The article, in Foreign Affairs magazine, didn't focus on Iraq.

Meanwhile, although Mr. Clinton's presidency undertook limited military action against Iraq, his term ended with sanctions in place and no firm plans to get rid of Mr. Hussein. To the neoconservatives, the beginning of the Bush presidency promised only more of the same. Mr. Bush had run a campaign against "nation building" and focused on a domestic agenda.
But the statement calling for regime change in Iraq had quietly moved to the center of U.S. foreign-policy thinking. Of the 18 who signed it, half took important jobs in the new Bush administration, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz; two top State Department officials, Richard Armitage and John Bolton; and Elliott Abrams, now the National Security Council's top Mideast official.

There was no sign this thinking had deep impact on the new president, who didn't devote much thought to regime change in Iraq. But soon after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Iraq began to emerge as a terrorist threat in the eyes of Mr. Bush and his top officials. There were no concrete links between Baghdad and Osama bin Laden. But U.S. officials knew that al Qaeda wanted to acquire weapons of mass destruction to use against the U.S. They figured Mr. Hussein had an ample inventory of them -- as well as reason to have a grudge against Mr. Bush, whose father led the coalition that drove Iraq out of Kuwait in 1991.

To those in the administration who already had called for regime change, eliminating Mr. Hussein was an idea whose time had come. They began talking privately last spring about the notion of creating democracy in Iraq as a model for the region. President Bush came around to their views.

In the most detailed explanation of such a policy, Mr. Bush said in a recent speech to the American Enterprise Institute that a "liberated" Iraq could "show the power of freedom and transform that vital region" by bringing hope and progress to millions. It wouldn't be easy, he added, but "there was a time when many people said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable" of moving from dictatorship to democracy.
Palestinian Militancy

Yet seeking change in the Mideast through military action poses vast challenges in the near term. Some fear the campaign could deal a setback to regional security and to efforts to cool the biggest flashpoint, the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Among challenges Mr. Bush faces after the war will be persuading Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to return to the negotiating table with the Palestinians.

Though Mr. Sharon and the democracy he presides over are viewed as a cornerstone of U.S. efforts to bring democracy to the region, Mr. Sharon is widely reviled in the Arab world, viewed as more interested in expanding Israel's military control than making peace. One reason is his controversial policy of taking pre-emptive military action against Palestinian militants in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

That policy, in place for more than two years, has led to the death of dozens of militants as well as innocent civilians. Now, if Mr. Bush emerges with a quick victory in Iraq, it could embolden Mr. Sharon's policy of pre-emptive action, not just against Palestinian militants but also in places such as the northern border with Lebanon, where Israel is locked in slow-burning conflict with Hezbollah guerrillas.

If Mr. Sharon were to take action against Hezbollah, it would likely breed new anger in the Arab world toward Israel and the U.S. And while Mr. Sharon says he supports the idea of a separate Palestinian state, his new government is packed with conservatives opposed to any form of Palestinian statehood.
In addition, the war in Iraq could make the populace in the Palestinian territories more militant, says Hisham Ahmed, a professor at Bir Zeit University in Ramallah in the West Bank. He has watched extremism grow there. "I think this war will irrevocably radicalize the Arab world," he says. "There will be many Osama bin Ladens created."

People such as George Saliba underline his point. A 29-year-old student of mathematics with short hair and a thick mustache, Mr. Saliba lives in an Arab neighborhood in East Jerusalem. He carries an Israeli ID card, votes and believes democracy is a good thing. But after watching an Israeli military campaign that has killed many Palestinians over the past two years, he voices views that appear ripe for exploitation by groups such as al Qaeda. Indeed, he says he would be supportive of Mr. Hussein if he used chemical weapons against U.S. forces: "The U.S. is the biggest terrorist in the world, and I believe this is the last war it will fight. Saddam is our hero."

Such hostility toward the U.S. will become the central argument Arab nations present to the Bush administration in the months ahead: If the U.S. hopes to avoid a lethal backlash in the Arab world, it needs to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in an even-handed manner.

But both the U.S. and Israel are betting the removal of Mr. Hussein from power will pave the way for change. Mr. Sharon said Thursday night he hopes and believes the uprooting of Mr. Hussein "will mark the beginning of a new era, one that is better for our region and for the entire world."

 

[Comrade]

Originally posted by knock it off

Excellent description of the vision behind our administration. It's exactly the way I've seen the big picture since the Axis of Evil speech and the confusion over attacking Iraq.

I've been following PNAC's homepage for a few years, and the policy you describe is very clear from their published articles.

Good find.

 

[SPIKESMYGOD]

Bully-

Now, when is Zinni's book coming out? LMFAO


st8_o_mind-

Dude, you are a fu*king RIOT! "We need a president who tells the TRUTH?"

Ummm, we already have one: President George W. Bush!

Kerry can't even tell the truth about...about....HELL, ANYTHING! Be it SUV pink slips, medals vs. ribbons, the Israeli wall, his voting record, sections of stump speeches, this man can't even tell HIMSELF the truth.


Liberals, in general, must be reading very old newspapers. The war in Iraq is going VERY well as of late.

Fallujah, Nejaf and other hotspots have been mostly pacified, and the Iraqi police & militia have stepped up their role & taken over the cities. Hundreds of Sadr's thugs have been killed, we just picked up his right-hand man, and he, Sadr, is on the run.

You liberals have EVERYTHING on the line, and you have connected your success to a failure in Iraq. I wonder what it feels like to pull for our enemies.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by SPIKESMYGOD
Bully-

Now, when is Zinni's book coming out? LMFAO

Battle Ready

Now, in a new book about his career, co-written with Tom Clancy, called "Battle Ready," Zinni has handed up a scathing indictment of the Pentagon and its conduct of the war in Iraq.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Does the media think we are all that f**king stupid?

Everyone who has a bone to pick with Bush gets on CBS before their BOOK GOES ON SALE!!!

Tell me again how Global Media companies are a good thing?????

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by JIHADTHIS
Does the media think we are all that f**king stupid?

Everyone who has a bone to pick with Bush gets on CBS before their BOOK GOES ON SALE!!!

Tell me again how Global Media companies are a good thing?????

Doesn't CBS also own the publishing company that publishes these books? Major conflict of interest if you ask me. What happened to journalism???

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
Doesn't CBS also own the publishing company that publishes these books? Major conflict of interest if you ask me. What happened to journalism???

The book is published by Penguin which is owned by Pearson plc. I don't think CBS owns them. But my point remains.

 

[Comrade]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
Doesn't CBS also own the publishing company that publishes these books? Major conflict of interest if you ask me. What happened to journalism???

Now when I recall the interview with Richard Clark on 60 minutes used almost exclusively to bash Bush, I remember that the editors of the show eventually disclosed their joint interest with Clark's publisher, but that was weeks later and after Fox News was on their ass.


Then they had Bob Woodward and his new book and this time they admitted it was the same arrangement, and proceeded to conduct another Bush bashing exclusive.


I used to enjoy 60 minutes and as far as actual news I never really knew better to question CBS.


I used to like Andy Rooney and nowadays all I can see is this bitter, partisan, neurotic old man who sometimes pisses me off with his sarcastic hatred of the Republican adminstration.