A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

General Zinni on Sixty Minutes



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 24th 04, 09:53 AM
WalterM140
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default General Zinni on Sixty Minutes

Here's some more good solid information on the war for BUFDRVR and his co-shill
Brooks to discount.

(CBS) Retired General Anthony Zinni is one of the most respected and outspoken
military leaders of the past two decades.

From 1997 to 2000, he was commander-in-chief of the United States Central
Command, in charge of all American troops in the Middle East. That was the same
job held by Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf before him, and Gen. Tommy Franks after.

Following his retirement from the Marine Corps, the Bush administration thought
so highly of Zinni that it appointed him to one of its highest diplomatic posts
-- special envoy to the Middle East.

But Zinni broke ranks with the administration over the war in Iraq, and now, in
his harshest criticism yet, he says senior officials at the Pentagon are guilty
of dereliction of duty -- and that the time has come for heads to roll.
Correspondent Steve Kroft reports.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
“There has been poor strategic thinking in this,” says Zinni. “There has
been poor operational planning and execution on the ground. And to think that
we are going to ‘stay the course,’ 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. Because it's been a failure.”

Zinni spent more than 40 years serving his country as a warrior and diplomat,
rising from a young lieutenant in Vietnam to four-star general with a
reputation for candor.

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.

In the book, Zinni writes: "In the lead up to the Iraq war and its later
conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility,
at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption."

“I think there was dereliction in insufficient forces being put on the ground
and fully understanding the military dimensions of the plan. I think there was
dereliction in lack of planning,” says Zinni. “The president is owed the
finest strategic thinking. He is owed the finest operational planning. He is
owed the finest tactical execution on the ground. … He got the latter. He
didn’t get the first two.”

Zinni says Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time - with the wrong strategy.
And he was saying it before the U.S. invasion. In the months leading up to the
war, while still Middle East envoy, Zinni carried the message to Congress:
“This is, in my view, the worst time to take this on. And I don’t feel it
needs to be done now.”

But he wasn’t the only former military leader with doubts about the invasion
of Iraq. Former General and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former
Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf, former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, and
former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki all voiced their reservations.

Zinni believes this was a war the generals didn’t want – but it was a war
the civilians wanted.

“I can't speak for all generals, certainly. But I know we felt that this
situation was contained. Saddam was effectively contained. The no-fly, no-drive
zones. The sanctions that were imposed on him,” says Zinni.

“Now, at the same time, we had this war on terrorism. We were fighting al
Qaeda. We were engaged in Afghanistan. We were looking at 'cells' in 60
countries. We were looking at threats that we were receiving information on and
intelligence on. And I think most of the generals felt, let's deal with this
one at a time. Let's deal with this threat from terrorism, from al Qaeda.”

One of Zinni's responsibilities while commander-in-chief at Centcom was to
develop a plan for the invasion of Iraq. Like his predecessors, he subscribed
to the belief that you only enter battle with overwhelming force.

But Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld thought the job could be done with
fewer troops and high-tech weapons.

How many troops did Zinni’s plan call for? “We were much in line with Gen.
Shinseki's view,” says Zinni. “We were talking about, you know, 300,000, in
that neighborhood.”

What difference would it have made if 300,000 troops had been sent in, instead
of 180,000?

“I think it's critical in the aftermath, if you're gonna go to resolve a
conflict through the use of force, and then to rebuild the country,” says
Zinni.

“The first requirement is to freeze the situation, is to gain control of the
security. To patrol the streets. To prevent the looting. To prevent the
'revenge' killings that might occur. To prevent bands or gangs or militias that
might not have your best interests at heart from growing or developing.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Last month, Secretary Rumsfeld acknowledged that he hadn't anticipated the
level of violence that would continue in Iraq a year after the war began.
Should he have been surprised?

“He should not have been surprised. You know, there were a number of people,
before we even engaged in this conflict, that felt strongly we were
underestimating the problems and the scope of the problems we would have in
there,” says Zinni. “Not just generals, but others -- diplomats, those in
the international community that understood the situation. Friends of ours in
the region that were cautioning us to be careful out there. I think he should
have known that.”

Instead, Zinni says the Pentagon relied on inflated intelligence information
about weapons of mass destruction from Iraqi exiles, like Ahmed Chalabi and
others, whose credibility was in doubt. Zinni claims there was no viable plan
or strategy in place for governing post-Saddam Iraq.

“As best I could see, I saw a pickup team, very small, insufficient in the
Pentagon with no detailed plans that walked onto the battlefield after the
major fighting stopped and tried to work it out in the huddle -- in effect to
create a seat-of-the-pants operation on reconstructing a country,” says
Zinni.

“I give all the credit in the world to Ambassador Bremer as a great American
who's serving his country, I think, with all the kind of sacrifice and spirit
you could expect. But he has made mistake after mistake after mistake.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
What mistakes?

“Disbanding the army,” says Zinni. “De-Baathifying, down to a level where
we removed people that were competent and didn’t have blood on their hands
that you needed in the aftermath of reconstruction – alienating certain
elements of that society.”

Zinni says he blames the Pentagon for what happened. “I blame the civilian
leadership of the Pentagon directly. Because if they were given the
responsibility, and if this was their war, and by everything that I understand,
they promoted it and pushed it - certain elements in there certainly - even to
the point of creating their own intelligence to match their needs, then they
should bear the responsibility,” he says.

“But regardless of whose responsibility I think it is, somebody has screwed
up. And at this level and at this stage, it should be evident to everybody that
they've screwed up. And whose heads are rolling on this? That's what bothers me
most.”

Adds Zinni: “If you charge me with the responsibility of taking this nation
to war, if you charge me with implementing that policy with creating the
strategy which convinces me to go to war, and I fail you, then I ought to
go.”

Who specifically is he talking about?

“Well, it starts with at the top. If you're the secretary of defense and
you're responsible for that. If you're responsible for that planning and that
execution on the ground. If you've assumed responsibility for the other
elements, non-military, non-security, political, economic, social and
everything else, then you bear responsibility,” says Zinni. “Certainly
those in your ranks that foisted this strategy on us that is flawed. Certainly
they ought to be gone and replaced.”

Zinni is talking about a group of policymakers within the administration known
as "the neo-conservatives" who saw the invasion of Iraq as a way to stabilize
American interests in the region and strengthen the position of Israel. They
include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Undersecretary of Defense
Douglas Feith; Former Defense Policy Board member Richard Perle; National
Security Council member Eliot Abrams; and Vice President Cheney's chief of
staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Zinni believes they are political ideologues who have hijacked American policy
in Iraq.

“I think it's the worst kept secret in Washington. That everybody - everybody
I talk to in Washington has known and fully knows what their agenda was and
what they were trying to do,” says Zinni.

“And one article, because I mentioned the neo-conservatives who describe
themselves as neo-conservatives, I was called anti-Semitic. I mean, you know,
unbelievable that that's the kind of personal attacks that are run when you
criticize a strategy and those who propose it. I certainly didn't criticize who
they were. I certainly don't know what their ethnic religious backgrounds are.
And I'm not interested.”

Adds Zinni: “I know what strategy they promoted. And openly. And for a number
of years. And what they have convinced the president and the secretary to do.
And I don't believe there is any serious political leader, military leader,
diplomat in Washington that doesn't know where it came from.”

Zinni said he believed their strategy was to change the Middle East and bring
it into the 21st century.

“All sounds very good, all very noble. The trouble is the way they saw to go
about this is unilateral aggressive intervention by the United States - the
take down of Iraq as a priority,” adds Zinni. “And what we have become now
in the United States, how we're viewed in this region is not an entity that's
promising positive change. We are now being viewed as the modern crusaders, as
the modern colonial power in this part of the world.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Should all of those involved, including Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, resign?

“I believe that they should accept responsibility for that,” says Zinni.
“If I were the commander of a military organization that delivered this kind
of performance to the president, I certainly would tender my resignation. I
certainly would expect to be gone.”

“You say we need to change course -- that the current course is taking us
over Niagara Falls. What course do you think ought to be set,” Kroft asked
Zinni.

“Well, it's been evident from the beginning what the course is. We should
have gotten this U.N. resolution from the beginning. What does it take to sit
down with the members of the Security Council, the permanent members, and find
out what it takes,” says Zinni.

“What is it they want to get this resolution? Do they want a say in political
reconstruction? Do they want a piece of the pie economically? If that's the
cost, fine. What they’re gonna pay for up front is boots on the ground and
involvement in sharing the burden.”

Are there enough troops in Iraq now?

“Do I think there are other missions that should be taken on which would
cause the number of troops to go up, not just U.S., but international
participants? Yes,” says Zinni.

“We should be sealing off the borders, we should be protecting the road
networks. We're not only asking for combat troops, we’re looking for
trainers; we’re looking for engineers. We are looking for those who can
provide services in there.”

But has the time come to develop an exit strategy?

“There is a limit. I think it’s important to understand what the limit is.
Now do I think we are there yet? No, it is salvageable if you can convince the
Iraqis that what we're trying to do is in their benefit in the long run,”
says Zinni.

“Unless we change our communication and demonstrate a different image to the
people on the street, then we're gonna get to the point where we are going to
be looking for quick exits. I don't believe we're there now. And I wouldn't
want to see us fail here.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Zinni, who now teaches international relations at the College of William and
Mary, says he feels a responsibility to speak out, just as former Marine Corps
Commandant David Shoup voiced early concerns about the Vietnam war nearly 40
years ago.

“It is part of your duty. Look, there is one statement that bothers me more
than anything else. And that's the idea that when the troops are in combat,
everybody has to shut up. Imagine if we put troops in combat with a faulty
rifle, and that rifle was malfunctioning, and troops were dying as a result,”
says Zinni.

“I can't think anyone would allow that to happen, that would not speak up.
Well, what's the difference between a faulty plan and strategy that's getting
just as many troops killed? It’s leading down a path where we're not
succeeding and accomplishing the missions we've set out to do.”

60 Minutes asked Secretary Rumsfeld and his deputy Wolfowitz to respond to
Zinni's remarks. The request for an interview was declined.

© MMIV, CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights Reserved.


  #2  
Old May 24th 04, 10:17 AM
WalterM140
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"In the book, Zinni writes: "In the lead up to the Iraq war and its later
conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility,
at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption."

“I think there was dereliction in insufficient forces being put on the ground
and fully understanding the military dimensions of the plan. I think there was
dereliction in lack of planning,” says Zinni. “The president is owed the
finest strategic thinking. He is owed the finest operational planning. He is
owed the finest tactical execution on the ground. … He got the latter. He
didn’t get the first two.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in618896.shtml

Those ******* Republicans have got to go.

Walt


  #3  
Old May 24th 04, 11:21 AM
Vaughn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"WalterM140" wrote in message
...
What difference would it have made if 300,000 troops had been sent in, instead
of 180,000?

"I think it's critical in the aftermath, if you're gonna go to resolve a
conflict through the use of force, and then to rebuild the country," says
Zinni.

Judging from Bush's recent approval ratings, it is finally beginning to
sink in to the general public that we have somehow managed to snatch defeat from
the jaws of victory in Iraq. That we never should have gone there is the first
place is now quite academic.

Vaughn


  #4  
Old May 24th 04, 11:29 AM
WalterM140
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Judging from Bush's recent approval ratings, it is finally beginning to
sink in to the general public that we have somehow managed to snatch defeat
from
the jaws of victory in Iraq. That we never should have gone there is the
first
place is now quite academic.



Not until those sorry *******s are out of office. I do take your point though.

Walt
  #6  
Old May 24th 04, 04:00 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
From: (WalterM140)
Date: 5/24/04 3:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

Judging from Bush's recent approval ratings, it is finally beginning to
sink in to the general public that we have somehow managed to snatch

defeat
from
the jaws of victory in Iraq. That we never should have gone there is

the
first
place is now quite academic.



Not until those sorry *******s are out of office. I do take your point
though.

Walt



The day these guys are out of office will be a great day in American

history.
It will mark the end of the worst government America has ever had. They

can't
fool all of the people all of the time.


So far, your predictions vis a vis Iraq have been none too accurate:

"It will immediately take over all Iraqui property including the oil fields
and
refineries. These will be put under the control of companies like Exxon who
will run the entire Iraqui oil operation under the Alien Property
Custodian." (13 JAN 03)

"We've got their country and we have their oil. The rest doesn't matter."
(25 APR 03)

Funny, but it appears you were one of the bigger "go into Iraq" folks not
that long ago (and for widely differing reasons, according to your various
posts on the subject, everything from assuring the US a springboard in the
region to WMD's and "the oil"). The single constant thread was you animosity
towards the French regarding their behavior during the period leading up to
the war...

"The French will pay a price for their betrayal. And it won't be a pretty
sight." (28 MAR 03)

"At this moment the French veto makes them an ally of Iraq." (7 FEB 03)

"...they [the French] questioned the motives of the Bush
administration. Why should the French fight? They know the Americans and the

Brits will fight for them. As always. They are pobably drawing up surrender
documents just in case even as we speak.." (6 FEB 03)

And, to provide another Artian view of the war that seems to be a bit
(guffaw!) at odds with this latest blathering:

[when told 21 JAN 03 that OBL was not in Iraq] "Can't hurt to look."

And..."GO FORTH AND CONQUER !!!!!!" (11 FEB 03)

Either you are seriously delusional, to the point of exhibiting
multiple-personality disorder "Its the WMD's! No, it's not, it's the oil!
Trounce those danged Iraqis! Go! Go! Go! I mean, STOP! What the hell are you
doing, why are you GOING (into Iraq...)?" etc. etc., ad nauseum...

But now you are intent upon hanging Bush for Iraq, having been one of the
bigger cheerleaders behind our going in there in the first place? Must be
nice to have such a fluid sense of values which allows you to be "right" no
matter how things develop....

Brooks


Arthur Kramer



  #7  
Old May 24th 04, 09:13 PM
miso
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

There are quotes floating around the net that Bush Senior (GHW Bush)
said going into Iraq would be the wrong thing to do. Of course, that
was at the end of the first Gulf War. Bush Junior (GW Bush) could say
things had changed. However, the reality is Sadam was weaker now than
after the first Gulf War, and the only thing that changed was the BS
dished out by Chalabi. I laught at the reversal for fortune that has
befell (sp) Chalabi. Note that Clinton paid Chalabi money as well, but
didn't fall for the BS.



"Vaughn" wrote in message ...
"WalterM140" wrote in message
...
What difference would it have made if 300,000 troops had been sent in, instead
of 180,000?

"I think it's critical in the aftermath, if you're gonna go to resolve a
conflict through the use of force, and then to rebuild the country," says
Zinni.

Judging from Bush's recent approval ratings, it is finally beginning to
sink in to the general public that we have somehow managed to snatch defeat from
the jaws of victory in Iraq. That we never should have gone there is the first
place is now quite academic.

Vaughn

  #8  
Old May 25th 04, 02:08 AM
WalterM140
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Brooks sticks his toe in the water:

Funny, but it appears you were one of the bigger "go into Iraq" folks not
that long ago (and for widely differing reasons


So was I. But the Bush administration lied about the basis for the war and then
screwed it up, as General Zinni said.

Walt
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund Dr. Guenther Eichhorn Home Built 3 May 14th 04 11:55 AM
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund Dr. Guenther Eichhorn Aerobatics 0 May 11th 04 10:43 PM
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund Dr. Guenther Eichhorn Aviation Marketplace 0 May 11th 04 10:43 PM
Highest-Ranking Black Air Force General Credits Success to Hard Work Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 February 11th 04 12:06 AM
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools RT Military Aviation 104 September 25th 03 03:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.