| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front |
| For Vietnam Vet Anthony Zinni, Another War on Shaky Territory |
| 2003-12-23 |
| Just the first few paragraphs, great review of Zinni. Anthony C. Zinni’s opposition to U.S. policy on Iraq began on the monsoon-ridden afternoon of Nov. 3, 1970. He was lying on a Vietnamese mountainside west of Da Nang, three rounds from an AK-47 assault rifle in his side and back. He could feel his lifeblood seeping into the ground as he slipped in and out of consciousness. He had plenty of time to think in the following months while recuperating in a military hospital in Hawaii. Among other things, he promised himself that, "If I’m ever in a position to say what I think is right, I will. . . . I don’t care what happens to my career." That time has arrived. Over the past year, the retired Marine Corps general has become one of the most prominent opponents of Bush administration policy on Iraq, which he now fears is drifting toward disaster. It is one of the more unusual political journeys to come out of the American experience with Iraq. Zinni still talks like an old-school Marine — a big-shouldered, weight-lifting, working-class Philadelphian whose father emigrated from Italy’s Abruzzi region, and who is fond of quoting the wisdom of his fictitious "Uncle Guido, the plumber." Yet he finds himself in the unaccustomed role of rallying the antiwar camp, attacking the policies of the president and commander in chief whom he had endorsed in the 2000 election. "Iraq is in serious danger of coming apart because of lack of planning, underestimating the task and buying into a flawed strategy," he says. "The longer we stubbornly resist admitting the mistakes and not altering our approach, the harder it will be to pull this chestnut out of the fire." More at the link. Zinni is just the kind of tough-nosed opposition on the war that GWB needs. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #9 Keep in mind, the use of military force is ultimately a POLITICAL DECISION, and thus the shots are called by civilians (i.e., les aspin, bill & hillary). This political decision depends on casualty estimates. The easiest way to deflect military action is to put forth the highest possible number for casualty estimates. And that's what the high command is responsible for, and that's what was botched up earlier - high casualty estimates without consideration for the cost of inaction. The McClellan syndrome lives on in today's army. But I agree - politicians were equally responsible, as were ordinary Americans, for not demanding action in the face of insults to American honor. And at the same time, I can understand why career soldiers are risk-averse - the cost of being wrong is early retirement, and transitioning from military to civilian life can be difficult. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2003-12-23 10:57:58 PM |
| #8 because the military high command repeatedly bugged out of symbolically important engagements I have to disagree with that statement. Keep in mind, the use of military force is ultimately a POLITICAL DECISION, and thus the shots are called by civilians (i.e., les aspin, bill & hillary). The military "bugged out" of Mogadishu at the orders of the Administration, after having sacrificed a bunch of good troops for no good reason whatsoever. Alternatively, we had to camp out in Bosnia for years after a certain president promised it was a year-long deployment, tops. The military is staying put and doing the job in Iraq, as difficult as it is in the face of all the naysayers, at the orders of the Administration. Now, I have no doubt Zinni didn't want to see marines and soldiers killed in some b.s. military scheme during his service to defray attention from goings-on in the Oral Office. I also doubt that Zinni is in on the J-3 thinking, so the "lack of planning" line is pretty uninformed. It's also not a surprise the WaPo ran this article. Unfortunately for them it also sounds like it's about a month too late to make any political hay bashing Bush. |
| Posted by: 4thInfVet 2003-12-23 10:15:40 PM |
| #7 "Iraq is in serious danger of coming apart because of lack of planning, underestimating the task and buying into a flawed strategy," Does he bother to offer any evidence of this? Or is it simply assumed? Personally, I'm sick of the "lack of planning" crap. Inevitably, it comes from people who cannot possibly know. I get the feeling the whole "lack of planning" line really means "I don't agree with what they did". More importantly: "The longer we stubbornly resist admitting the mistakes and not altering our approach, the harder it will be to pull this chestnut out of the fire." This requires ignoring every instance of a change in operations/governance. We sacked an administrator and replaced him; we've shifted the time table for handing power over to the Iraqis; we're still learning how to deal with the Saddam loyalists and foreign terrorists, but we're learning. Yeah, thank him for his service, and he did a hell of a job in Afghanistan -- but his comments sound like they're coming from a Vietnam-obsessed Democrat. Also, note the change in spin concerning Desert Fox. At the time, and since, it was described as an effort to "degrade Iraq's WMD program" -- but now it's described as an effort to bring down the Iraqi government. It's always been known that most of the strikes were not on WMD-related targets, but this new spin seems to be a way to isolate the Clinton administration and Zinni from the WMD claims. And then there's the constant attacks on Wolfowitz, which, IMHO, are likely part of the recent campaign against him. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2003-12-23 9:17:25 PM |
| #6 capt joe - I'm starting see the Iraq never had WMD meme develop and it bothers me. Otherwise the USA has made plenty of mistakes in trying to transition Iraq to democracy, but practice makes perfect and I expect the next country to go a lot better. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2003-12-23 7:58:41 PM |
| #5 Among other things, he promised himself that, "If I’m ever in a position to say what I think is right, I will. . . . I don’t care what happens to my career." That time has arrived. Over the past year, the retired Marine Corps general has become one of the most prominent opponents of Bush administration policy on Iraq, which he now fears is drifting toward disaster. When one is retired, not much can be said that's going to harm a career. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2003-12-23 7:54:53 PM |
| #4 In the WaPo article, he says there was never proof that Iraq had WMD. If so, then what were the Iranians and the Kurds sprayed with, bad tuna? I find this particular disturbing. Even smart sensible people get caught up in something. You could say that about any of us. I think he is caught up in the meme that leaving saddam and the sanctions in place was the thing to do even if it cost 100K of civilian deaths a year. I think he is wrong on that, reputation not withstanding. |
| Posted by: capt joe 2003-12-23 7:29:04 PM |
| #3 Zinni was appointed Centcom chief during Clinton's term. As with Powell and Shinseki, I don't doubt his courage and his loyalty. I doubt his judgment. 9/11 occurred because the military high command repeatedly bugged out of symbolically important engagements, giving the US a reputation for being a muscle-bound giant with a glass jaw. The military high command, from Carter through Clinton, are the reason that the names Desert One, Beirut and Mogadishu remain major themes in the propaganda departments of America's enemies, Muslim or otherwise. They were responsible for America's loss of deterrence. And now Zinni wants to criticize Bush for trying to reinfuse America's enemies with a sense of their vulnerability? We wouldn't be in this pickle if Zinni and his cohorts had done their jobs properly. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2003-12-23 7:18:49 PM |
| #2 I heard him lecture at Joint Forces Staff College. He's the man. Excellent speaker, leader, been there-done that and got the scars to prove it. DO NOT TAKE ANYTHING ZINNI SAYS LIGHTLY. He is thoughtful, intelligent man, who you would WANT to go to war with, on YOUR side. |
| Posted by: alaskasoldier 2003-12-23 7:05:33 PM |
| #1 I certainly respect Zinni's views and his long service. I also thinks he makes some valid points about accountability for post-war failures in Iraq. But his comment about "Have you seen "Desert Crossing?"" just seemed like sour grapes. Also, to compare the administration's pre-war statements to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution is just nutty. The GoTR was a solution in search of a problem. GWB's Iraq policy "solved" a 12+ year problem that had avoided all attempted solutions, including Zinni's 1998 attacks. |
| Posted by: Tibor 2003-12-23 7:02:23 PM |