You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq-Jordan
Warnings ignored, says retired Marine
2004-04-17
EFL, could also be filed under Politics.
Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni wondered aloud yesterday how Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld could be caught off guard by the chaos in Iraq that has killed nearly 100 Americans in recent weeks and led to his announcement that 20,000 U.S. troops would be staying there instead of returning home as planned. "I’m surprised that he is surprised because there was a lot of us who were telling him that it was going to be thus," said Zinni, a Marine for 39 years and the former commander of the U.S. Central Command. "Anyone could know the problems they were going to see. How could they not?"

Zinni made his comments during an interview with The San Diego Union-Tribune before giving a speech last night at the University of San Diego’s pretentiously named, lefty Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace & Justice as part of its distinguished lecturer series. For years Zinni said he cautioned U.S. officials that an Iraq without Saddam Hussein would likely be more dangerous to U.S. interests than one with him because of the ethnic and religious clashes that would be unleashed.
That's the argument that's left much of the Middle East ruled by hereditary tyrants and tin hat dictators for the past 60 years...
"I think that some heads should roll over Iraq," Zinni said. "I think the president got some bad advice."
"Fire Rumsfeld."
Out of uniform, Zinni was a troubleshooter for the U.S. government in Africa, Asia and Europe and served as special envoy to the Middle East under the Bush administration for a time before his reservations over the Iraq war and its aftermath caused him to resign and oppose it. "I’ve been called a traitor and a turncoat for mentioning these things," said Zinni, 60.
I think most of us cut Zinni some slack because he did the right thing: he didn't agree with the policies, so he resigned. He didn't remain in place and try and subvert them.
The problems in Iraq are being caused, he said, by poor planning and shortsightedness, such as disbanding the Iraqi army and being unable to provide security.
Of course, keeping the Sunni dominated Army in place may have caused other problems. But calling a man like Zinni a traitor is completely off base. Who said this?
"We’re betting on the U.N., who we blew off and ridiculed during the run-up to the war," Zinni said. "Now we’re back with hat in hand. It would be funny if not for the lives lost."
The ridicule did not come from our government, he must read Rantburg or Scrappleface. Truth is, we’ve used the UN to the extent possible in Iraq but it preferred the cozy economics of the Oil for Food program to the instability of a free Iraq.
As an institution for handling international crises, the UN is right up there with doilies and antimacassars. As a jobs program for diplomats' relatives, it's not bad.
Several things have to happen to get Iraq back on course, whether the U.N. decides to step in or not, Zinni said. Improving security for American forces and the Iraqi people is at the top of the list followed closely by helping the working class with economic projects.
Hard to disagree. Aren’t we spending $87B on that right now?
I think it's the mechanics of achieving the objective, rather than the objective itself, that's open for discussion. My personal opinion is that the path to improved security for American forces and the Iraqi people lies over stacks of dead turbans. Once they've been thoroughly perforated and neatly stacked, their opinions won't matter anymore and the rest of us can reach concensus.
But it’s not the lack of a comprehensive American plan for Iraq nor the surging violence that has cost allied troops their lives – including about 30 Camp Pendleton Marines – that most concerns Zinni.
We have a plan, its just not working out that well and needs to be adjusted. But this fundamental criticism is valid and must be addressed:
"In the end, the Iraqis themselves have to want to rebuild their country more than we do," Zinni said. "But I don’t see that right now. I see us doing everything.
In fact, their unwillingness to handle policing is the main reason why we need more troops.
"I spent two years in Vietnam, and I’ve seen this movie before," he said. "They have to be willing to do more or else it is never going to work."
It’s not the quagmire part that resembles Vietnam, but the fact that, for strategic reasons, we are more committed to the security of a country than its own citizens.
He told an overflow crowd that the United States tries to grapple with individual issues in Middle East instead of seeing them as elements of a broader question. "We need to step back and get a grand strategy," he said.
Actually, we have a comprehensive and ambitious grand strategy but tried to implement the Iraq phase it on the cheap.
Article needs a link...
Posted by:JAB

#6  "It’s not the quagmire part that resembles Vietnam, but the fact that, for strategic reasons, we are more committed to the security of a country than its own citizens."
Actually, I think just the opposite is true.
If anything, we've been so anxious to win Iraqi hearts and minds, that we went a little lax on the country's security.
Posted by: Jen   2004-04-18 1:35:41 AM  

#5  "I’ve been called a traitor and a turncoat for mentioning these things," said Zinni, 60.
Let me join that happy group, General!
I'm sure the line forms to the Left...
Posted by: Jen   2004-04-18 1:32:58 AM  

#4  What great comments, throughout!
Posted by: Lucky   2004-04-18 12:30:51 AM  

#3  Phil: I thought the South Vietnamese were doing a great deal, near the end, up until the point where they ran out of ammo and we (at the behest of the current Democratic Presidential Nominee and his allies) cut off their supplies.

Actually, the South Vietnamese were doing a great deal even before the end. Their total losses were over 200,000 KIA. At the end, they were totally outgunned by huge amounts of weaponry shipped by the Chinese and the Soviets for the 1975 Mig, tank and artillery assault from the North.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2004-04-17 2:16:10 PM  

#2  I thought the South Vietnamese were doing a great deal, near the end, up until the point where they ran out of ammo and we (at the behest of the current Democratic Presidential Nominee and his allies) cut off their supplies.
Posted by: Phil Fraering   2004-04-17 1:24:16 PM  

#1  Link
Posted by: Parabellum   2004-04-17 12:45:15 PM  

00:00