General Zinni blasts Whitehouse, Pentagon

[floridian]

Accusing top Pentagon officials of "dereliction of duty," retired Marine General Anthony Zinni says staying the course in Iraq isn't a reasonable option. "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," he tells Steve Kroft in an interview to be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday, May 23 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network. 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. He blames the poor planning on the civilian policymakers in the administration known as neoconservatives 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. In his upcoming book, Battle Ready, written with Tom Clancy, Zinni writes of the poor planning in harsh terms. "In the lead-up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw, at minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility; at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption," he writes. Zinni explains to Kroft, "I think there was dereliction in insufficient forces being put on the ground and [in not] fully understanding the military dimensions of the plan." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/...ain618896.shtml

anticipated response from True Believers:

a) you can't believe what them Commnist summabiches on CBS says
b) Zinni is not a distinguished military leader, he's a hack trying to sell a book.
c) Look at the co-author: Tom Clancy!! Its a work of fiction. Very realistic, but don't let it fool you.
d) Zinni was coopted by the U-nited-Nations and the New World Order. When those boys get ahold of you, you'll say anything.
e) oh, sh.it!! The emperor has no clothes.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Free country, he may say what he feels, doesn't make him right.

[Gorgo]

Another example of the range of debate in the "free press," ranging from "we should have killed more Iraqis" to "we're doin' jest fine in the fight against Satan."

Zinni is a real Marine along the line of Smedley Butler. He has the guts to speak the truth plainly. Most likely, this will be downplayed. The neocon hacks don't have the basic credentials to look Zinni in the eyes.

[VXerick]

Originally posted by StoneWT, Zinni is a real Marine along the line of Smedley Butler. He has the guts to speak the truth plainly. Most likely, this will be downplayed. The neocon hacks don't have the basic credentials to look Zinni in the eyes.

It could be argued that the US shouldn't have gone to war during much of the past 106 years. What brought us into the Spanish-American War, WWI, WWII we were attacked by the Japanese, and Germamy declared war on us? We could hardly have backed out of that one. But Korea, Vietnam, all the South and Central American countries we've sent troops to, The Gulf War, the Balkans, and Iraq were unprovoked. None of those countries stepped a foot into the US.

Protecting US interests and US citizens in a foreign country, does not in my estimation mean we are to go to war with that country. Al Qaeda attacked us on our soil twice. But I'm not sure going to war in Afghanistan was the right choice either. Al Qaeda is too loose an organization, spread around the world. If our goal is to dismantle al Qaeda, does that mean we are going to go to war in every country where they have cells? That would even mean declaring war on ourselves then, since there are surely al Qaeda in the USA.

I have to agree that the war policies of both father and son Bush and of Clinton were flawed. Whether from no action at all or way over the top. Although they are not the only Presidents who took us into unnecessary wars.

[Gorgo]

Smedley Butler talked about the racket that war is. Zinni is just saying there was "poor planning." In other words, it's a good idea to murder other people for political gain, we just need to do it better. Like most of the critics of Vietnam.

[VXerick]

Originally posted by Gorgo, Smedley Butler talked about the racket that war is. Zinni is just saying there was "poor planning." In other words, it's a good idea to murder other people for political gain, we just need to do it better. Like most of the critics of Vietnam.

Is that really how you see it? Ouch, that hurts!

[floridian]

Zinni is just saying there was "poor planning."

No, if you read more, or saw how he testified before Congress or what he said on 60 Minutes - he disagreed with the reasons for going to war as well. No connection to Al Qaeda/ 9-11. UN sanctions kept Saddam contained. No WMD threat. Rumsfeld and company responsible for American lives lost. It's a strong indictment of the war and the administration that launched it.

[Gorgo]

I see what you're saying. He doesn't go far enough, but it is more than some.

[Osborn F Enready]

I agree floridian, and thanks for posting! I was wondering if anyone would bring this to the virtual table. I commend him for his honesty, and hope he brings more out of the woodwork.

[Mia]

I'm looking forward to the book.

[BaconButty]

Germany didn't declare war on the US during World War II. It was too busy invading countries.

[BaconButty]

It was the British and French who started World War II. It was them who declared war on Germany. We told the Germans that if they invaded Poland we would go to war with them. Germany took no notice and invaded Poland and Britain and France went to war with Germany. The US was cowardly, so it didn't join in the war until 1942 when hostilities had calmed down slightly.

[Comrade]

America was not cowardly, not wishing to get into what was seen as a European war. Apathetic, maybe. If Hitler takes over Europe, how would that bother us?
Of course, Roosevelt debunked a lot of this in his "Arsenal of Democracy," speech. Just read it and it will give you some idea as to why the American people didn't feel any responsibility towards the war in Europe.

Joined in 1942, when hostilities had calmed down slightly?
You know not of which you speak.