Gen. Zinni: 'They've Screwed Up'

[Quixote1818]

Gen. Zinni: 'They've Screwed Up'

May 21, 2004



60 Minutes: Preview


Ret. Gen. Anthony Zinni once commanded America's troops in the Middle East (Photo: CBS)



"Regardless of whose responsibility ...it should be evident to everybody that they've screwed up, and whose heads are rolling on this?"
Gen. Anthony Zinni


President Bush named Zinni special envoy to the Middle East. But Zinni wound up breaking ranks with the administration over the war in Iraq. (Photo: AP)


(CBS) Accusing top Pentagon officials of "dereliction of duty," retired Marine Gen. 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 CBS News Correspondent Steve Kroft in an interview to be broadcast on 60 Minutes, Sunday, May 23, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

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 ... 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 worst, lying, incompetence and corruption," he writes.

Zinni explains to Kroft, "I think there was dereliction in insufficient forces being put on the ground and fully understanding the military dimensions of the plan."

He still believes the situation is salvageable if the United States can communicate more effectively with the Iraqi people and demonstrate a better image to them.

The enlistment of the U.N. and other countries to participate in the mission is also crucial, he says. Without these things, says Zinni, "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."

Also central to success in Iraq is more troops, from the United States and especially other countries, to control violence and patrol borders, he says.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

1. Zinni co-wrote a book w. Tom Clancy?

Now this should be interesting.

[Quixote1818]

2. Zinni originally supported Bush so they can't attack him as a Partisan

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

4. Wasnt he sent to the mideast on an Israel/Palestine peace mission?

I seem to recall he was some sort of special envoy for Bush?

[mike_c]

3. the military should NEVER be used...

...as an instrument of foreign policy or for other political purposes. Their legitimacy derives from their role in American defense-- not from their strength. This entire misadventure shows that American government has learned NOTHING strategic from the cold war, the Korean war, or from Vietnam. All of the lessons learned were tactical, and ultimately fruitless in Iraq.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

5. The in-house foreign policy shop was pretty unorthdox.

I sort of disagree with you about the military not being used as a tool of policy...thats sort of what their there for, in case diplomacy fails.

But the DoD as a foreign policy forumlator is very unorthodox....and thats what that operation Feith and Wolfowitz where about...running an in-house foreign policy shop..which was really the role of State and the Presidents FP adivsor.

[mike_c]

9. when diplomacy fails it's Congress's responsibility...

...to determine whether the consequences of diplomatic failure merit resorting to war, but if so, then war should have one clear objective: defeating an enemy. Once the enemy is vanquished, it becomes the diplomats' responsibility to resume the political process once again, picking up the pieces and starting from a new post-war reality.

One problem with using the military as instruments of intermediate foreign policy-- and perhaps I should have specified this in my original remarks-- is that neither the political process nor the military conflict can run its logical course. Each is interfered with incessantly by the other.

[Brett Stanton]

6. War is a continuation of politics by other means

Clausewitz was right about that, you know. Not that this is necessarily a good thing; just an unavoidable part of human culture.

Personally, I think the lesson the government's missed is that of WW2, not Korea/Vietnam/Cold War. If we absolutely have to be in Iraq, we ought to have been there in such overwhelming, massive presence (a la postwar Germany and Japan) that this whole unpleasant business could have been wrapped up without this constant, ongoing butchery.

[mike_c]

8. the problem is that war has become the substitute...

...for politics. War should be one end point on a continuum of diplomatic processes, and once resorted to, should have clear objectives. War is not a nebulous political process-- using it that way undermines the effectiveness of the force, like trying to use small calibre ammunition in a large calibre weapon. This is a point that Clausewitz fails to see, IMO. He sees virtue in "armed diplomacy," which I see as a euphemism for "global bully."

[Soup Bean]

7. The military has been used almost exclusively for foreign policy.

They shouldn't be used like that, I agree. However, it's fact that our military has been used for imperial purposes since the end of World War II. We are the security guards for corporate interests.

Where Bush has screwed up with the elites, I think, is that he's allowed this to be seen much too easily. I hope that if anything comes out of this war, we will change our zombified, ultra-consuming ways.

I feel sorry for the vast majority of the troops, as well as most of the American public. It's tough to take when you realize you've been lied to by people you trust. We've gone through blind acceptance, then we were in denial.....pissed off is where we're headed (well, I've been there for a long time, but the average joe is getting there now).

I smell a one-termer.