OT: Zinni - just another disgruntled ex-employee?

Triathlon Forum
1

Here’s his background: http://www.generalzinni.com/about_general_zinni.htm

About as distinguished a Marine as you can get.

Here’s an excerpt of an interview this morning (go here for the whole thing: http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1912641.html):

May 28, 2004 – Retired Gen. Anthony Zinni says Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his top aides should be held responsible for failing to plan for Iraq’s reconstruction after the U.S.-led war.

“It was their job to ensure that the strategy they gave to the president of the United States was correct,” Zinni, the former Marine Corps general who headed the U.S. Central Command before his retirement in 2000, tells NPR’s Steve Inskeep. “I believe it was flawed. They were responsible for planning and organizing what we needed on the ground to rebuild this country. We have lost a year.”

Zinni says U.S. troops were “led to believe they would be greeted with flowers in the street and hailed as liberators – they weren’t. They were led to believe that the world was behind them and that this was the right cause. And they can see where they’re not treated as liberators. They’re treated as occupiers, as crusaders…”

He says the U.S. military was provided with unrealistic objectives in Iraq. “We were in there talking about Jeffersonian democracy, free market economies, changing the face of the Middle East with this one blow. That was ridiculous, and I think now what we have is young kids paying the price…”

2

I found this Zinni speech very interesting reading.

3

There are a lot of people within the Defense establishment who hate Rumsfeld for reasons that have nothing to do with Iraq. Iraq is just an area where they feel he is now vulnerable to an attack.

4

There is a recurrent notion here:

When John Dililulio did his piece with Suskind saying the President is all politics, no policy (“Mayberry Machiavelli’s”), they said he was disgruntled.

(Here is the letter btw:
http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2002/021202_mfe_diiulio_1.html)

Paul O’Neill was said to be disgruntled after writing the Price of Loyalty.

Richard Clarke is disgruntled.
Jow Wilson is disgruntled.
Now you are saying Zinni is disgruntled.

Here is an interesting interview with Colin Powell:
http://us.gq.com/plus/content/?040429plco_01

Is he disgruntled?

5

Clarke and Wilson are proven liars. O’Neill was just too lazy to proofread what his ghostwriter wrote. Interesting you mentioned a reference to Machiavelli. Look up the meaning of the words “Machiavellian” and “Byzantine” and you will start to understand the inner workings of the Defense establishment. Every good Marine Second Lieutenant has read Niccolo’s little book.

6

“disgruntled” is hardly an adequate description of the way these guys are feeling. Remember that Clark served under four administrations, not all of them Democrat.

Denial - not just a river in Egypt…

7

Until recently I had lost all respect for Powell but recently his candor and reluctance to play along with the Bush ruse has restored his credibility in my eyes.

He certainly seems eager to dissociate himself with this administration.

8

Neither Clarke nor Wilson are “proven liars.” Clarke obviously served with distinction, and Wilson considers himself a personal friend of George Bush Sr., as well as being the last American diplomat in Baghdad before the first Gulf War. That his wife’s position as a CIA operative was deliberately compromised is not even a question. Anybody who thinks that his wife’s identity was a matter of cocktail party record in DC obviously gives rather short shrift to the notion of secrecy and has frankly been listening to too much Rush Limbaugh.

O’Neill has already comfirmed the details of his book (which I have read), and in fact, predicted the response of the Administration in its attempts to intimidate him. DiIulio was in a similar position, and came away disgusted from the now dormant faith-based initiatives program. You then add in the five or six guys who have served as counter-terrorism czar in the last 3.5 years, and you start to see a pattern that requires no talking points to translate.

As for Machiavellian, I don’t doubt that the DoD is precisely that. It’s an extremely bureaucratic and political organization, but for some reason has lately seen some fairly distinguished and qualified people rise to its top. It is perhaps a credit to Colin Powell that he is seen as both a pragmatic policy guy and expert politician, who despite this morass, has managed to keep his high approval rating by, if nothing else, carefully maintaining his image as the reluctant warrior and contrarian. But as his profile in GQ indicates, he is growing unsurprisingly tired.

At some point, you simply cannot discredit (and “simply” being the keyword) all of these high-level guys who not only leave, but leave with open disgust. Are they all part of the left-wing conspiracy. Or worse yet, are they all Al Qaeda sympathizers?

9

The post-Korean War political (congressional) vetting process for generals and admirals ensures no bold leaders ever reach the top. Say what you will about Colin Powell, but bold leadership is one thing he has never been accused of. He has studiously avoided any position where he is the ultimate decision-maker, preferring instead to stay behind the scenes where he can ride both sides of the fence. That way he can come out looking good no matter what happens. That is why he will never run for president–he would then be personally accountable for something. That is how alomost all generals and admirals today make their rank. The civilian leadership does not want to take the risk of having another Douglas MacArthur or George Patton to deal with.

Bold leaders are praised when things are going well. But, they make enemies when their bold actions upset the rice bowls of others. You don’t attack someone who appears strong–you wait until a weakness appears. When their opponents sense blood in the water, the sharks start to circle. But, the big sharks don’t move in right away–they send in a little shark to test the response of the prey. If the little shark comes out alive with more blood in the water, only then do the the big sharks move in. What you are observing now is this process. Iraq is not the issue–it is only the blood in the water. Political power is the issue. Bush and Rumsfeld have it and someone else wants it.

This is not really an indictment of the Pentagon or politicians–it is really an indictment of the American public. We are very confused about what we want. We say we hate gridlock and want someone to take bold leadership. But, when someone does, they are attacked. We consistently elect a split Congress that wil ensure no bold action is taken. Bill Clinton learned this lesson very early in his presidency. The only bold action he ever undertook was health care reform. When it became clear that this was hurting his popularity, he dropped it like a hot rock. He never tried any bold action after that and he remained “popular.” We say we want leaders to do what’s right no matter the political consequences–but then we usually vote them out anyway if they do.

10

Zinni says U.S. troops were “led to believe they would be greeted with flowers in the street and hailed as liberators – they weren’t. They were led to believe that the world was behind them and that this was the right cause. And they can see where they’re not treated as liberators. They’re treated as occupiers, as crusaders…”

He says the U.S. military was provided with unrealistic objectives in Iraq. “We were in there talking about Jeffersonian democracy, free market economies, changing the face of the Middle East with this one blow. That was ridiculous, and I think now what we have is young kids paying the price…”

Ken, I agree with these Zinni quotes 100%.

Where was he before the war started, though? Why wasn’t he speaking out and saying this then?

11

There are a lot of people within the Defense establishment who hate Rumsfeld for reasons that have nothing to do with Iraq.

So you are saying that Gen. Zinni is slamming the administration (including his former Commander in Chief) because he has a personal grudge against Rumsfeld?

Also, Bush ran on the premise that he was going to surround himself with really good people. Does that not mean that Bush is responsible for their actions and decisions?

12

Brian, I think you’ve quite accurately characterized the state of military leadership in the US military. Sadly, far far more careerist hacks than real leaders, almost exclusively so at the higher levels.

This is not really an indictment of the Pentagon or politicians–it is really an indictment of the American public. Well, it’s an indictment of everyone involved, really. Plenty of blame to go around.

**We say we want leaders to do what’s right no matter the political consequences–but then we usually vote them out anyway if they do. **Yeah, but that’s part of doing the right thing no matter the political consequences, right? It would really be nice to see somebody in a leadership position actually take responsibility for what goes on under their watch. Doesn’t happen anymore. They make a statement, “I take full responsibility,” and go merrily along.

13

Where was he before the war started, though? Why wasn’t he speaking out and saying this then?

Because he was. Here’s a speech he gave in August, 2002 (copied without permission from http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/zinni.html). He sounds like he knew what he was talking about. Too bad the people “who never fired a shot in anger” didn’t listen. Note also that he retired in 2000, and was serving as the Peace Envoy in the Middle East.

Comments of Gen. Anthony Zinni (ret.) during a speech before the Florida Economic Club, Aug. 23, 2002:

Attacking Iraq now will cause a lot of problems. I think the debate right now that’s going on is very healthy. If you ask me my opinion, Gen. Scowcroft, Gen. Powell, Gen. Schwarzkopf, Gen. Zinni, maybe all see this the same way.

It might be interesting to wonder why all the generals see it the same way, and all those that never fired a shot in anger and really hell-bent to go to war see it a different way. That’s usually the way it is in history. (Crowd laughter.)

But let me tell you what the problem is now as I see it. You need to weigh this: what are your priorities in the region? That’s the first issue in my mind.

The Middle East peace process, in my mind, has to be a higher priority. Winning the war on terrorism has to be a higher priority. More directly, the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Central Asia need to be resolved, making sure Al Qaeda can’t rise again from the ashes that are destroyed. Taliban cannot come back. That the warlords can’t regain power over Kabul and Karzai, and destroy everything that has happened so far.

Our relationships in the region are in major disrepair, not to the point where we can’t fix them, but we need to quit making enemies we don’t need to make enemies out of. And we need to fix those relationships. There’s a deep chasm growing between that part of the world and our part of the world. And it’s strange, about a month after 9/11, they were sympathetic and compassionate toward us. How did it happen over the last year? And we need to look at that – that is a higher priority.

The country that started this, Iran, is about to turn around, 180 degrees. We ought to be focused on that. The father of extremism, the home of the ayatollah – the young people are ready to throw out the mullahs and turn around, become a secular society and throw off these ideas of extremism. That is more important and critical. They’re the ones that funded Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations. That ought to be a focus. And I can give you many, many more before you get down to Saddam and Iraq.

Our friends in the region who, a couple years ago, every time we wanted to throw a bomb at Saddam, kept saying, “Why don’t you get serious? We’ll support you if you take him out. But if you’re only going to piss him off and let him rise from the ashes, we don’t want to do it.”

Now that we want to do it, it’s the wrong time. He’ll drag Israel into the war. The mood on the street is very hostile at this moment. It is the wrong time. You could create a backlash to regimes that are friendly to us. You could create a sense of anti-Arab, anti-Islamic feelings from the West (among people who) misinterpret the attack.

We could end up with collateral damage.

You could inherit the country of Iraq, if you’re willing to do it – if our economy is so great that you’re willing to put billions of dollars into reforming Iraq. If you want to put soldiers that are already stretched so thin all around the world and add them into a security force there forever, like we see in places like the Sinai. If you want to fight with other countries in the region to try to keep Iraq together as Kurds and Shiites try and split off, you’re going to have to make a good case for that. And that’s what I think has to be done, that’s my honest opinion.

You’re going to have to tell me the threat is there, right now. That immediate, that it takes the priority over all those things I’ve just mentioned… I’ve just hit the tops of the waves.

(Person in audience speaks. Laughter.)

In fairness to President Bush, because I work for him – I don’t get paid, though – in fairness to President Bush, President Bush has invited the debate and he allows anyone who has a view to speak to the debate. I mean, within his own administration you hear different views.

So I’m encouraged by the fact the debate takes place. It ought to be, and it ought to be public and open. And although it’s messy and we’re trying to figure out which way to come down on it, I think it’s good that it’s happening, that Congress is looking into it. That it isn’t a party issue. I mean, you have Sen. Hagel and Dick Armey and others, that have taken a position, and other – Sen. Inohofe and others who have taken another – even within the parties, you have people on both sides. That’s what great about the U.S.

So I don’t mind the debate. It should be confusing because it’s a confusing issue, but in the end the people are going to have to decide, if this – if the threat is there, and the case is going to have to be made to them.

14

Bush and Rumsfeld’s political power is dwindling by the day. Rumsfeld wouldn’t even be there had it not been for 9/11. If you recall, prior to that, he had made quite a few enemies and the open talk in DC was that he was on his way out.

As for bold leadership, there’s not question that it is a risky gambit. But you suggest that (and I assume parenthetically that you are suggesting that Bush is an example of this) bold leadership is bound to invoke negative responses almost purely because it is bold. That may be true, but you must be able to discern between that and criticism that is due when such bold leadership is fundamentally wrong. On top of that, bold leadership is nothing when not tempered with the understanding that there is a difference between resurveying the landscape and making a course adjustment versus lack of resolve. That seems to be this president’s primary problem - his apparent difficulty in considering that perhaps his initial read of the situation may in fact have been incomplete, or entirely faulty. I think the American people would be understanding of somebody who truly tries to deal with the unexpected. However, I don’t think they will be quite as charitable when it becomes clear that many of the situations that arose from this morass were avoidable, as they were natural outgrowths of war. An article about the simple unwillingness of this administration to do contingency planning was written by James Fallows in the January Atlantic magazine. Basically, they felt that making reasonable consideration of the costs and consequences of an invasion was tantamount to taking an antiwar position. While this may seem incredible, it is entirely in-line with what has been reported about the ideological nature of this administration. And I won’t even begin to get into the Abu Ghraib situation.

As for gridlock, I think that while it is something that the American people say they don’t want, it is actually the most productive state, as you have the natural tensions of different constituencies creating more equitable solutions, not to mention keeping the forces of overspending at bay (unless of course you believe some constituencies are “good” and some are “bad”). Unfortunately, that doesn’t exist today, neither in government overall, nor under the umbrella of national security, where the only “honest broker” of information and views appears to be the aforementioned Colin Powell. Otherwise, its a bunch of yes-men, who will be running for cover when the whole thing comes crashing down.

15

Excellent post. Thanks, Ken.

16

I also want to thank everyone who has posted so far. Alot of times the later threads on these off topic posts can become real mudslingers, but it’s worth looking at them because alot of times people post some very insightful thoughts. makes me feel better knowing there are people like you who are informed about the world, or at least trying to be (like me!)

17

Thanks for this thread. Gen Zinni is exceedingly knowledgeable and speaks to facts and his opinions without being political, allowing us to draw our own conclusions. Thanks for your thoughts too Ken.

18

Gen. Zinni was the authorizing official that allowed the USS Cole to dock in Yeman. He didn’t get ousted and he went totally against intel reports. What a great spokesman for decision making.

Three cheers and another star for the General.

Semper Fi as long as its the other guy. eh, General?

19

ah finally. don’t address the message, attack the messenger…

20

Speaking first hand about the General, I do have a different perspective on him. As a Marine I am privy to a few things the average civilian doesn’t ever hear about. Just like all of us. Our neighbors and friends don’t know us like our family does. What is transmitted across the media is always suspect, no matter how good or bad.

The things that people are forgetting is:

  1. We do not see all the cards that were available at the time, when our government officials made the decisions. Anybody can coach on Monday.

  2. Like it or not, every member of the military is expendable.

Now have I addressed the message?