"Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time" - Retired General Anthony Zinni

[Destino]

Gen. Zinni: 'They've Screwed Up'

(CBS) Retired General Anthony Zinni is one of the most respected and outspoken military leaders of the past two decades.

From 1997 to 2000, he was commander-in-chief of the United States Central Command, in charge of all American troops in the Middle East. That was the same job held by Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf before him, and Gen. Tommy Franks after.

Following his retirement from the Marine Corps, the Bush administration thought so highly of Zinni that it appointed him to one of its highest diplomatic posts -- special envoy to the Middle East.

But Zinni broke ranks with the administration over the war in Iraq, and now, in his harshest criticism yet, he says senior officials at the Pentagon are guilty of dereliction of duty -- and that the time has come for heads to roll. Correspondent Steve Kroft reports. “There has been poor strategic thinking in this,” says Zinni. “There has been poor operational planning and execution on the ground. And to think that we are going to ‘stay the course,’ 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. Because it's been a failure.”

Zinni spent more than 40 years serving his country as a warrior and diplomat, rising from a young lieutenant in Vietnam to four-star general with a reputation for candor.

Now, in a new book about his career, co-written with Tom Clancy, called "Battle Ready," Zinni has handed up a scathing indictment of the Pentagon and its conduct of the war in Iraq.

In the book, Zinni writes: "In the lead up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility, at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption.

“I think there was dereliction in insufficient forces being put on the ground and fully understanding the military dimensions of the plan. I think there was dereliction in lack of planning,” says Zinni. “The president is owed the finest strategic thinking. He is owed the finest operational planning. He is owed the finest tactical execution on the ground. … He got the latter. He didn’t get the first two.”

Zinni says Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time - with the wrong strategy. And he was saying it before the U.S. invasion. In the months leading up to the war, while still Middle East envoy, Zinni carried the message to Congress: “This is, in my view, the worst time to take this on. And I don’t feel it needs to be done now.”

But he wasn’t the only former military leader with doubts about the invasion of Iraq. Former General and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf, former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, and former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki all voiced their reservations.

Zinni believes this was a war the generals didn’t want – but it was a war the civilians wanted.

“I can't speak for all generals, certainly. But I know we felt that this situation was contained. Saddam was effectively contained. The no-fly, no-drive zones. The sanctions that were imposed on him,” says Zinni.

“Now, at the same time, we had this war on terrorism. We were fighting al Qaeda. We were engaged in Afghanistan. We were looking at 'cells' in 60 countries. We were looking at threats that we were receiving information on and intelligence on. And I think most of the generals felt, let's deal with this one at a time. Let's deal with this threat from terrorism, from al Qaeda.”

One of Zinni's responsibilities while commander-in-chief at Centcom was to develop a plan for the invasion of Iraq. Like his predecessors, he subscribed to the belief that you only enter battle with overwhelming force.

But Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld thought the job could be done with fewer troops and high-tech weapons.

How many troops did Zinni’s plan call for? “We were much in line with Gen. Shinseki's view,” says Zinni. “We were talking about, you know, 300,000, in that neighborhood.”

What difference would it have made if 300,000 troops had been sent in, instead of 180,000?

“I think it's critical in the aftermath, if you're gonna go to resolve a conflict through the use of force, and then to rebuild the country,” says Zinni.

“The first requirement is to freeze the situation, is to gain control of the security. To patrol the streets. To prevent the looting. To prevent the 'revenge' killings that might occur. To prevent bands or gangs or militias that might not have your best interests at heart from growing or developing.” Last month, Secretary Rumsfeld acknowledged that he hadn't anticipated the level of violence that would continue in Iraq a year after the war began. Should he have been surprised?

“He should not have been surprised. You know, there were a number of people, before we even engaged in this conflict, that felt strongly we were underestimating the problems and the scope of the problems we would have in there,” says Zinni. “Not just generals, but others -- diplomats, those in the international community that understood the situation. Friends of ours in the region that were cautioning us to be careful out there. I think he should have known that.”

Instead, Zinni says the Pentagon relied on inflated intelligence information about weapons of mass destruction from Iraqi exiles, like Ahmed Chalabi and others, whose credibility was in doubt. Zinni claims there was no viable plan or strategy in place for governing post-Saddam Iraq.

“As best I could see, I saw a pickup team, very small, insufficient in the Pentagon with no detailed plans that walked onto the battlefield after the major fighting stopped and tried to work it out in the huddle -- in effect to create a seat-of-the-pants operation on reconstructing a country,” says Zinni.

“I give all the credit in the world to Ambassador Bremer as a great American who's serving his country, I think, with all the kind of sacrifice and spirit you could expect. But he has made mistake after mistake after mistake.” What mistakes?

“Disbanding the army,” says Zinni. “De-Baathifying, down to a level where we removed people that were competent and didn’t have blood on their hands that you needed in the aftermath of reconstruction – alienating certain elements of that society.”

Zinni says he blames the Pentagon for what happened. “I blame the civilian leadership of the Pentagon directly. Because if they were given the responsibility, and if this was their war, and by everything that I understand, they promoted it and pushed it - certain elements in there certainly - even to the point of creating their own intelligence to match their needs, then they should bear the responsibility,” he says.

“But regardless of whose responsibility I think it is, somebody has screwed up. And at this level and at this stage, it should be evident to everybody that they've screwed up. And whose heads are rolling on this? That's what bothers me most.”

Adds Zinni: “If you charge me with the responsibility of taking this nation to war, if you charge me with implementing that policy with creating the strategy which convinces me to go to war, and I fail you, then I ought to go.”

Who specifically is he talking about?

“Well, it starts with at the top. If you're the secretary of defense and you're responsible for that. If you're responsible for that planning and that execution on the ground. If you've assumed responsibility for the other elements, non-military, non-security, political, economic, social and everything else, then you bear responsibility,” says Zinni. “Certainly those in your ranks that foisted this strategy on us that is flawed. Certainly they ought to be gone and replaced.”

Zinni is talking about a group of policymakers within the administration known as "the neo-conservatives" who saw the invasion of Iraq as a way to stabilize American interests in the region and strengthen the position of Israel. They include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith; Former Defense Policy Board member Richard Perle; National Security Council member Eliot Abrams; and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Zinni believes they are political ideologues who have hijacked American policy in Iraq.

“I think it's the worst kept secret in Washington. That everybody - everybody I talk to in Washington has known and fully knows what their agenda was and what they were trying to do,” says Zinni.

“And one article, because I mentioned the neo-conservatives who describe themselves as neo-conservatives, I was called anti-Semitic. I mean, you know, unbelievable that that's the kind of personal attacks that are run when you criticize a strategy and those who propose it. I certainly didn't criticize who they were. I certainly don't know what their ethnic religious backgrounds are. And I'm not interested.”

Adds Zinni: “I know what strategy they promoted. And openly. And for a number of years. And what they have convinced the president and the secretary to do. And I don't believe there is any serious political leader, military leader, diplomat in Washington that doesn't know where it came from.”

Zinni said he believed their strategy was to change the Middle East and bring it into the 21st century.

“All sounds very good, all very noble. The trouble is the way they saw to go about this is unilateral aggressive intervention by the United States - the take down of Iraq as a priority,” adds Zinni. “And what we have become now in the United States, how we're viewed in this region is not an entity that's promising positive change. We are now being viewed as the modern crusaders, as the modern colonial power in this part of the world.” Should all of those involved, including Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, resign?

“I believe that they should accept responsibility for that,” says Zinni. “If I were the commander of a military organization that delivered this kind of performance to the president, I certainly would tender my resignation. I certainly would expect to be gone.”

“You say we need to change course -- that the current course is taking us over Niagara Falls. What course do you think ought to be set,” Kroft asked Zinni.

“Well, it's been evident from the beginning what the course is. We should have gotten this U.N. resolution from the beginning. What does it take to sit down with the members of the Security Council, the permanent members, and find out what it takes,” says Zinni.

“What is it they want to get this resolution? Do they want a say in political reconstruction? Do they want a piece of the pie economically? If that's the cost, fine. What they’re gonna pay for up front is boots on the ground and involvement in sharing the burden.”

Are there enough troops in Iraq now?

“Do I think there are other missions that should be taken on which would cause the number of troops to go up, not just U.S., but international participants? Yes,” says Zinni.

“We should be sealing off the borders, we should be protecting the road networks. We're not only asking for combat troops, we’re looking for trainers; we’re looking for engineers. We are looking for those who can provide services in there.”

But has the time come to develop an exit strategy?

“There is a limit. I think it’s important to understand what the limit is. Now do I think we are there yet? No, it is salvageable if you can convince the Iraqis that what we're trying to do is in their benefit in the long run,” says Zinni.

“Unless we change our communication and demonstrate a different image to the people on the street, then we're gonna get to the point where 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.” Zinni, who now teaches international relations at the College of William and Mary, says he feels a responsibility to speak out, just as former Marine Corps Commandant David Shoup voiced early concerns about the Vietnam war nearly 40 years ago.

“It is part of your duty. Look, there is one statement that bothers me more than anything else. And that's the idea that when the troops are in combat, everybody has to shut up. Imagine if we put troops in combat with a faulty rifle, and that rifle was malfunctioning, and troops were dying as a result,” says Zinni.

“I can't think anyone would allow that to happen, that would not speak up. Well, what's the difference between a faulty plan and strategy that's getting just as many troops killed? It’s leading down a path where we're not succeeding and accomplishing the missions we've set out to do.”

60 Minutes asked Secretary Rumsfeld and his deputy Wolfowitz to respond to Zinni's remarks. The request for an interview was declined

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

They keep coming out of the woodwork don't they.

[TankRizzo]

I was/am 100% for the war, but it was extremely poorly planned, rushed and reasoning for it was god awful considering what they had.

[thew]

This interview was scary even from my very pesimistic and synical Bush attitude. Zinni basically said it was the Neocon's

He identifies them

• Bush
  
• Cheney
  
• Rumsfeld
  
• Wolfowitz
  
• Douglas Feith
  
• Eliot Abrams
  
• Richard Perle
  
• Lewis "Scooter" Libby
  

Zinni said flat out that they did it in the mistaken belief it would aid Israel.... Wow... He said no serious military officer, politician, or diplomate doesn't believe it.

Zinni is talking about a group of policymakers within the administration known as "the neo-conservatives" who saw the invasion of Iraq as a way to stabilize American interests in the region and strengthen the position of Israel. They include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith; Former Defense Policy Board member Richard Perle; National Security Council member Eliot Abrams; and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Zinni believes they are political ideologues who have hijacked American policy in Iraq.

“I think it's the worst kept secret in Washington. That everybody - everybody I talk to in Washington has known and fully knows what their agenda was and what they were trying to do,” says Zinni.

“And one article, because I mentioned the neo-conservatives who describe themselves as neo-conservatives, I was called anti-Semitic. I mean, you know, unbelievable that that's the kind of personal attacks that are run when you criticize a strategy and those who propose it.

Wow!!..... I'm just speachless.. That's almost classic anti semitism. Jews running the world... yada yada yada... And yet, those are the self described neocons... It's really going to piss off several buddies of mine who have been very outspoken against the war even before me when I tell them that not only is the war their fault (jews), but we could have avoided the entire mess if only they had attended the secret world domination meetings and voted their proxi's......

[TankRizzo]

Iraq could be a pivotal cornerstone to finally achieving peace in that region.

[Destino]

Originally posted by TankRizzo

Iraq could be a pivotal cornerstone to finally achieving peace in that region.

Agreed but it seems many people are noticing that mistakes are made and little is being done in result.

[Die Hard]

Originally posted by TankRizzo

Iraq could be a pivotal cornerstone to finally achieving peace in that region.

Or it could completely backfire.

At this point... it's anyone's guess.

[thew]

Die Hard

Or it could completely backfire.

At this point... it's anyone's guess

I don't think you have to guess. America's prestige and trust around the world is at an all time low directly because of this war. Also last month was the worst month on record for American deaths.. The oposition is getting stronger. America is loosing this one and the world and now many American's thinks we were wrong in the first place.

Iraq is totally backfireing. The only thing that could have saved us is if we left the place better than we found it. And that now looks very doubtful.

Iraq is a huge mess and has totally backfired on the neo conservatives. They'll be out of office this time next year. And if Bush isn't out of office he'll be out of Iraq. They're already saying they'll leave if asked and like 8 out of 10 Iraqi's want us out. Any popularly elected government will demand us out. Then come in the former Bathests, Al Quada, and Civil war... All America's fault..

Thank you Mr. Bush..... welcome to the nightmare...

[Commander PK]

Originally posted by thew

I don't think you have to guess. America's prestige and trust around the world is at an all time low directly because of this war. Also last month was the worst month on record for American deaths.. The oposition is getting stronger. America is loosing this one and the world and now many American's thinks we were wrong in the first place.

Iraq is totally backfireing. The only thing that could have saved us is if we left the place better than we found it. And that now looks very doubtful.

Iraq is a huge mess and has totally backfired on the neo conservatives. They'll be out of office this time next year. And if Bush isn't out of office he'll be out of Iraq. They're already saying they'll leave if asked and like 8 out of 10 Iraqi's want us out. Any popularly elected government will demand us out. Then come in the former Bathests, Al Quada, and Civil war... All America's fault..

Thank you Mr. Bush..... welcome to the nightmare... [/quote

Thew, could you be anymore inflamatory? The sky is falling...the world is coming to an end...sheesh...lighten up man. I don't think that the situation in Iraq is nearly as bad as you try to make it sound. Hussein is gone, and many people in Iraq are using their new found freedoms in ways that they've never been able to before. Personally, I think Saddam was the nightmare. Anything short of total chaos and anarchy is better than him, and despite the picture you try to paint. Iraq is nowhere near that. There are problems, but it's war. Nobody ever said this would be easy. I believe that in the long-term, Iraq will have proved worthwhile.

[Guest 979guy]

Originally posted by G-Train

Originally posted by thew

Hussein is gone, and many people in Iraq are using their new found freedoms in ways that they've never been able to before.

Don't want to fully engage in the discussion but regarding this comment - I believe there is truth to it as I myself experience it daily where I work. One example - Iraqis are trying, and very (maybe too) slowly managing to make strides into modernity in telecommunications and Internet connectivity. Check out cybercafe's which are opening up (for American soldiers, true, but not only), check out the small businesses which look to connect to the world. Opening up to the world in ways that before were difficult (in the least) looks like the beginning of a most important process.

[Sarge]

Originally posted by thew

I don't think you have to guess. America's prestige and trust around the world is at an all time low directly because of this war. Also last month was the worst month on record for American deaths.. The oposition is getting stronger. America is loosing this one and the world and now many American's thinks we were wrong in the first place.

Iraq is totally backfireing. The only thing that could have saved us is if we left the place better than we found it. And that now looks very doubtful.

Iraq is a huge mess and has totally backfired on the neo conservatives. They'll be out of office this time next year. And if Bush isn't out of office he'll be out of Iraq. They're already saying they'll leave if asked and like 8 out of 10 Iraqi's want us out. Any popularly elected government will demand us out. Then come in the former Bathests, Al Quada, and Civil war... All America's fault..

Thank you Mr. Bush..... welcome to the nightmare...

Ask al sadr who is losing. While all of this is going on, the Marines have quietly been eliminating his followers. In fact, I heard they cut and run.

And don't worry about our prestige. The first natural disaster that comes along, our prestige will be good enough to take a hand out

[Commander PK]

Originally posted by Sarge

Ask al sadr who is losing. While all of this is going on, the Marines have quietly been eliminating his followers. In fact, I heard they cut and run.

And don't worry about our prestige. The first natural disaster that comes along, our prestige will be good enough to take a hand out

nice post Sarge. I agree, if we are losing the war in Iraq, who the hell is winning? Definately not Al Sadr. He will be gone in month, maybe even less than that. As far as the handouts, don't even get me started on that one. We are "the great satan" until somebody needs something. :doh:

[Thiebear]

Hindsight is 20/20 but I want all Politicians to speak up about the war.

Especially the ones that say silly racial things... Then you know where they stand in the future.

In 10 years the country should be very stable

In 10 years the country should be semi-democratic

In 10 years the country should hate us about 70/30%

We have already gotten Countries to arrest and turn in terrorists that NEVER would have before. We have got the leather rope wet and slid it over their necks... Its going to slowly shrink until it chokes most of them out.

On a personal note that is a tad rude

I would prefer the 130k troops to fight the terrorists from all of the different countries pouring into IRAQ. As opposed to fighting them here or all over the world. (it may not be all of them, but it is quite a few that we wont have to search out or deal with later).

[TankRizzo]

Originally posted by Die Hard

Or it could completely backfire.

At this point... it's anyone's guess.

If we see it through like we should, I don't think that will be the case. But seeing as how this is going to take several years and a couple presidents who knows what could happen.

[TankRizzo]

Originally posted by thew

Iraq is a huge mess and has totally backfired on the neo conservatives. They'll be out of office this time next year. And if Bush isn't out of office he'll be out of Iraq. They're already saying they'll leave if asked and like 8 out of 10 Iraqi's want us out. Any popularly elected government will demand us out. Then come in the former Bathests, Al Quada, and Civil war... All America's fault..

Thank you Mr. Bush..... welcome to the nightmare...

I will sit here and GUARANTEE you right now that they will NOT ask us to leave. As I've said before, you might not see it on the news every night (mainly because Brokaw's Canadian A$$ would rather talk about the prison scandal ), but they will NOT say that they want us out. They may not want us there, but they do in fact know that they NEED us there.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by TankRizzo

I will sit here and GUARANTEE you right now that they will NOT ask us to leave. As I've said before, you might not see it on the news every night (mainly because Brokaw's Canadian A$$ would rather talk about the prison scandal ), but they will NOT say that they want us out. They may not want us there, but they do in fact know that they NEED us there.

Are you so sure about that Rizzo? I'm talking about after the general elections, not the transition government. In the trans. govt. they will back the US undoubtedly because we're the ones that put them in power, but after the elections, it's anyones guess.

I know it will be a campaign strategy of their leaders to oust America, that's for damn sure. Once they're in power, and we've already said we'll leave, do we leave? What if a religous fanatic takes to power, what then?

I think it's a simplistic attitude that says "they need us there". In fact Iraqis want us gone, they don't feel safe over there anymore, something they did feel until we took over their country.

[joe]

I gotta go with the man who had four stars on his collar. We did not put enough troops in to begin with, we still do not have enough troops to insure success and, I have my doubts that we have enough troops in service right now to bring this adventure to a successful conclusion.

See French Algeria 1958-1962.

If Bush wins this November, expect the draft to be resumed. He knows that we don't have enough troops, but he can't do anything about it before the election.