Posted on 12/25/2003 2:17:29 PM PST by SUSSA
Edited on 12/26/2003 7:55:16 AM PST by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
Anthony C. Zinni's opposition to U.S. policy on Iraq began on the monsoon-ridden afternoon of Nov. 3, 1970. He was lying on a Vietnamese mountainside west of Da Nang, three rounds from an AK-47 assault rifle in his side and back. He could feel his lifeblood seeping into the ground as he slipped in and out of consciousness.
He had plenty of time to think in the following months while recuperating in a military hospital in Hawaii. Among other things, he promised himself that, "If I'm ever in a position to say what I think is right, I will. . . . I don't care what happens to my career."
That time has arrived.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
He suffered mightily in Vietnam
It was due to HIS judgement that the USS Cole was in Yemen.
Now, taking those two things into consideration I think he might have a bit of an over reaction to the situation in Iraq.
That sums it up nicely. Everyone has the right to their opinion BUT just being in the military doesn't mean you are more brilliant than other persons who have served in the military and who have access to DAILY briefings from professional intelligence agency personnel and are surrounded by the best minds in the US.
SUSSA, I do not understand your proclaiming zinni right and your ELECTED COMMANDER IN CHIEF wrong. Please explain.
Pathetic DU comment. bye
I have never been impressed with the foreign policy expertise of the CINCs who have become proconsuls with grandiose ideas. What makes Zinni such an expert on the Middle East? Powell selected him to be the US Special Envoy. Unfortunately, the military has eclipsed the rest of the US foreign policy community in terms of influence. They have the resources, i.e., military equipment and training, to curry favor with other countries and to gain entree to their leaders.
I can recall being upbraided by Deputy Chairman of the Joint Chiefs about the State Department stopping the military exchange program with Indonesia because of East Timor. He couldn't understand why it would be politically inappropriate to continue to support the very people who were undermining our efforts to stop the violence in East Timor.
Clark is another example of someone with an inflated idea about his foreign policy expertise. It makes me laugh when he touts his "major" role in the Dayton accords and his relationship with Milosevic. Clark was a messenger boy for Holbrooke and Albright. His influence was virtually nil, which is why he tried to do his own thing and was fired.
In contrast to the White House, SecDef and flag rank appointees who are literally trapped to follow the SecDef mantra, the cadre' of articulate, intelligent and knowledgeable retired officers are now freed from the tether of restraint from commenting on public policy. Fortunate for the arena of public discussion, they are also free of the practical need to temper and orient their commentaries to one or another political base or financial support of their political mentor or cabinet officer.
I know General Zinni personally and have worked with and for him in staff and advisory assignments. He is incapable of guile on any subject, disingenuousness, or deception when it relates to analysis of what is the soundest policy for the U.S.A. I would offer that he, along with other similar retired colleagues, are the very best repository of critical contemporary thought on military deployment, action plan and force structure policy. That group is far more reliable with regard to candor and sound analysis than those in the Dept. of Defense who have their present career and future success invested in the foreign policy course under consideration and challenge that may, upon the studious reflection of history, be deemed a failure.
To simply disregard what these men say because it runs counter to the party line of the White House or the enormous spin machine of the DOD, is to display the type of anti-intellectualism that suggests the same poster here on FR would argue for the correctness of a flat earth theory or that the moon is made of green cheese if that assertion came from Administration sources. It's a sorrowful sight to read precisely such apologia on a forum where critical and independent thought is supposedly a valued component.
The issue is not General Zinni--or the others like him with similar background. To attack his credentials as belonging to an era now gone or tactical/strategic doctrine now obsolete is beyond absurd, rather, it is irrefutable evidence of an abject, unthinking fealty that rejects any hypothesis other than the one advanced by one's political and doctrinaire leader. It's nothing less than a modern illustration of the "Emperor's Clothes," and a sad example at that. We have all been witness to just such a scenario. It was a foundational tenet of the LJB/McNamara hide-the-ball deception routine and it cost the lives of thousands, many who were my colleagues and friends.
But of greater importance for our nation and society, it created a well-deserved distrust of the White House in times like these and it resulted in an American public less able to reach unanimity when the White House assured it of an imminent threat.
Otherwise, remove shoes before entering mosque.
Having served both as a naval officer and a foreign service officer, I don't share your view that senior field grade and flag officers have "amazing" insight to international affairs. They have their own unique perspective, but so do senior State Department and CIA officers who have spent entire careers specializing in international relations and understanding different cultures.
I am concerned about the fairly recent trend over the past decade of CINCs becoming more influential in our foreign policy. The State Department assigns Political Advisors (POLADS) to CINCs to provide foreign policy expertise and to coordinate actions, but I don't think it works all that well. The military and State/CIA corporate cultures are very different. The military culture is more action-oriented and tends to see things more in black and white than shades of gray. Their decisiveness and confidence appeals to the politically appointed policy makers who want options without too many qualifiers. The can-do attitude works well for military objectives, but it isn't as effective in foreign affairs.
I am sure the opinions and motives of retired admirals and generals fall across a wide spectrum. Many are looking at a second career and what is best for them personally whether it working in the defense industry, serving on coporate boards, becoming a talking head on television, advising a political candidate, seeking office, or being appointed as a government official. For example, ADM Crowe supported Clinton and received an ambassadorship to London. GWB supporter Colin Powell is SECSTATE and he has brought other retired military flag officers to the Department. Prior to that, Powell made millions in speaking fees. General Clark is running for President after serving as a talking head for CNN. Tommy Franks is also now on the speaking tour.
By speaking publicly, General Zinni has inserted himself into the political arena. Nothing wrong with that, but he shouldn't be surprised that his credentials and motives will be challenged.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.