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.
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.