Posted on 10/26/2009 11:04:02 AM PDT by pissant
Anthony Zinni stepped up his call for the Obama administration to quit dillydallying and send more troops to Afghanistan to fight the insurgency.
A counterinsurgency strategy, he said, would work better over the long run than continuing narrower counterterrorism operations that target Taliban and al Qaeda leaders.
The retired Marine Corps general, who had been the top commander in the Middle East and Central Asia, said the Obama administration needs more forces in Afghanistan quickly. Zinni said his own son was among the troops waiting to be deployed, adding: “I think that we owe them a decision. For the life of me, I can’t figure out why we’re still waiting for one.”
Zinni, who spent considerable time working with the Pakistani and Indian governments while he headed Centcom during the Clinton administration, told the International Peace Operations Association’s annual conference that a counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan could better resolve the nettlesome problems with Taliban and al Qaeda fighters and drug production. The association is a trade group for battlefield contractors; Zinni is chairman of BAE Systems Inc., the U.K. defense giant’s U.S. arm.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
Yes, Zinni was anti-Bush and I’ll bet he’s speaking here as a Clinton surrogate.
Time for the left to throw another General under the bus.
LOLOL....Zinni was a PAIN in the butt to Pres. Bush....and now he is after pino!.
I love it.
“Yes, Zinni was anti-Bush and I’ll bet he’s speaking here as a Clinton surrogate.”
Correct. He’s paving the way for a Hillary! challenge.
It is always Americas war.........win the damn thing.
Surprising that Zinni is speaking out to Zer0 but he’s right.
Is this just breaking? dillydallying, funny!
It is NOT America’s war. This is a futile nation-building operation to prop up a vote-stealing, drug dealing, corrupt politician. To call a with those goals “winnable” is a contradiction in terms. Bring home the troops so they can defend the United States not “spread democracy” to Kabul.
Zinni was wrong in his criticism of Bush and equally wrong now. The generals ALWAYS want more troops. They don’t have to do the fighting after all. Bring ‘em home.
There are going to be many Zinni’s in this country who will hold the CIC personally responsible if something happens to their son's while the idiot in Washington plays golf. I'm one.
I know Zinni a little bit. He's reflective of many of the General grade officers I have known - not exceptionally political, and they base their opinions on practical experience and history, rather than a political orthodoxy. Frequently, they find themselves at odds with both parties.
If you read Zinni's autobiography - the one that was written with Tom Clancy - many of his criticisms of the 2003 Iraq invasion of very valid.
And, you may or may not remember, but Zinni enthusiastically supported the troop surge in 2007 - something that didn't get nearly as much publicity as his opposition to Rumsfeld's war planning. You may also remember that Hilary and Bill (and Obama) were all against the surge - placing them at odds with Zinni. I don't think Zinni is anyone's shill.
dillydallying....is that like wee-weeing...?
>.For the life of me, I can’t figure out why we’re still waiting for one.”
Because my dear chap, you bought his BS!
Get a Life, Zinni, you got rolled by the man.
You and other Paulbots agree.
Some of that I remember and some of it I don’t....but wasn’t Zinni an advisor to Hillary Clinton after he retired?
I guess when your son’s life is involved, its different.
Yes, I wouldn’t doubt that has something to do with it but after the surge worked in Iraq he may believe it’ll work now. I’d like to think he believes that.
You can bet the Left won’t be quoting him the way they have when he was bucking Bush. We’ll probably hear nothing more about this.
In the world of military advisers, that's not always relevant. Jack Keane was an adviser to Obama, but as one of the principle architects and advocates of the Iraq troop surge, I'd hardly call Keane a liberal, pacifist or Democrat shill.
Too many people make the mistake of assigning some kind of political-connection when many General officers speak out publicly about contemporary military issues or foreign policy challenges. Infrequently, these are overt and intentional political endorsements - like those from McPeak or Wesley Clark. More often than not, they're just candid and apolitical statements on particular issues.
People, who don't have any experience in the military, or at that level in the military, mistakenly and reflexively call these retired officers shills, or sympathizers or some other such nonsense.
The fact of the matter is many of the criticisms of the pre-Iraq war invasion were accurate and prescient, no matter how critical they were of Bush and especially Rumsfeld. And, many criticisms weren't addressed or fixed until the surge.
Yesterday Orin Hatch chastised Republicans
for saying Barry was dithering.
Hatch said he was just taking a long time to make a decision.
Barry has become the Chief Democrat Fundraiser and the Chief Fun Raiser.
Isn’t that what being a Commander in Chief is all about ?
Barry has ordered that Laissez Les Bon Temps Roulez be the new White House seal.
dillydallying....is that like wee-weeing...?
more like dithering...
An informative post, a nice antidote to some of the kneejerkiness prevalent at times.
I’m sure all that’s true, but the fact remains that Zinni took a much more public position than most retired general officers. I still believe that the Clintons are speaking on this issue through Zinni.
But, most other retired officers weren't just forced out by Rumsfeld. Remember, Zinni was Bush's special envoy to the Middle-east, prior to the invasion. Zinni gave Bush some advice that was counter to what Rumsfeld was offering, and quickly Zinni found himself persona non grata, which coincidentally is very much the position that McChrystal will be finding himself in, if he hasn't already.
Guys like Zinni - Keane, Garner, and now McChrystal - say what they believe, not what's going to be popular and they don't acquiesce to the prevailing political opinions. That is all we can ask of our retired General officers. When Bush was CIC, some of these opinions were in contradiction to Bush policy. And, in many instances, the retired Generals were right - the post-war planning was inadequate, there weren't nearly enough troops, and an insurgency was incubated precisely because of the draconian debathification.
In this case, Zinni is giving his honest assessment about Afghanistan and the surge. Since it doesn't support the liberal political narrative, I doubt it will attract nearly as much MSM attention, although it clearly should.
Yes.....and?
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.