Gen. Zinni Says Containing Iraq Can Work

You are entitled to criticize him for his opinions about Iraq. I myself have difficulty with his remarks. However, laying the blame for what happened to the Cole on him is off-base. He was gone. Didn't happen on his watch. Criticize the intelligence community for failing to get the warnings to the Cole. Criticze the CO of the Cole and CENTCOM for goofy ROEs considering the heightened threat. Given the lack of fleet oilers and the political situation in that part of the world Zinni didn't have a lot of options available to him. As I wrote 27 ships safely refueled there before the attack on the Cole.

Read some of his prophetic remarks in A Commander's Reflections

Gen Zinni has questioned a strategy. I thought that was what good Generals were supposed to do before sending americans to get killed. What in the hell does 9/11 have to do with Iraq? Show the link?

Actually, I thought Generals were supposed to execute policy, and civilians were supposed to set it. His area of expertise should be how to accomplish the mission, getting into and get out of the battle area with the minimum amount of casualties.

Regarding 9/11 and Iraq: I don't need to repeat the arguments for going into Iraq, or do your homework for you by gathering internet links. You have your mind pretty well made up. Facts wouldn't deter you.

Let's look at this another way: What level of evidence would you have to see to support President Bush's position? It's easy to say "need more evidence .. need more verification..need more inspections". If we lost a city tomorrow to one of Iraq's WMD's, you'd be in the crowd saying "what did the President know, and when did he know it..", or "that cowBOY president went and got a bunch of Americans killed again... we deserved it". There is sufficient evidence to me that Hussein would fund, support, and promote radical Islamic groups hostile to the U.S.. While I hold the Saudi's and Iran to be a greater risk, no sane CIC would take them on leaving Iraq at your rear to open another front or even strike the USA, possibly using WMD's. Hitting Iraq is the first step. The alterative is .. doing that Clinton thing. Taking tough, doing nothing, at the cost of the occasional 50 or 200 soldiers (the Democrat's version of "useful idiots", i.e. anyone in uniform).

No, I don't know if that's your position, but your question about 9/11 and Iraq was typical if the left-Clinton-Zinni crowd. I had my fill of the new-Clinton-Democrat military officers when I was on duty in DC. Eight years of Clinton appointees really made a dent in the integrity of the Officer Corps. Zinni may be a well meaning patriot, but I IMMEDIATELY suspect any General officer or Admiral who was promoted to senior rank by the Clinton Administration. They weren't promoted for their war-fighting ability, I can positively GUARANTEE that!

So was your mindless insult.

Do you really think that it has changed with administrations? The tune is still played by the amount of money spent on whatever project in whatever district. ANY american who does not question the use of force and it's appropriateness is wrong. The general is no longer on active duty so he has the right and as a father of a Marine the obligation to ask why now? You seem to think you are privvy to some knowledge that exist concerning the intentions of the iraqi's. You make military decisions off of capabilities, not intentions.

Are you an idiot?

Well, heck, I dunno. But I did study classical logic in college, and learned that ad hominem attacks eminate from those who have no intelligent logic to support their attacks.

You attack, but offer nothing to support your arguments other than personal abuse. You did not address my question about your standard on use of force, because for you, either (a) use of force in defense of national prerequisites is never justified, or (b) use of force by a Republican President is never justified.

By the way, as one who is still a Reservist, and who has a teenage son who is probably on his way to Annapolis, who lives within a stone's throw from Camp Pendleton, who counts dozen's of active duty Marines (and Marine families, and their kids I coach) as close friends, I feel I have a personal stake in this decision. What is yours??

Zinni is a political General, carrying water for his patrons. His solution: "Adopt the Bill Clinton foreign policy, and all will be well." I disagree. NBC warfare and/or terrorism has been my constant concern since I first joined the Navy in 1980. The threat is real, and no, Iraq is not the only threat. WMD's will be used on US soil if the U.S. adopts the defense policies of the Democrat-left. Pre-emptive warfare should not be the first option of a U.S. President, but to say that Bush acting rashly on Iraq in view of the past 10-15 years history is disingenious. You have another agenda, as does the Democrat party. National defense is their furthest concern. November elections are all that matter.

FReegards, and "TOS" to you. I may or may not be an "idiot", but you are as worthless as your logic.

SFS

Gee, having buried Marines, being a Marine, the son of a Marine, nephew of Marines, great-nephew of Marines, and served in the gulf, my stake is pretty personal. Glad to go shoot whatever I am pointed towards. You have yet to offer your proof of the iraqi link to 9/11. The use of force is decided in accordance to the national objective as it also dictates the application of the amount of force, and no, General Zinni was not a political appointee, and you live by Marines, great, you sould know that he is held in exceptionally high regard by all those that served under him as a " Marines Marine". And I trust him and his opinion more than I trust any politician, regardless of their political party affilitation, even if I voted for them. And last time I checked the General was the middle east envoy due to his proven ablilities and knowledge on the area for the President. No agenda. I listen when a Marine General has questions as I trust him before I trust any political party, you do not seem so able. And I take exception to anyone who smears the reputation of this General, even someone who lives by Camp Pendelton.

General Zinni's address is a fascinating read. Thanks for the link.

The address does give some insight into Gen. Zinni's opposition to an Iraq campaign. In his departing address, summing up his career, he declared the Powell Doctrine and symmetrical warfare dead; operations other than war (OOTW) the future. He said Saddam was too smart to take us on a second time symmetrically. Zinni bemoaned the fact that it is extremely difficult to mobilize the support of the American people behind this new kind of war.

Zinni's predictions of attacks on small U.S. units as well as a catastrophic terrorist attack are indeed chilling.

So, authorizing an attack on Iraq by at least in part conventional units cuts against many of Gen. Zinni's summing up conclusions.

It's too bad because the presently contemplated campaign indeed is based on many of the General's conclusions.

We were attacked in a catastrophic manner, but not with WMD. The country united behind action, as he hoped and wanted. We responded in a brilliant campaign in Afghanistan with asymmetric warfare.

The administration agrees with General Zinni that we will likely be the target of a WMD attack and believes the most likely source of the weapon will be Iraq. Further agreeing with Gen. Zinni, Saddam will not launch the attack symmetrically, but will likely hide all involvement. Thus, the need to disarm and eject the Baathist regime.

The main hole in the General's reasoning seems to be to swing too far in the opposite direction from WWII/Gulf War I type warfare to a belief that no conventional units should be involved in OOTW or asymmetric warfare. In fact, a great deal of the success in Afghanistan is blending conventional with unconventional units with new technologies that baffled and stunned the enemy. This will likely happen again in a larger scale in Iraq.

In some ways Gen. Zinni is as stubborn in his approach as the Weinbergers and Powells he criticizes, which may explain his present contrariness.

While I honor Gen. Zinni's service and his creative thinking, I still believe he is justifiably criticized over the Cole. He is not responsible for the Clinton draw-down of fleet oilers. He is not responsible for bad intel or lax shipboard security. But the decision to move refueling to Aden was taken on his watch. Yemen is Indian Country for the reasons I already described, weak central government, chronic instability, presence of Al Qaeda, support for Saddam in the Gulf War. A solution involving even a moderately friendly power, such as Djbouti (a French port), Egypt, Saudi or Oman would have been preferable, although not foolproof. The fact that a number of ships refueled in Aden before the Cole is really irrelevant. We know it takes the terrorists time to prepare an operation, as it did with Khobar Towers, the Africa Embassies and Mogadishu (operations that bracketed Yemen).

I still remember my shock that we were using Aden with no significant security presence and further shock that the primary reason was because of the strained relations between the U.S. and Yemen that we hoped buying fuel would improve.

But, perhaps I'm too hard on the General. True, blowing a hole in a ship with a small boat bomb isn't too different from blowing off the side off a building with a truck bomb, but before the Cole no one had done it before. And I'll be darned if a tanker didn't just sail right into another Yemeni port and get itself blown up despite specific warnings directed to tankers.

Freegards.