For anyone who missed 60 Minutes... #1
 

Gen. Zinni: 'They've Screwed Up'

Iraq War Strategy Flawed

"Regardless of whose responsibility I think it is, somebody has screwed up. ... it should be evident to everybody that they've screwed up. And whose heads are rolling on this?"

President Bush named Zinni special envoy to the Middle East. But Zinni wound up breaking ranks with the administration over the war in Iraq._

(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.”

...part 2
 

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.

"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."

I think his motivation is clear...

Next stop "The Daily Show"...sell sell sell

Of course if he is selling a book it can't be true. :rolleyes:

Next Zinni's accomplished will be denigrated.

How many more revelations will have to come out before people finally accept that this administration has failed. All these people who worked in the administration are all saying the same thing, but it can't be true....

And what are those?

Too many words, aargh! And some of them are big!! I can't handle it!!!! Tech, at least you could have warned me that it would have lots of words; I'm hurt now ....

In all honesty, he comes accross credible to me. I don't think it's uncommon for there to be differering opinions in the ranks though. He developed his plan and they went with another arguably worse one. I can understand his position. I can also guarantee that you could find other Generals whom would take the other side. He has a right to be heard and I guess there you go. If he can shed some light on potential improvements and they make the situation better, great. In the end it's an opinion, granted a very educated one, but still an opinion.

Definitely an important opinion to consider. The impressive this is how this illuminates the beauty of a free society. Can you imagine a North Korean general breaking ranks and going on a book tour? Not likely. Liberty is a wonderful thing.

Ah yes, the neo-cons. Not a secret that he was speaking specifically about this group:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html

Yes, organized and founded back in 1997, the plan has been a long time in the works. Regime change in Iraq was on the calendar long ago, and those of you who still believe that that this is in any way related to the "war on terror" are in serious denial. This was going to happen regardless of 9/11, in fact 9/11 probably just slowed it down. Click the statement of priciples link from the homepage above to see who signed on back in '97, and where they are today.
Why should this matter to anyone? Because we have been mislead all along about the true motivation for this war, and more innocent people are dying every day. As Zinni said, it's not a secret. These people had their agenda prior to 2000, and GWB by way of Cheney was the catalyst they needed.
A war of choice indeed.

First off I meant accomplishments.

Let's see... General and commander-in-chief of the United States Central Command. I think that should be enough.

But see, there you go again. Any time anyone has anything bad to say about the administration, you start questioning what they have done in the past. That is the MO of the administration. Attack someone to draw attention from yourself.

Only one thing to do now. Call him and all his friends "traitors" and "jew haters" "book-peddling opportunist" and make up stuff to be repeated over and over again on Fox News so that his credibility will be questioned.

Certainly the last thing we should be doing is discussing the brute fact that our "president" has delegated most of his job to greedy people like himself, who he of course trusts. Actually, I'm glad in a way that he does delegate, but it sure leaves a leadership vacuum.

Waging a war on false pretenses that is very obviously poorly planned. Bungling both diplomatic and military opportunities. And this is the "president's" most impressive area of performance to date. If this upcoming presidential election is even anywhere near a close race, then American voters will deserve the disdain of the rest of the world.

I agree, but remember..he is an ex-general whose plans were totally scrapped for the current way of doing things.

The part I find funny is that any retired general, no matter how obscure they were when on duty...or military member for that matter that makes any sort of anti-Bush statement is introduced by the press as "one of the most respected" military leaders of all time while statements and articles by those who side with the administration are called "Bush apologists." Since most retired military leaders strongly support Bush and the war...Why do we only see articles about those who do not?

Another thing to remember is that Zinni is a Marine. Different breed. Marine Corps officers appointments are far less political than in other branches. The Marine Corps has no "fast-track" access to commanding ranks. First and foremost, Zinni is a warrior. When someone like Zinni has something to say about military operations, I'm listening.

More will come forward, this is the begining of the end for emperor Bush.

F: "The part I find funny is that any retired general, no matter how obscure they were when on duty...or military member for that matter that makes any sort of anti-Bush statement is introduced by the press as "one of the most respected" military leaders of all time while statements and articles by those who side with the administration are called "Bush apologists." Since most retired military leaders strongly support Bush and the war...Why do we only see articles about those who do not?"

Hmmm...

1. Only the 'most respected' ones are quoted.

2. 'General and commander-in-chief of the United States Central Command' is not respected, to you?

3. Only the ones with a story (book, article, etc.) do the press tour and get extensively quoted.

4. Where are the 'equally respected' supporters?Setting that aside, where are the 'majority supporting Bush'? Are they another "silent majority"? Or maybe the support you imagine is not strong enough for public vocalization. Powell is a good example. he's grown pretty quiet lately.

Don`t bother, Technweenie. Finstone is just a pseudo. His real name is General Schwarzkopf :D

Aurel

I agree with the idea of changing the regime in Iraq and attempting to establish some sort of elected government in the region. And, I'm in favor of staying there and getting the job done. I think the Iraqis were dealt a serious disservice the first time we were there & pulled out leaving them hanging. But, I also agree the whole thing has been seriously mismanaged, mostly on the part of Donald Rumsfeld. The former Army Chief of Staff had it pegged when he told Rumsfeld the number of troops, amount of money, committment and effort it would take. A bunch of other top military brass said the same thing, but Rumsfeld chose to try to do it on the cheap. Basically, if he would have committed the resources needed, there wouldn't be the problems we are seeing now.

Why is Zinni's opinion any better than that of the current commander of Central Command ...or Powell or any other past hundreds of commanders of a combined or unified command? The only difference is that he was the leader of Central Command under Clinton...when we did not go after the Taliban or Saddam. You don't hear him whining about why we didn't go after Bin Laden when he was in charge of the middle east. Of course he is POed that his replacement, Tommy Franks, got the job done.

Zini is the one making the attacks...not me. I just have to laugh that his word is golden among liberals....just because he was a general once. LOL. I have worked very closely with lots of generals that were great golfers...but didn'y have a clue about much else. Lots of politics for any rank over O-5. You like him simply because you agree with him.

Um, Stone......., you don't hear their real opinions until they retire. That would explain the support of all current commanders. :cool:

Obviously the current commander is running the war..so we know how he wants to run it. Commanders that strongly disagree with leadership can resign and retire if they choose to...and of course there are all the generals that have retired over the last 20 years. Not many in that group that would support Zinni...of course they are not selling a book.

ummm...maybe becuase what we're doing now isn't working? I can just see the article now:

General Schmo talks about how brilliant the current strategy is, and rebukes those that claim mistakes were made.

That of course is a right wet dream...and likely will be the lead story on Fox tonight :rolleyes:

I think that many would agree that the going is sometimes tough...but I also think they would tell you that the war has been very well run. Yes, quite a few retired generals have come on Fox and said just that...but they would never be allowed on 60 Minutes...wrong point of view.

"es, quite a few retired generals have come on Fox and said just that...but they would never be allowed on 60 Minutes...wrong point of view."

Once again, you appear to have missed that 60 Miunutes invited the other side to respond.

And how many generals opposing the war have been invited to appear on Fox?

Come on Fint - do I need to remind you that Bush just went on tv to say, amongst other things, that things weren't going to plan.

The first quote from the article which struck me was:

Do you agree or disagree with the first point (about number of troops on the ground). I ask because, in hindsight, it is clear that there are not even close to enough troops to "win the peace".

And saying "in hindsight" is worthless, because Zinni and others gave Rumsfeld et al plenty of warning about more troops being needed.

He screwed it up, its pretty simple.

According to all accounts, the president provided the troops that the theater commanders requested. Why would he send more than they wanted? I guess that is why military folks like Bush better than his predecessor...he doesn't think he knows better how to fight a war than they do.

On the contrary..I watched Zinni being interviewed last night on Fox. I watched retired Major General Bob Scales discuss the same subject on Fox tonight. He supported the war quite well. I guess that is why Fox makes the "fair and balanced' claim whereas 60 Minutes cannot.

I had to read your answer pretty carefully. You might well be right - the theatre commanders may well have requested only those troops.

However, the Army Chief of Staff had quite a stoush with Wolfowitz about how many troops were needed.

See a NY Times article here

Or another one here, about the stoush

It makes Wolfowitz look like a real *********. Like this bit:

It makes it look like his plan was basically "lets just plan for, and provide for, the best possible outcome". I thought you were supposed to overbuild things in the military.

Your article does back up my assertion that Gen Franks made the decision. Selection as the Chief of Staff for a service is much more a political role than a warfighting one. Shinseki, was a great guy, but many thought that he and a lot of the Army generals were still trying to fight tha last war and not the next one (a lot of my work as a military analyst at the time seemed to bear that out)...There was a big turf battle for money...which the army always seem to lose based on the (perceived or actual) lack of flexibility by their leadership. Some of those are the retired folks you see on TV crtical of the administration...so he retired mid 2003. In our system, the military folks make recommendations, but the final decision on which horse to take is by the elected civilians.

Ah, I see. Under neocon logic, military decisions made under Clinton were Clinton's personal responsibility, while military decisions made under Bush are the responsibility of everyone else.

Got it.

The buck never stops there.

Oh for crying out loud. You're missing the point that he is obviously completely correct. Their aren't enough troops and now you discount his insightful comments prior to the problem eventuating as the ramblings of a political appointee still trying to fight tha last war and not the next one .

Is it so hard to admit that it might be easier to keep the peace with the right number of troops there?

Is it only hard to admit that because to admit it would also be to admit that GWB would never have got permission to go make war if he said "We'll need at least $100b and a few hundred thousand troops"?

In fact, the irony is so thick I can hardly breathe. I'm a liberal trying to convince a hawk that there isn't enough military on the ground.

I just don't consider them insightful. We have won the war and are turning returning soveignity to the Iraqis next month with the smaller number of troops. Based on the requirements in Iraq and our other obligations...I think the number of troops has been about right. Recently the number was temporarily increased due to changes in requirements. The fact is, we simply do not have unlimited troops to send. Shinseki was making the point that the Army was just not large enough to fight the war the way he envisioned it would be fought. He also thought it would take months or years to take Baghdad. It was a political move. The army has bee trying to increase their end strength for years...maybe rightfully so...but that is up to congress.

we have won the war!!!? which one? i can't hadly wait for the new government to tell the u.s. to pack it's bags and clear out. i'm sure your leadership position while on active duty was far superior than zinni's. i could care less, or is that couldn't?

If you use that logic, then obviously you musty believe that the many Generals that outranked Zinni (such as Powell or Meyers) who think Zinni is incorrect are the ones to trust.