General Anthony Zinni --- No 'Nitwit Pundit' --- Blames Neoconservatives And Says Their Iraq Course 'Headed Over Niagara Falls'
July 02, 2004
Printer Friendly E-mail this page
John Lofton
May 31 2004
In a recent column, Tony Blankley, editorial page editor of “The Washington Times,” attacked, among others, “nitwit pundits” who talk about an “exit strategy” in Iraq as if such a strategy “were just one more map quest printout.” Any such strategy, he said, “will lead us only on a short path to hell.” We should, instead, be pursuing “triumph in Iraq.”
The problem, of course, with our unnecessary, unconstitutional war in Iraq is that there appears to be not only no exit strategy but also no entrance strategy and no strategy now that we’ve entered this bloody mess.
But, don’t take what I say at face value. Listen to the words of retired General Anthony Zinni --- no nitwit he. From 1997 to 2000, he was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Central Command. He was in charge of all American troops in the Middle East.
Following Gen. Zinni’s retirement from the Marine Corps, the Bush Administration thought so much of him that he was appointed their special envoy to the Middle East. In mid-March of 2002, President Bush said that he and Vice President Dick Cheney “both trust” Gen. Zinni. In this same month and year, Vice President Cheney called him “a superb officer.” And in late May of this year, even after the interview I’m about to tell you about, White House press spokesman Scott McClellan said: “We have great respect for General Zinni.”
In his “60 Minutes” interview on May 23, 2004, Gen. Zinni said, about our Iraq “cakemire” --- a cakewalk that becomes a quagmire: “There has been poor strategic thinking in this, there has been poor operational planning and execution on the ground.” Rejecting the idea of “staying the course,” he added: “This course is headed over Niagara Falls…this course [has been] a failure.”
Gen. Zinni says “there was dereliction in insufficient forces being put on the ground and fully understanding the military dimensions of the plan.” And before our invasion of Iraq, he said this was the wrong war at the wrong time with the wrong strategy.
In this interview, Gen. Zinni explained what he means when he says our war in Iraq is a war wanted by civilians, not the generals: “Well, I think the generals, and 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. 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--let's deal with this threat from terrorism, from al-Qaeda.'”
Gen. Zinni says his plan for Iraq called for about 300,000 troops. He says the Pentagon relied on inflated intelligence information about weapons of mass destruction from Iraqi exiles like Ahmed Chalabi and others whose credibility was doubtful. He says there was no viable plan or strategy in place for governing a post-Saddam Iraq.
Gen. Zinni says: “As best I could see, I saw a pick-up 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 a huddle. In effect, to create a seat-of-the-pants operation on reconstructing a country with the complexity of problems that anyone could foresee they were going to have.”
For all of this, Gen. Zinni blames “the civilian leadership of the Pentagon directly” and others who are so-called neoconservatives. These individuals 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. He believes these persons are political ideologues who have hijacked American policy in Iraq. And they advocated an invasion of Iraq to, among other things, strengthen the position of Israel.
When asked if he thinks these neocons are the architects of our Iraq war?, Gen. Zinni says: “I think they are. I think it's the worst-kept secret in Washington. That everybody I talk to in Washington has known, and fully knows, what their agenda was and what they were trying to do.
“In 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 of those that 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. 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.”
When asked if he was these neocons would he resign?, Gen. Zinni says: “Yeah. Definitely. 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.”
Gen. Zinni, who now teaches international relations at William & Mary, says he speaks out now because he has a duty to do this: “It is part of my duty. It is part of 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; I can't think of anybody that would allow that to happen, that would not speak up. Well, what's the difference between that and a faulty plan and a faulty concept and strategy that's getting just as many troops killed and is leading down a path where we're not succeeding in accomplishing the mission that we've set out to do?”
Well, amen!
As for those of us who think it wise to have an “exit strategy” before entering a war, we are not nitwits. No, we are just taking seriously what our Lord says in Luke 14:28ff:
“For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish. Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand….So he that hath ears to hear, let him hear.”
John Lofton calls himself a “recovering, ex-Republican.” He once worked for George H.W. Bush at the Republican National Committee and is now Communications Director for Constitution Party Presidential candidate Michael Anthony Peroutka. His email is: [email protected]
