UPDATED: The Marine Sends (and the subject is GEN Zinni)
I served in Iraq with the young man (a Marine reservist) who uses the nom-de-plume “The Marine” when he posts comments on this site. His tour in Iraq was his second deployment since 9/11. He epitomizes the “ready reservist.”
Here are his thoughts on the revolt of the generals, in particularly General Anthony Zinni , USMC retired. (this also appears as a comment on a recent post). This is Marine on Marine, and for my friend, a rather restrained statement. I am still waiting for a reporter to ask General Zinni what he means when he argues that “the sanctions were working.” Saddam had broken the UN Desert Storm sanctions regimen. Look at Oil For Food. We now have officials from Saddam’s regime admitting that Saddam intended to revive dormant special weapons programs once the sanctions were lifted. So how is it the sanctions were working? I suspect Zinni will make the argument that Saddam got rid of his WMD. That appears to be true. Forcing Saddam to stop his programs is (or was) an achievement. However, it was a narrow achievement, and a short-run achievement, which means “the sanctions were working” in a very technical sense regarding WMDs. In the strategic sense they were not. Saddam was still murdering ethnic and religious minorities (which UNSCR 687 also forbid, and was part of the sancitons regimen). Saddam had not given up the desire for WMD (the programs weren;t dead, but dormant). Saddam possessed missiles and delivery systems in violation of the sanctions regimen (so technically the sanctions weren’t working in the sphere of delivery systems). If Zinni argues that the sanctions had weakened Saddam’s military machine I’ll agree with that. But once again, that’s a “dormant, not dead” weakness. Anyway, here are The Marines thoughts :
I find it interesting that so few are critically examining why a handful of retired generals have decided to publicly call for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s head on the proverbial silver platter. Are these retired military men immune from probing public scrutiny, unlike those civilian men, they formerly served but currently challenge?
Take General Zinni, who astonishingly now asserts he was “never convinced” about Iraq’s WMD programs. Yet General Zinni while still serving as the Commanding General of CENTCOM testified in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee in February of 2000 that “Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf…primarily due to its large conventional military force, pursuit of WMD [emphasis mine], oppressive treatment of Iraqi citizens, refusal to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR)…” As if this was not enough Zinni’s testimony continued “despite claims that [Iraq’s] WMD efforts have ceased, Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research, retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions,…Even if Baghdad…surrendered all WMD capabilities, it retains the scientific, technical, and industrial infrastructure to agents and munitions within weeks or months.” That’s right folks General Zinni, who was now blithely states he was “never convinced” about the threat of Iraq’s WMD programs was in point of fact, not too long ago, sufficiently convinced to deliver a threat assessment to the U.S. Senate in which he concluded among other things that Iraq’s WMD programs and its ties to terrorism made it “the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests.”
Perhaps Zinni’s most incredulous indictment of Rumsfeld comes in his stunning claim that the Iraq Invasion Plan was “fatally flawed” and based on “erroneous intelligence.” Well, sheer seriousness of these bald assertions certainly begs the question - Who was responsible for collecting reliable intelligence and properly planning U.S. military operations in support of established U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives and threat assessments within the CENTCOM AOR? Ups…Has the cat finally got the general’s well used tongue? Just to clarify the record, Bill Clinton changed the official U.S. Foreign Policy regarding Iraq in 1998, establishing the new objective of “Regime Change.” At the time General Zinni was the theater commander overseeing a JTF responsible for enforcing the “Northern & Southern No-Fly Zones” in Iraq. As such he was already commanding U.S. Forces engaged in routine low level hostilities over the skies of Iraq. Furthermore, Zinni’s testimony in front of the U.S. Senate indicates he was at least aware of Saddam’s UNSCR transgressions, WMD proclivities, terrorist connections, and belligerent history. Additionally, he assessed Iraq as the “most significant near-term threat the U.S. interests.” All of which suggests at the very least that General Zinni in support of the new “Regime Change” policy and in light of his own threat assessment should have vigorously planned and prepared a wide range of “full spectrum” military operations for Iraq. He should have redoubled the intelligence collection effort in Iraq. He should have war gamed every possible “Regime Change” and invasion scenario. He should have developed contingency plans and post hostilities plans. Yet, inconceivably the seemingly omniscient General Zinni did precisely the opposite and apparently did nothing to improve intelligence collection or operational planning. These facts beg another question - Was General Zinni too ignorant to fully appreciate the potential likelihood of CENTCOM fighting a war in Iraq in the near future OR was General Zinni too incompetent to make the necessary preparations?
Although it is hard for me to imagine why on earth anyone would oppose such a dynamic, aggressive, substantive and consequential leader, it is nevertheless unnecessary to enthusiastically support Secretary Rumsfeld to detect the rant odor of hypocrisy and ulterior motives underpinning the all too convenient recent statements of General Zinni. In case there is anyone left who hasn’t heard, General Zinni “knew all along” invading Iraq was a “bad idea” but at the time nobody wanted to listen. But what’s new? After all General Zinni enjoys nothing more than another PR opportunity to say again “I told you so.” In an uncanny way I actually agree with General Zinni, it is indeed too bad more people didn’t pay closer attention to what he said and what he did on the eve of 9/11. Just for the record General Zinni – I told you SO!!
UPDATE: A reader sends a link to the Center for Defense Information site. GEN Zinni is now a Dinstinguished Military Fellow at CDI.
Make of this what you will. CDI has a political track record– definitely on “the left” side of the spectrum. I was not aware of this. Has he mentioned this professional connection on his book tour? Zinni’s bio is that of a distinguished military man, that’s for sure. The Somalia operation –both before and after the battle of Mogadishu– was a complex a military-politica operation, and Zinni served in a variety of jobs, each one of them demanding and critical.
NOTE: A reminder about the milblog conference in Washington, this coming Saturday (April 22). It’s all volunteer, with all expenses paid by the participants. I still need to raise some expense money. If you want to contribute, please hit the PayPal tip jar (the donation button at the top of this page). Thanks. If you are attending, I look forward to meeting you.
I’m sure Chesty Puller would not approve of talking in a defeatist, demoralizing way while the troops are in harms way. “We’re surrounded!—they can’t get away this time”
Comment by RAL — 4/19/2006 @ 8:56 am
The commbatant commands simply generate intel requirement. They do not purchase or design satellites, or Humint collection capabilities. Peacetime collection operations fall on the CIA, NSA and NRO.
Comment by NRO Intel — 4/19/2006 @ 10:04 am
I nailed this guy almost a year ago. And don’t forget this about Zinni either (he claims the war was fought for Israel’s benefit) Zinni has axes to grind. He wanted to be Commandant, and didn’t get it. He was in charge of Iraqi policy before the war, and it failed. He’s covering his own failures. I’ve got great respect for his service, but he’s a politician in the mold of Wesley Clark.
Comment by Rob Mandel — 4/19/2006 @ 10:28 am
Yep. The first question to Zinni should be, “were you lying then, or are you lying now”?
Comment by Dan — 4/19/2006 @ 10:29 am
General Anxiety Disorder Yesterday I took a look at a bunch of critical reactions, mainly but not exclusively from the left, to the calls for Donald Rumsfeld to resign coming from high-ranking military officers. Today I take a look at the reactions to the episode, and the anxiety
Trackback by Blue Force — 4/19/2006 @ 10:34 am
As a Marine Officer with 18 years experience both active and reserve and having served in theater during Desert Storm and more recently Iraqi Freedom I’ve become dismayed by what I am seeing by these former Generals and in particular with General Zinni. General Zinni is a legend in the Marine Corps and over the years has been known to be a straight shooter and one willing to go on the record and stand up for what is right especially for his Marines, however as of late and for reasons unknown he seems more interested in trashing the administration than anything else. I believe the General to be an honorable, brave and sincere individual in his beliefs but I think in this matter he is sincerely wrong. True there have been mistakes that have been made and I have no special insight into the inner workings of the Pentagon or the Secretary of Defense [SEC DEF] and his relationship with his Generals, but such is the nature of war. There have been mistakes both at the strategic, operational and tactical levels but the successes at every level far out weight our failures and the ability to adapt and overcome our shortfalls at the tactical level have been nothing less that superhuman as evidenced by the low casualties given three years of hard combat. This speaks volumes as to the bravery and professionalism of our young men and women in uniform. Personally I fail to see at a time like this in our history how any of these Generals could possibly think that this can be helpful to our nation and the brave servicemen risking life and limb? While I don’t totally disagree with some of his criticisms I also know that much of this is nothing more than Monday morning quarterbacking. Since these Generals wish to put it on the record and delve in ancient history then lets put all of the cards on the table. A few questions I would like to see asked of these Generals are, 1. When our brave Soldiers were being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu and it was later revealed that Al Qaeda operatives in the region incited these forces what did the good General or the Clinton Administration do about it? 2. When Al Qaeda was bombing our Embassies into the Stone Age where was the leadership or response from the commanders such as SACEUR and CENTCOM in the region? 3. When the USS Cole was bombed even though there was the possibility of such an attack-taking place in the volatile region, on whose authority was the decision made to allow the Cole to dock in Yemen for refueling? 4. Who was the commander responsible for most of the intelligence collection effort in support of the Op Plan, which launched Iraqi Freedom? 5. When we launched air strikes against Iraq, Sudan and Afghanistan, killing soldiers Iraqi’s, destroying an aspirin factory in Sudan and destroying a base of operations for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was the intelligence based on flawed assumptions, were our military who were leaders responsible for providing information to the president [then Bill Clinton] lying? 6. When we were trying to build up the Iraqi Army between 2003 and 2004 can the General who was charge with the responsibility explain why we had in 2005 to the present basically start from scratch? There’s more that I could say about some of the others but it is obvious that there is more involved here than is being said. These Generals have every right as private citizens to express their views however freedom of expression and speech does not mean freedom from consequences. The more they talk the more they open themselves up to criticisms of their own past actions / failures, their houses aren’t exactly squeaky clean either and if the kettle chooses to call the pot black then they had better be able to stand the heat. They claim that the SEC DEF doesn’t listen to them [i.e., his General Officers], that may be true I don’t know but if their current actions are any indication as to where their heads are in this fight maybe he has good reason not to.
Comment by ASR — 4/19/2006 @ 10:53 am
I also raised questions about General Zinni’s claim that Saddam Hussein was contained earlier this month. The fact is, while Saddam may have been contained in a conventional military sense, he was still trying to acquire WMD, he was bringing envoys from Osama bin Laden to Baghdad, and still seeking ways to attack American interests. What would it have taken for General Zinni to concede that the containment was failing? I shudder to think of possible answers to that question.
Comment by HaroldHutchison — 4/19/2006 @ 12:06 pm
Ah, well. A distinguished officer is one who echoes the media line. The attacks are so general (no pun intended) that it’s hard to know what they’re based on. “Rumsfeld doesn’t listen!” How about some specifics. From The Times of London: “Mr Rumsfeld’s big picture approach is exactly what civilian control of the military is supposed to be all about: in other words, asking what would be the price in blood and treasure of a particular plan? Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, did much the same as Defence Secretary in 1990 when he asked Norman Schwarzkopf to revise his plans for a costly frontal assault on the Iraqi forces in Kuwait. What about the postwar period? General Jack Keane, the Army Vice-Chief of Staff during this critical period, told me that it was just as much the military’s responsibility to anticipate the insurgency, if not more so. ‘We had no plans for that’, he said. ‘It was our fault, not Donald Rumsfeld’s.’”
Comment by AST — 4/19/2006 @ 12:28 pm
In fairness to General Zinni he did invest a significant amount of time and energy toward diplomatic, political and economic engagement throughout the region. Unfortunately, the return for which was not the promised benefits of peace and stability in the CENTCOM AOR, but rather the received reward of airplanes hurled into skyscrapers. While still in uniform General Zinni was uniquely immune to the input and council of others especially in dissent, which perhaps makes him well qualified to recognize these traits in others. But only if we strain our reasoning sufficiently to believe him, which is something I could not do then, and will not do now. Indeed I believe his current political moves betray the very core of what should be the ubiquitous effort of our Nation - Absolute Victory over Totalitarianism and the Unconditional Surrender of Tyranny and Terrorism. Perhaps the harshest truth of this betrayal is that it comes from a brother, an honored hero, a once trusted leader and a formerly valued mentor of the warriors who still today continue to serve and protect our country and its noble values even in the face of a determined enemy now at home as well as abroad.
Comment by TheMarine — 4/19/2006 @ 2:03 pm
Never underestimate the power of sheer bitchiness. Schwartzkopf had the 91 war, Franks had the 03 campaign, and Zinni…had Clinton and Cohen as NCAs. He and Clark would have been great powdered-wig courtiers in prerevolutionary France. Between the Desert Fox cartoon and the wildly incompetent Kosovo campaign agains Serbia the two of them don’t have much to be proud of. No wonder they’re so catty. Having served in both those campaigns as well as Franks’ Afghanistan and Iraq operationsI think it’s better off that Zinni and his ilk are pissing on the tent from outside. Those of us still inside the tent can concentrate on our work while they mewl outside.
Comment by coelacanth — 4/19/2006 @ 2:16 pm
In his book “Warrior Soul”, CDR Chuck Pfarrer, a SEAL and Former leader in ST-6, recounts the take-down of a terrorist Frogman team that was going to mine a Navy Ship. Pfarrer and his team were on the beach saw the guys acting suspiciously and motored out and took them out. I wonder on whose watch this occurred? Had to be pre-Cole. But was it pre-Zinni? This kind of attack is a key indicator of active operations. Pfarrer indicates that he never heard any more about the Frogmen. If I were J-2 at Centcom I would be all over this and would have interviewed Pfarrer and then interrogated the Frogmen. The Raw Intel from this investigation should have led to a hightened alert status for US Ships. Someone was asleep at the switch!!
Comment by Red River — 4/19/2006 @ 2:59 pm
While the key issue is number of US soldiers killed, the second issue is the number of months of active resistance. The problem is that neither the generals nor Rummy was talking enough about the hard, LONG, slog of “nation building” in Iraq — especially since there are clearly 3 nations. Yet less than 2500 US deaths means Rummy has, on the single most important strategic measure, done an excellent job in booting Saddam and supporting Iraqi democracy. An underlying critique, now 4 months after the Iraq election w/o an Iraq gov’t, is that the Iraqis are failing in democracy. If Jaafari can’t accept stepping down, because his Shia coalition isn’t big enough to rule alone, Jaafari is failing democratic Iraq. On the other hand, the USA doesn’t understand Proportional Representation and “coalition-building”, required in multi-party governments where so much of the future has to be agreed to before accepting the first steps. Slovakia’s coalition gov’t just collapsed when the PM’s party refused to accept a treaty with the Vatican because of “conscientious objector rights” of Christian doctors not wanting to perform abortions, part of the 2002 coalition agreement. A critique I wish the generals would make is that of using Prop. Rep. & party lists, rather than geo-districts. Young democracies do better locally based representatives. The “more troops” would have “helped” needs to be looked at more closely; I am certain there would be more accidents, more targets, more US abuse of Iraqis. I’m not certain there would be more terrorists stopped, but that’s certainly possible. Another obvious huge failing, since Desert Storm, is the lack of Arabic speaking military personnel. More these generals’ faults than Rumsfeld’s.
Comment by Tom Grey - Liberty Dad — 4/19/2006 @ 4:57 pm
I would first offer that we (including Iraqi Liberation supporters like myself) should welcome an criticism that will improve our timetable for success. But reading General Zinni’s bio I think he has some answers to provide himself regarding his own responsibilities too. Most recently he was appointed Special Envoy to encourage diplomatic peace talks between the Palestinians and Israelis, then he criticism the administration for…. not encourage peace talks between the parties. Wasn’t that his job? Earlier he was Director for Operations for the Unified Task Force in Somalia. Anybody remember how well the planning was for that operation? He didn’t even have any armor or armored personnel carriers to extract the Rangers in Mogadishu in the “Blackhawk Down” event. They had to wait for the Pakistanis to drag their feet for hours before they where sent to pick them up. Let me repeat that, the Pakistanis! He may have well as called Bin Laden himself for help.
Comment by Patrick — 4/19/2006 @ 5:25 pm
It’s surprising that the revolt of the generals in the early 1970’s over the all volunteer military hasn’t been brought up. Observers may recall Nixon quietly tossing out dozens of field-grade officers over that issue. It is an axiom to say that as long as the military establishment can reach down into the ranks to fast track the careers of cadets and junior officers mostly on the basis of the highest IQ’s, then our civilian leadership will always suffer an amount of generals that are smartest at being stupid.
Comment by Alan Israelson — 4/20/2006 @ 4:12 am
In Zinni’s defense, the lack of armor was because the requests were rejected by the Clinton Administration, for which Les Aspin resigned.
Comment by HaroldHutchison — 4/20/2006 @ 7:11 am
I do agree that Zinni’s acumen is rather overrated. In fact, during his tenure in CENTCOM, he in effect ran his own foreign policy, as the CinCs did in the Clinton Administration. Zinni himself gloried in the role, writing all kinds of silly pieces in the WaPo about how the CinCs were America’s “proconsuls,” and all that. The result of his foreign policy was a metastisized Al Qaeda. Likewise, his “plan” for invading Iraq when he was CINCCENT called for using almost 500,000 men, in effect, almost the entire strength of the Army. In reality, that was his way of proposing doing nothing, precisely the “realist” approach that got us 9/11. What I found most disappointing about all these retired flags is that not one of them proposed anything in the way of a workable solution for the situation, although I think things are going better than is often reported. When these flags were on active duty, if any staff officer or subordinate commander came in with nothing but complaints about something and no solution, the general would have thrown them out of the office.
Comment by Rich DiNardo — 4/20/2006 @ 11:40 am
Rich above makes a good point about not proposing a workable solution, but misses the “clean hands” absolution. Zinni wanted, like Shiseki, 400 000+ troops. Since that many troops weren’t committed, THAT was the “mistake”, and therefore all current problems can be pinned on THAT “obvious mistake.” (with smug smiles of superiority). The Left always has some claim that their solution wasn’t tried, and that’s why there are problems; or it wasn’t done enough. (”REAL Marxism has never been tried … blah blah”). They are intellectual cowards when they don’t note the likely bad points of any real plan.
Comment by Tom Grey - Liberty Dad — 4/25/2006 @ 3:45 am