Ex-Centcom Head Questions Iraq War Intelligence

[True_Blue]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The former head of U.S. Central Command said in an interview aired on Thursday that he had concerns about the credibility of intelligence used as the basis for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
Retired Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni questioned claims that ousted Iraqi president Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that he was an imminent threat -- President Bush's major justification for going to war.

"I'm suggesting that either the intelligence was so bad and flawed -- and if that's the case, then somebody's head ought to roll for that -- or the intelligence was exaggerated or twisted in a way to make a more convenient case to the American people," Zinni said on ABC's "Nightline."

"If there's a strategic decision for taking down Iraq, if it's the so-called neoconservative idea that taking apart Iraq and creating a democracy, or whatever it is, will change the equation in the Middle East, then make the case based on this," said Zinni, who as Central Command chief had military responsibility for the Middle East.

more...
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=3511570

[E_Zapata]

1. He's a little late coming out of the gate:

Where has he been these last few months? Whole books have been written and published on the intelligence lies.

[joanski01]

2. I guess he

didn't want to be labeled as unpatriotic, or something like that. He must have been one of the generals whom they fired.

[0007]

4. Anthony Zinni was against the war

and made his views publicly. There were a few other generals that spoke out also.

[emad]

3. As one of the US military's chief proponents of the theory that

all that Saddam rhetoric was only ever 'sabre rattling' how come he didn't mention anything earlier?

After the 9-11 debacle which was touted as a 'massive intelligence failure' how could the US military concoct another massive intelligence failure' in the form of the pre-war weapons data?

1 failure seems a bit careless, 2 seems downright suspicious....

[teryang]

5. Zinni says "we can't fail..."

This is the phony critique of the war that plays right into the hands of the defense contractors, neocons, oil lobby, and pro-Israeli think tank operatives.

<While expressing skepticism over how the United States got into Iraq, Zinni said withdrawing was not an option.

"We can't fail in Iraq. We have to live up to this commitment," he said. "But what we need now is a very detailed plan.">

To the contrary, we can't win and withdrawing is the only sensible option. Nobody can admit the truth. Zinni evidently has forgotten defense economics 101, "sunk costs are no costs." What we have bought in Iraq is interminable civil war. The past costs, the foolishly made commitments (whatever they were), the casualties which have already occurred are gone, never to be recouped. The only relevant concerns now are future costs. They are likely to be far greater than what blood and treasure has already been wasted, if we don't bring the troops home now.

[Jacobin]

9. VietnamSpeak: "We Can't Fail"

Well, we could and we did.

Welcome to IraqNam.

[tabasco]

6. Zinni has been speaking his mind for a long time

And no he wasn't fired. I think he retired back when Clinton was still prez.

[Donna Zen]

7. Zinni

Was serving as a special envoy to ME because he is trusted on the world stage. There are many factors that must be considered when evaluating Zinni's position:

• The historically acceptable position for the military top brass is one of non-partisanism. They serve the entire country and the president. While the trend since the end of Vietnam has been toward a more overt loyality to the rep. party, this is both new and should be disturbing for everyone.

Zinni would have broken with a life-time philosophy of remaining outside of the political fray, and supporting the pResident. I would advocate that the military's neutral stance is a good one, rather than encourage the military's questioning of civilian authority. To my thinking, that is a very dangerous change in the command structure. For Zinni to speak out should signal a true desperation on the part of many who cannot speak for themselves because they are still within the organization. Therefore, I would suggest that the thoughtful people among us to embrass Gen. Zinni's reaching out to his fellow citizens, as opposed to the questioning of his timing and motives which serves no one except those who have perpetrated this illegal war.

[TacticalPeek]

8. For posters above, etc, unaware of the history and context here.

from Smokin' Joe's Salon column, 27 Aug 02

Zinni: Iraq war "unwise"
The Bush administration's special Mideast envoy, retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, denounced the drive to war in Iraq last Saturday during an appearance in Florida. He did so with certainty and a touch of sardonic wit. Somehow, this front-page story hasn't yet penetrated the consciousness of the nation's great newspaper editors. But Zinni's speech at the Economic Club in Tallahassee (just down the street from Jeb's office) powerfully reaffirms the quiet dissent of Colin Powell, who appointed him. His tough remarks about the administration he is currently serving may also suggest that the Mideast envoy feels deep frustration over White House mishandling of Israeli-Palestinian issues. In short, he may be ready to quit.

Zinni made a direct reference to the secretary of state, along with retired generals Schwarzkopf and Scowcroft, and derided the armchair hawks who are promoting "pre-emptive" military action: "It's pretty interesting that all the generals see it the same way, and all the others who have never fired a shot and are hot to go to war see it another way." If I were Dick Cheney or Richard Perle or Paul Wolfowitz, I might have to take that personally.

Zinni isn't just any general, of course. In addition to his Marine résumé, he's also the former chief of the Army's Central Command, with responsibility for the Mideast region. The quotes in the Tampa Trib reflect a remarkably sensible outlook, but one that is wholly at odds with the president's "axis of evil" mind-set. According to the Trib reporter, he indicated that "more important than Iraq right now are 'the opportunities that exist for the United States to encourage a peaceful transition in Iran where young people are increasingly challenging the power of the Islamic theocracy.'"
7:09 a.m. PDT, Aug. 27, 2002

http://www.salon.com/politics/conason/2002/08/27/bush/

AND:

Monday, 9 September, 2002, 05:58 GMT 06:58 UK
US envoy warns against Iraq war

snip
The general said there were some people who believed a war with Iraq might help the Middle East peace process.

"I don't know what planet they're on," he commented.
more

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2245632.stm

Just google general zinni Iraq, and you will learn that Zinni's critique was real-time, courageously so, IMHO.

[teryang]

10. He was right then but wrong now

"We can't fail" equals "stay the course" which is administration policy.

Granted his earlier criticisms were valid and I appreciate them but this "we can't fail" position is dead wrong. Our position was wrong from the start and it is still wrong. There is a disconnect in his logic. The inability of the American forces to restore order was predictable as he stated. The problem is nothing has changed. There is going to be a civil war no matter what we do. The notion that we can stop it because we started it is an illusion.

He has moved to the planet the war planners live on.