I'm going to have to come back to this as I am just leaving the house but have a read at: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60 minutes/main618896.shtml

Zinni is a Marine's Marine, highly trusted and well thought of by most highly placed pols and high ranking officers of all branches still on active duty.

I have to go, but read the whole article. He does not advocate leaving, quite the opposite. Get the resources and go back in and do it right and deliver what we have promised to the Iraqi nation.
Bill

 

He makes some good points. If I'm GWB maybe I ask him to be my next Sec. of Defense. I don't dislike Donald Rumsfeld personally and I'm sure he is a good man who is doing what he thiks is right for the country, but maybe he isn't the best man for the job. I was thinking the other day that he reminds me of robert McNamara (sec. of Defense under JFK and LBJ) and I don't think that is a good thing. No I wasn't alive at the time but I've studied that era and read "In Retrospect" by McNamara as well as assorted other works on the conduct of the Vietnam war. I beleive that Senator McCain said recently that we need a lot more troops over there too, and he is also a man who I listen to and respect. If GWB was to jettison Rumsfeld and perhaps a few others and get some more moderate and possibly more competent people into his cabinet I would vote for him but I just don't think I can vote for the status quo right now.

 

I understand what Donald Rumsfeld is trying to do by going high tech with less personal. I however disagree with that theory.

Problem is the ONLY high tech device we have that could win a war any place in the world without putting one soldier on the ground is the nuclear weapon. Other then that it will ALWAYS take ground forces to win a war and a massive amount of ground forces indeed to completely kick butt in 96 hours or less like in Iraq…

So unless we have concluded from now on we are just going to start dropping a chit load of nuclear bombs on countries like Iraq we need to seriously rethink our man power issue and specifically how we use the reservist.

Clinton which took over for Bush Sr. really screwed our military power up. In order to cut defense cost we have put much more burden on the reserves then they are capable of.

We, as a nation, need to decide what our priorities are, do we continue to spend a huge chuck of federal revenue on socialist programs or do we decide to redirect a large portion of that money into defense?

Without defense we have no strength, with no strength there would be no America, with no America there will never be a need for even one socialist program so it looks like there should be no problem for the correct priority.

We have plenty of money flowing into the federal reserves so no reason to raise taxes for a stronger and bigger military. It is time to start drastically cutting the socialist programs…

 

Thanks for chiming in Burt.

I will try to ease into this one as I hope it results in some reflection and some good input from all of you.

Burt, I respect your opinions and I agree with the majority of them even if I am not quite so passionate in my beliefs and I do not see them in quite the black and white terms I sense you do.

With respect to Gen. Zinni's remarks, I think it goes beyond the "cut and gut" policies of the Clinton years regarding the size of our standing armed forces. I guess it is a given that Democrats are more interested in furthering their social agenda than they are in defense and since the Soviet Union collapsed more or less just as Clinton came in it was a natural for them to divert expenses from defense to their own preferred programs.

The problem that presents itself here is that we still had a very large standing military (active duty forces) and it was the self described "neo-cons", with Rumsfeld at the head of the pack, that made a case for advancing their agenda more or less on the cheap insofar as manpower was concerned. The "shock and awe" prescription for conquering Iraq, while it never really turned out that way, was their mantra. Spend money on technology, not manpower and we can win without seriously disturbing the economy, losing a lot of military troops and getting it over before the rest of the world gets really pissed off.

If the planets had been properly aligned, we might have gotten away with it but they were not and the reality of how the world really works proved once again that you cannot wish a successful conclusion to something like a war, no matter how justified it might or might not have been.

This has brought about almost a new vocabulary, at least in my opinion. Used to be we talked about "utopian socialists" who had their view of a perfect world. Now, we talk about "utopian conservatives" who seemingly think that we can arbitrarily invade a county, yes perhaps for good reason, and the inhabitants of that country will be thankful for our incursion and immediately adopt our way of life as regards democracy, secularism or whatever.

What Zinni is saying in a sense is that there was a more than sufficient body of expertise, both military and diplomatic, that said in the first case that this was the wrong conflict at the wrong time but if you, the President and the SecDef, as the political body that can "make us do it" here is how it needs to be done.

That advice was ignored and is the reason we face the situation we do today. Bear in mind here that Zinni is no stereotype beer guzzling jarhead. He has three degrees including a Masters in International Relations and was Bush Jr's special envoy to the Mideast until he broke with the administration over Bush's Iraqi policy.

Hope to hear from more of you.

 

Bill Murray:

Good post…

Just want to clarify my previous post about Clinton and downsizing the military. The following line I wrote:

”Clinton which took over for Bush Sr. really screwed our military power up.”

That was met as Clinton followed Bush Seniors lead in the downsizing and then Clinton took it even further. However, and in being fair, it was Bush Sr. that began the draw down and downsizing and I truly think they both made a mistake in not thinking it out completely and logically but rather basically looked at it financially.

 

I think it’s actually more simplified than any of us imagined. “Throwing” troops at the problem as Zinni suggest might not really solve the problem. The area affectionately known as the middle east, or more specifically the area from Pakistan to Turkey including a few north African nations has never know peace. The religious differences and military alliances have not allowed peace. Throwing more ground forces at it will only solve the problem if they are instructed to wipe out the population as they advance. So why throw troops, why not avoid the mess and throw nuke’s?
Many people don’t see this issue being resolved until an entire religious group is annihilated. Can it be the Jew’s? Hitler tried it and didn’t succeed, but they are the logical choice once you’ve jumped the illogical hurdle of deciding one of the groups in the middle east must go. They are the smallest contingent. Hum!!! No I don’t think it will work, because if the Jew’s are gone it just allows the Islamic/Muslims to focus on another religious group. (you know, the Cliff Claven weakest link in the buffalo herd theory as it applies to religions.) Can it be the Islamic/Muslims that must go? Nah, you fool, they are too numerous and widespread, an impossible task even for “surgical” nukes. So, we’re back to square one and maybe this isn’t as simplified as I initially suggested. Which makes you realize any solution is just an educated guess, Zinni’s, Rummy’s, Bushy’s, or anyone else in a position to wield power and influence people. The prevailing theory might be in the years to come this to will fade away, we are acting like Brier Rabbit and the tar baby. We’ve got ourselves stuck in it and now we have to slowly pull ourselves out of the goo! Oh, they’ll be a positive spin put on it by whichever administration is in power when the final troops and support are withdrawn, but it may go down in history as our second Vietnam......... or, God forbid, the beginning of WWIII.

Now, on a lighter note. I’m totally amazed at how clear this all is to me after the 5th or 6th beer. Of course, you’d better read it now, ‘cause in the morning I’ll re-read it and probably delete it all.

 

John:

Don't delete it, I have already printed it off anyway.

It is fun to see you unwind, even if it takes a few beers or maybe even more than a few. I sense your frustration even if your logic is a bit bent tonight.

Let all of us revisit the subject tomorrow or the next day with a fairly clear head.

To finish my comments for tonight, Gen. Zinni has put into words much better than I can something I have been trying to say on this board and a few others for a long time.

Once committed, we have to finish the job and deliver the goods so to say. In essence, that takes more than smart bombs, C130 gunships and all sorts of smart missiles. It means boots on the ground, an honest effort at "winning hearts and minds", which I believe the Marine Corps is good at based on their original tactics and, yes even strategy in the initial phases of the VietNam conflict and a huge investment in the after battle civil affairs efforts that we seem to have totally ignored both from a tactical and strategic point of view.

I don't like to possibly misquote people a lot smarter than I am but I read somewhere that when Colin Powell was informed by Pres. Bush that we were, in fact, going to invade Iraq he said something to the effect "You know Sir that we will own that country". The inference was that we had to be in it for the long haul. It was reported that Pres. Bush did not respond to the statement. As a bad joke, you could probably do a search on my posts since March 2003 and you will find somewhere fairly soon after the invasion pretty much that same statement made by me.

I have to go for now, but I would like to mention again that
Gen. Zinni is absolutely not saying we should pull out of Iraq. To the contrary, he is saying let us do the job the way it should have been done in the beginning which, in essence, means a lot more troops and a lot more "civil affairs/infrastructure building folks".

It is called "Nation Building" as much as Pres Bush dislikes that wording or philosophy. In my opinion, we conquered the country to deliver it from Saddam's brutality and make it a better place to live. I think we should make good on that promise if that is the right word.

Bill

 

Wow, thats almost what I would have written word for word...

 

Ok, I'll give serotta his due.

That's what I would have typed too, if I was drunk.

(but, I'd have to be really, really drunk)

 

Since were into the genocide phase of this thread feel free to name nations you would wipe off the face of the earth.

Feel free to get really, really drunk and yes, the United States is fair game.

Also feel free to use phrases like "The great satan" and "infidels". hehe

 

temp1, you use a lot of big words for somebody from Topeka.

Zinni was on Hannity & Colmes while Bill Murray was typing his last post. Sure enough he has written a book with Tom Clancy.

Hannity started in his usual attack mode but, he went after the 30 year Marine which was a mistake.

I would have thought Zinni was beyond reproach but, anyone that doesn't tow the Party line is suspect. They couldn't possibly have the best interests of the Nation at heart. They somehow have been turned into whiney liberals no matter who they are.

I just know a huge dosier is being worked up on Colin Powell, to be unleashed the moment he breaks ranks with the Bush Regime.
(but Powell is a good soldier and will not be part of sinking the Bush ship. He will be gone the first week of November unless he is part of a lame duck administration, then he would stay for you and me)

 

It seems to me that more troops at the beginning would have made it easier to secure the country and possibly prevent some of the influx of foreign fighters and terrorists and make things a little more stable. Stability is the secret to winning hearts and minds and letting the Iraqis set up a functioning government. IMHO that was one of Zinni's big points and would have been a better idea. This was a big critisism of Vietnam, some thought we should have done more to limit outside influences on S. Vietnam (read kept the NVA the heck out of the country) and let the Vitenamese take care of sorting out the VC instead of focusing on fighting a geurilla war with the Vc ourselves and kind of keeping some of the NVA out. Troops on the ground can do a lot for that region without wiping out the population as they advance. The other take home message I got from the Zinni thing was that he wasn't for this war at the time it was launched but felt that if it was to be done it should have been done right with more troops. Just my opinions and you know what they say about opinions...I havn't had any berers but I'm really tired so maybe I sound crazy myself.

 

Dracula removes wooden stake from heart, says "Ouch! That hurt!".

 

So, with slightly fuzzy head, and maybe a bit of a fuzzy mouth I return to the scene of the crime.
Here’s an excerpt from the Zinni, Clancy interview with Fox News, maybe from the Hannity and Coombs piece:

“ But even as an envoy, Zinni spoke out against invading Iraq, regarding it as disastrous for Middle East peace and a distraction from the war against terrorism. On Monday, he said getting rid of Saddam Hussein was not worth the price.

"He's a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go," Zinni said. "But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4,500 wounded — some of them terribly — $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and our reputation and our image in the world, particularly in that region, shattered."

In discussing the Iraq war, both Clancy and Zinni singled out the Department of Defense for criticism. Clancy recalled a prewar encounter in Washington during which he "almost came to blows" with Richard Perle, a Pentagon adviser at the time and a longtime advocate of the invasion.

"He was saying how (Secretary of State) Colin Powell was being a wuss because he was overly concerned with the lives of the troops," Clancy said. "And I said, 'Look ..., he's supposed to think that way!' And Perle didn't agree with me on that. People like that worry me."

Bill, I completely agree my ranting post was more out of frustration than well thought out facts. Zinni didn’t want the war, didn’t see any benefits in the war, and saw no smoking gun to provoke the war, BUT once the war was on, then his opinion was to provide the proper amount of support to not only win the war, but commit to the restructuring phase. Pacification (a Marine Corp strength from Vietnam), rebuild infrastructure, provide advisors. Paraphrasing what you brought up, We own the country now, we can’t just expect it to jump to it’s feet and survive. We must provide the support needed to regain it’s dignity, politically and economically.

Summary:

A. I shouldn’t drink and type often if at all.
B. We mostly agree with Zinni.
C. Armchair quarterbacking is much easier than reality.
D. Raoul agreed with me, although he did put certain stipulation on it.
E. Temp1 and I share the same ugly thoughts and use them as humor.
F. Despite his youth, Fatman66 agrees with us. I’m not sure whether that means Fatman66 is wise beyond his years, or Old beyond his years.

 

More troops are being trained and mobilized every day. IN COUNTRY! As it should be. Iraqis policing Iraqis. As more and more Iraqis become trained to be part of the security force, more of the pressure is removed from the US and coalition soldiers already on the ground. There are some 30,000 Iraqis fully trained and assisting with the coalition forces' efforts. Fallujah, in fact, was diffused by sending in Iraqi security forces to secure the city. Our only other choice would have been to level the place. This would have cost many civilian lives, and caused a setback in Iraqi confidence and support. Regardless of the necessity. There may be a need for more troops if major fighting ever breaks out again; but, current manpower is more than sufficient and is being supplemented by Iraqis. It's their country after all. If they can't manage it themselves, how will we ever be able to leave?