Conduct Unbecoming A Marine

Retired General Zinni told Tim Russert the following a few weeks ago:

“What bothered me,” Zinni told host Tim Russert, “[was that] I was hearing a depiction of the intelligence that didn?t fit what I knew. There was no solid proof, that I ever saw, that Saddam had WMD.

“Now, I?d be the first to say we had to assume he had WMD left over that wasn?t accounted for: artillery rounds, chemical rounds, a SCUD missile or two. But these things, over time, degrade. These things did not present operational or strategic level threats at best.”

As a Marine I’m disgusted with this mans behavior. But after the American Thinker found this nugget from 2000 I am even more disgusted: (Newsmax and Brit Hume are reporting on it now)

So, let?s look at his own pre-war threat evaluation, and just as important, his own loyalties to the players in the Central Region in light of these noble principles.

General Zinni assumed command of CENTCOM in August of 1997, and, as a highly credentialed soldier-statesman, embarked upon a program of ?engagement? with the various corrupt, medieval rulers in the Middle East and Central Asia. Later, Gen. Tommy Franks would describe engagement as ?establishing a personal rapport with the region?s government and military leaders.? Supposedly, this was one of the necessary evils to gain information about adversaries in the Central Region since CENTCOM had no permanent large-scale troop presence and no established intelligence apparatus in the area.

Nevertheless, in February of 2000, long before President Bush assumed office, Zinni felt confident enough to provide a strikingly familiar threat assessment on Iraq to the Senate Armed Services Committee:

Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf region. This is 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) ?

Despite claims that WMD efforts have ceased, Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research, retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions, ? Even if Baghdad reversed its course and surrendered all WMD capabilities, it retains the scientific, technical, and industrial infrastructure to replace agents and munitions within weeks or months. [Emphasis mine]

The Iraqi regime?s high regard for WMD and long-range missiles is our best indicator that a peaceful regime under Saddam Hussein is unlikely.

? extremists may turn to WMD in an effort to ?overcome improved U.S. defenses against conventional attack. Detecting plans for a specific WMD attack is extremely difficult, making it likely such an event would occur without warning. [Emphasis mine]

Extremists like Usama bin Laden ?benefit from the global nature of communications that permits recruitment, fund raising, and direct connections to sub-elements worldwide. Terrorists are seeking more lethal weaponry to include chemical, biological, radiological, and even nuclear components with which to perpetrate more sensational attacks. [Emphasis mine]

Three (Iraq, Iran and Sudan) of the seven recognized state-sponsors of terrorism [emphasis mine] are within this potentially volatile area [CENTCOM], and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan has been sanctioned by the UN Security Council for its harboring of Usama bin Laden.

Also read the sections on Iran in Zinni?s testimony for a horrifying intelligence picture concerning the mullahs. Given current circumstances, his view of Iran is proving very prescient. For example: [Iran] continues to assemble an indigenous nuclear infrastructure.

So he has done a partisan flip flop, plain and simple. These Generals are trying to shift blame for mistakes to Rumsfeld, and that is conduct unbecoming a Marine in my opinion. The WSJ said pretty much the same thing:

Our point here isn’t to join the generals, real or armchair, in pointing fingers of blame for what has gone wrong in Iraq. Mistakes are made in every war; there’s a reason the word “snafu” began as a military acronym whose meaning we can’t reprint in a family newspaper. But if we’re going to start assigning blame, then the generals themselves are going to have to assume much of it.

A recent article by former Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor for the Center for Defense Information details how the U.S. advance on Baghdad in March and April 2003 was slowed against Mr. Rumsfeld’s wishes by overcautious commanders on the scene. That may have allowed Saddam and many of his supporters to escape to fight the insurgency. General Abizaid also resisted the first assault on Fallujah, in April 2004, which sent a signal of U.S. political weakness. We don’t agree with all of Mr. Macgregor’s points, but it is likely that these Rumsfeld critics are trying to write their own first, rough draft of historic blame shifting.

Granted, there is nothing unusual with this recent disagreement between the leaders of our Military and their civilian bosses but to go to the MSM like wailing little children is just embarrassing. Our country was founded on the principal of civilian leadership for a reason, and it’s worked for over 200 years:

Since our nation’s founding, the principle of civilian control over the military has been a centerpiece of our system of government. Under our constitutional system, it places elected and appointed government leaders in charge. American soldiers are bound by this tradition to subordinate themselves to civilian authority. We give advice but it is ultimately up to civilian leaders to make key strategic and policy decisions. Unlike many other democracies, this is one important reason why we have never been ruled by the military, and have been the most successful country the world has ever seen.

This does not mean they cannot have opinions, god knows us military types complain all the time about how the military is run now as opposed to “when I was in” but at least be honest about it. Zinni backed Clintons view of the situation in 2000 but everything changed when Bush got into office.

How convenient.

Other’s Blogging:

How convenient.

0 0 votes

Article Rating

Curt

See author page