Good interview with General Zinni

[billvon 3,131]

Excellent article in San Diego Union-Trib here. It's an interview with General Anthony Zinni, former CIC of U.S. Central command. He describes both the problems in Iraq and our responsibilities now that we're there. A few excerpts:


Q: Aren't you describing a hopeless situation?

Zinni: I'm describing a situation that got here because we didn't think this through in the beginning. This is the dog that caught the car here. And now we've got to figure out what to do with it. The way out gets tougher every day when we don't come to grips with these issues, admittedly. We can't leave. I'm not an advocate of pulling out. I think it would be disastrous...

Q: Why would it be disastrous to pull out now when the situation already is disastrous?

Zinni: Because first of all, I think as you pull troops out our troops become more vulnerable. As you start reducing troops it's a vulnerable stage unless there's some degree of stability. So when you make that decision, you start drawing down. At the point where you have, let's say, 30,000 U.S. troops in there, they may be far more vulnerable than they are obviously now. And it may be a critical (situation) when it is still unstable...

Q: So we're going to solve this problem by staying there a few years?

Zinni:Yes. Our only hope is to stay there a few years and try to solve it.

[christelsabine 1]

Yes. Our only hope is to stay there a few years and try to solve it***

what a wise guy. it's always impressing to hear the voices of (people) soldiers at the stage. the only one who really are capable to judge what's going on over there.

we should listen to them carefully.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[Ron 10]

Interesting artical...I liked this part:

Quote

What did you believe at the time, a year ago, about weapons of mass destruction?

I believed that Saddam Hussein was trying to pull a fast one on the U.N. inspectors in that he wanted them to give him a clean bill of health because they couldn't find a smoking gun. In other words, a stockpile. And I don't believe he had a stockpile. What he was very cleverly doing was building a framework that could start a program once he came out of sanctions. In other words, he had a missile system that he was allowed to have, the Al-Samud Missile System, that was limited in range. But within that missile program he could do research and development, develop special fuel systems. So it would have been easier just to extend the range and increase it as a weapons system. He had dual-use plants, pharmaceutical plants, pesticide plants, that could be turned over. He had the scientists all in place with the documentation. But what the inspectors did, what their charter was, was not to necessarily just look for a smoking gun or a stockpile, but that he was in compliance with the United Nations resolution in that he had dismantled that capability and didn't have the ability to restart it. In addition to that, to ensure that he had destroyed previous stockpiles. And I think, again, Hans Blix, just like his predecessors Richard Butler and Rolf (Akkaus), were on to him. And what annoyed Saddam is they wouldn't give him a clean bill of health until they could talk to the scientists, until they could assure themselves that that framework didn't exist. And the threat was the framework. And the inspectors, including Hans Blix in my mind, would have never given him a clean bill of health for two reasons. He was in non-compliance, he wouldn't give them access to the scientists and others. And there wasn't full accountability of previous stocks

And this one:

Quote

I would call it a framework to restart building a capability. It was not capable of threatening us. It was neither imminent nor grave and gathering.

A framework to restart. Didn't it represent something of a risk to permit that to continue indefinitely? Obviously Saddam had some future intent.

A stitch in time saves nine.-Franklin

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 3,131]

Yep, I agree. Hussein was surely up to no good. Had we allowed weapons inspections to conclude, they would have found one of two things:

1. He is technically in compliance but X Y and Z must be done to his potential dual use facilities to prevent future use.

2. He is not in compliance and not cooperating.

If 1) happened, we could have either invaded anyway and we would have known exactly what to hit; we wouldn't look like international buffoons. Or we could have done X Y and Z to continue containment, which would keep the US safe but not accomplish the underlying goal of giving us an excuse to invade.

If 2) happened the invasion would have been a massive multinational force rather than a US-dominated coalition of flaky allies, and we would now not be wondering why a US-installed government isn't working.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

If 2) happened the invasion would have been a massive multinational force rather than a US-dominated coalition of flaky allies, and we would now not be wondering why a US-installed government isn't working.

Right. Instead we'd be wondering why the massive multinational force installed government isn't working.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[PhillyKev 0]

I don't dispute any of that. I dispute that was a good reason to go to war, and I dispute that that's what the administration said was the reason. How come this guy came to these conclusions while Bush was claiming tons of nerve gas and stockpiles of WMD?

[Ron 10]

Quote

How come this guy came to these conclusions while Bush was claiming tons of nerve gas and stockpiles of WMD?

Hindsite? I can be 100% accurate if I predict last years results...

Now knowing the future, or even the present is much harder.

Besides I don't need a better reason fot he US to step up to cover the UN's paper tiger threats.

SH was an evil man, he tourtured his own people....

He ignored the UN and never provided the proof the UN asked him for. I find it funny that people are all over Bush to prove he was in the NG, but you are willing to accept the fact that a country can lose track of a stock pile of weapons.

He clearly was planning on keeping his ability to produce Chemical weapons, and a method of launching them.

He had WMD's at one time...And used them against his own people.

He claimed to have them.

He supported terrorists...

He hated the US...

So all I have to do is ask this these questions...

Do I think the SH would have attacked the US if he thought he could get away with it?....I say yes.

If he could would he support terror attacks against the US just like he supports Palistine?....I say again yes.

Did he had the intent to produce WMD's?....Yes

Did he account for his stock piles of WMD's like the UN resolution told him to?...No.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[PhillyKev 0]

Hey, you made a big deal out of pointing out that part of the article. Were you trying to point out that it was hindsite? I don't think so.

Quote

He ignored the UN and never provided the proof the UN asked him for. I find it funny that people are all over Bush to prove he was in the NG, but you are willing to accept the fact that a country can lose track of a stock pile of weapons.

Never asked, don't care. All I've ever said was that bashing Kerry for throwing medals he earned is ballsy for someone with a dubious NG record. I think that issu should be dropped on both sides, but you continue to bring it up.

Quote

He clearly was planning on keeping his ability to produce Chemical weapons, and a method of launching them.

So do we.

Quote

He had WMD's at one time...And used them against his own people.

We still have them, and have used them.

Quote

He claimed to have them.

So do we.

Quote

He supported terrorists...

So did we.

Quote

He hated the US...

Lots of people do. More and more every day thanks to our actions.

Quote

So all I have to do is ask this these questions...

Do I think the SH would have attacked the US if he thought he could get away with it?....I say yes.

Probably. Would he ever think he could get away with it? I don't think so.

Quote

If he could would he support terror attacks against the US just like he supports Palistine?....I say again yes.

Probably. And if he did that it would be good justification for our attack. But he didn't.

Quote

Did he had the intent to produce WMD's?....Yes

So do we.

Quote

Did he account for his stock piles of WMD's like the UN resolution told him to?...No.

He said he didn't have any, and he didn't. How was he supposed to account for something that didn't exist?

By your reasoning, the rest of the world has every justifiable reason to invade the US. Do I think that's the case? No. Same reason we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. Because that justification is dubious.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Never asked, don't care. All I've ever said was that bashing Kerry for throwing medals he earned is ballsy for someone with a dubious NG record. I think that issu should be dropped on both sides, but you continue to bring it up.

Well you may not bring it up, but your fellow Kerry huggers do. And I do find that funny.

I have said several times that both served and as far as I am concerned their service records are in due order.

Kerry did serve in Nam, and is a war hero...(I think he is slightly opportunistic, but I don't blame him)

Bush did serve in the NG...(I think that also was opportunistic...Again I don't blame him.)

I would probably do close to the same given the same choices.

I do have issue with Clinton dogging the draft (But he still got elected which I will never understand. But thats a seperate issue.)

My issue with Kerry has always been his "Winter Soldier" testimony wher he admits to both seeing and commiting "War Crimes" (His words, not mine). And him using whatever he could to gain political power.

Yes, Bush had his issues as well....DUI, Drugs...ect.

I know plenty of Alcoholics that have cleaned up...I don't hold them having issues in the past against them...

However Kerry is still playing the "whatever side I need to get power" game. He has not changed.

Yes, we have WMD's and yes, we have used them....We used them against an enemy that had attacked us, and we had been at war with (Formal declaration of War) for several years....By using the two atomic weapons we saved about half a million lives vs. a land invasion of Japan.

Thats a FAR cry from using them on your own folks to "see what happens".

Quote

By your reasoning, the rest of the world has every justifiable reason to invade the US. Do I think that's the case? No. Same reason we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. Because that justification is dubious.

If the UN said we had to get rid of them, and we told them to fuck off...Then yes they would be justified.

Same thing with Iraq.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

I do have issue with Clinton dogging the draft (But he still got elected which I will never understand. But thats a seperate issue.)

.

How about Cheney, who "had other priorities"?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,131]

>Instead we'd be wondering why the massive multinational force
>installed government isn't working.

It couldn't be going any worse. It would either go better or about the same. And if it went the same then only 300 of the 700 or so dead coalition soldiers would be US.

[billvon 3,131]

>Do I think the SH would have attacked the US if he thought he could
>get away with it?....I say yes.

So would most countries of the world. There's a reason we have a massive military and a lot of ICBM's - those aren't just window dressing.

>If he could would he support terror attacks against the US just like
>he supports Palistine?....I say again yes.

If he thought it was in his best interest. We support terrorists who further our interests - heck, we supported HIM when he was killing Iranians with chemical weapons. It's a common practice. The way to stop him is to make it clear that it's not in his best interest.

>Did he had the intent to produce WMD's?....Yes

I think it's pretty clear that he was not trying to produce chemical weapons as there has been zero evidence of any work towards that at any factory/chemical plant we found. Might he produce them in the future? Perhaps. But up until now we haven't killed people because of things they haven't done.

>Did he account for his stock piles of WMD's like the UN resolution
>told him to?...No.

At the time we attacked he was cooperating, per the final UNSCOM report. Of course, with the several thousand bombs we'd dropped on his military sites, some of his weapons were a bit hard to account for. "Yeah, that pile of rubble was a bunker for empty munitions."