gunnyg
10-17-02, 06:37 AM
Are these guys traitors too? (ref Ritter)
Or maybe they just haven't been offered big bucks to kiss one another and become role models/pseudo heroes, earn our respect, etc.!(ref a recent post)
-rwg
Norfolk Virginian-Pilot
October 17, 2002
Two Retired Generals Voice Doubts Over Bush's Plan To Attack Iraq
By Dale Eisman, The Virginian-Pilot
WASHINGTON -- Amid reports of unease among senior uniformed leaders about a
possible war with Iraq, one of the Bush administration's top policy makers
faced a roomful of generals, admirals, diplomats and military planners
Wednesday to argue that the ouster of Saddam Hussein "will be a defeat for
terrorists globally." But while Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz
spent nearly an hour laying out the administration's case, there were signs
aplenty that a corps of experienced military leaders remains skeptical about
President Bush's plans to attack Iraq.
"We are about to do something that will ignite a fuse in this region that we
will rue the day we ever started," retired Marine Gen. Anthony C. Zinni told
the annual Fletcher Conference on National Security Strategy shortly after
Wolfowitz's presentation.
Zinni's blunt critique -- bolstered by a similar assessment from retired
four-star Marine Gen. John J. Sheehan -- drew a smattering of applause.
While insisting that Bush has made no decision to fight, Wolfowitz laid out
a series of questions raised by critics of a war and attacked the reasoning
behind each.
"The risks are very real, and no sensible person would lightly undertake an
operation that risks the lives of our marvelous men and women in uniform,"
he said. But the longer the United States waits, the greater the chance that
Iraq will have acquired chemical, biological or nuclear weapons and the
means to use them, he argued.
Wolfowitz brushed aside suggestions that forcibly removing Saddam will
trigger instability throughout the Middle East. Just as the experience of
Soviet domination in eastern Europe has created deep resistance there
against a return to communism, the experience of life under Saddam "will
encourage powerful resistance to the emergence of another harsh
dictatorship" after his fall, Wolfowitz said.
Zinni and Sheehan countered that Saddam can easily be contained. Zinni said
a lack of knowledge over what weapons Iraq has isn't a sufficient reason to
attack.
"In other words, we are going to go to war over another intelligence
failure," Zinni said.
Zinni compared the challenge facing the United States in the Middle East and
central Asia to the one it successfully met in rebuilding Europe after World
War II.
Then, the United States focused not only on containing the Soviets but also
on confronting their ideology and by demonstrating the superiority of free
markets and free elections, he said. In contrast, the Bush administration is
focused on terrorist acts and Iraq's drive to acquire weapons of mass
destruction but is not dealing with the causes of unrest.
"If we deal with terrorism, we deal with the tactical part. . . . But you
have not hit at the center of gravity," he said. "The center of gravity is a
bunch of disenfranchised young men. And they are flocking to a cause that
has nothing to do with religion or ideology. They are flocking to a cause
because of their political, social, and economic condition, their sense of
being wronged." Sheehan, meanwhile, was scornful of the administration's
stated willingness -- downplayed by Wolfowitz on Wednesday -- to take on
Saddam without international support and without fully developed battle
plans.
"At some point, you can't just . . . jump out of an airplane and figure out
what you're going to do when you get on the ground," he said. "It doesn't
work that way. Warfare is a deliberate activity that requires deliberate
planning."
Or maybe they just haven't been offered big bucks to kiss one another and become role models/pseudo heroes, earn our respect, etc.!(ref a recent post)
-rwg
Norfolk Virginian-Pilot
October 17, 2002
Two Retired Generals Voice Doubts Over Bush's Plan To Attack Iraq
By Dale Eisman, The Virginian-Pilot
WASHINGTON -- Amid reports of unease among senior uniformed leaders about a
possible war with Iraq, one of the Bush administration's top policy makers
faced a roomful of generals, admirals, diplomats and military planners
Wednesday to argue that the ouster of Saddam Hussein "will be a defeat for
terrorists globally." But while Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz
spent nearly an hour laying out the administration's case, there were signs
aplenty that a corps of experienced military leaders remains skeptical about
President Bush's plans to attack Iraq.
"We are about to do something that will ignite a fuse in this region that we
will rue the day we ever started," retired Marine Gen. Anthony C. Zinni told
the annual Fletcher Conference on National Security Strategy shortly after
Wolfowitz's presentation.
Zinni's blunt critique -- bolstered by a similar assessment from retired
four-star Marine Gen. John J. Sheehan -- drew a smattering of applause.
While insisting that Bush has made no decision to fight, Wolfowitz laid out
a series of questions raised by critics of a war and attacked the reasoning
behind each.
"The risks are very real, and no sensible person would lightly undertake an
operation that risks the lives of our marvelous men and women in uniform,"
he said. But the longer the United States waits, the greater the chance that
Iraq will have acquired chemical, biological or nuclear weapons and the
means to use them, he argued.
Wolfowitz brushed aside suggestions that forcibly removing Saddam will
trigger instability throughout the Middle East. Just as the experience of
Soviet domination in eastern Europe has created deep resistance there
against a return to communism, the experience of life under Saddam "will
encourage powerful resistance to the emergence of another harsh
dictatorship" after his fall, Wolfowitz said.
Zinni and Sheehan countered that Saddam can easily be contained. Zinni said
a lack of knowledge over what weapons Iraq has isn't a sufficient reason to
attack.
"In other words, we are going to go to war over another intelligence
failure," Zinni said.
Zinni compared the challenge facing the United States in the Middle East and
central Asia to the one it successfully met in rebuilding Europe after World
War II.
Then, the United States focused not only on containing the Soviets but also
on confronting their ideology and by demonstrating the superiority of free
markets and free elections, he said. In contrast, the Bush administration is
focused on terrorist acts and Iraq's drive to acquire weapons of mass
destruction but is not dealing with the causes of unrest.
"If we deal with terrorism, we deal with the tactical part. . . . But you
have not hit at the center of gravity," he said. "The center of gravity is a
bunch of disenfranchised young men. And they are flocking to a cause that
has nothing to do with religion or ideology. They are flocking to a cause
because of their political, social, and economic condition, their sense of
being wronged." Sheehan, meanwhile, was scornful of the administration's
stated willingness -- downplayed by Wolfowitz on Wednesday -- to take on
Saddam without international support and without fully developed battle
plans.
"At some point, you can't just . . . jump out of an airplane and figure out
what you're going to do when you get on the ground," he said. "It doesn't
work that way. Warfare is a deliberate activity that requires deliberate
planning."