View Full Version : Al Qaeda's Way of War and how we can defeat them
Here's our situation now:
We are the world's military, economic and cultural superpower. The world has never seen a state as powerful as the United States in absolute terms. HOWEVER - The American people are weary of war. I don't care if you're democrat or republican, white or black, when 3000+ Americans are killed in action for an objective that is ambiguous and unknown, people will protest.
People often compare this war to Neville Chamberlain's appeasement policy of Hitler in the 1930s, that culminated in the Munish Agreement in 1936 followed by World War 2 breaking out in 1939. But it is not the same.
Nobody is "appeasing" Al Qaeda. I guarantee you the democratic party of the United States does not plan on appeasement - because ANY TRUE AMERICAN would know that Osama Bin Laden cannot be appeased. He must be defeated by force.
No REAL AMERICAN would oppose the war on terror. What they oppose is either the war in Iraq or our approach to the war in Iraq.
The enemy we fight is not a "Nazi Germany". I wish it were, because then our conventional forces could just come right in, our air force would bombard the hell out of them and our Marines and soldiers will march right into their capital victoriously. No. it doesn't work like that. Not for this enemy.
Instead we fight an enemy without any territorial boundries. They blend into civilian population and attack and harrass US troops. They cause turmoil and unrest within the Iraqi people. THEY KNOW EXACTLY HOW TO DEFEAT AMERICA and they are doing all the right things.
I'm willing to bet my life savings that Osama Bin Laden understands the Maoist doctrine of war.
"when the enemy advances, we retreat; when he camps, we harass him; if he tires, we attack; when he retreats, we pursue" - Mao Ze Dong, 1928
For those of you who don't know Chinese history, Mao Ze Dong was the Communist leader that led a very small guerilla force to defeat a much better armed, numerically superior and AMERICAN SUPPORTED Nationalist government that ruled all of China.
Does Mao's doctrine sound peculiarly similar to the situation in Iraq? It should. Because thats EXACTLY how the enemy is fighting and it is working.
I don't care how much territory we can seize from enemy hands. Whenever we take an enemy occupied town or whatever, we are quick to declare a tactical victory, but the tactical victory has no bearing on the grander strategic scheme.
Remember Vietnam? Decades later when a former US Army General met with a former NVA General to discuss the old times, the American said: "America was never defeated on the battlefield", to which the Vietnamese General replied "that may be true, but it is irrevalent"
My dear fellow Marines - mark my words: WE ARE LOSING THIS WAR Yes, we are WINNING EVERY BATTLE WE CAN FIGHT and we are probably killing much more of them than they are of us, BUT WE ARE STILL LOSING THIS WAR. We are losing strategically, economically, diplomatically and domestically. And all the tactical prowess in the world will not save us.
The enemy will never get the better of us on the battlefield, but THEY ARE WINNING THE WAR. How? Here are a list of reasons:
1. The enemy has eroded American public opinion.
2. By constantly attacking their own people and causing violence, the majority of Iraqi people don't want us in their country (and scandals like Abu Ghraib don't help) and wish that they were back in Saddam's days (when there were at least no random bombings)
3. the enemy (with help from George Bush inadvertantly) has managed to destroy American credibility on the International stage, so we're getting very little help outside of Britain
4. The enemy is ruining Iraq's economic growth with the constant violence.
5. The enemy blends into the civilian population, which puts American troops in a bind because we want to kill the enemy but we know we cannot shoot a civilian or else we can get court martialed (not to mention mentally scarred). A life and death Catch-22
6. By harrassing us with IEDs and snipers, the enemy is causing US casualties to mount increasingly without the US and Iraqi Army accomplishing any significant strategic objectives. They will not get into a direct confrontation with us...call it cowardice, but I call it being smart. They have AK-47s and RPGs at best. We have F-117s, M1A2s, Bradley IFVs and Predator drones. They don't need to win any battle. They just need to kill enough Americans so the American people will force an American withdrawal.
The 140,000 US troops in Iraq are helpless. They are stretched too thin to be any effective. I don't care how many terrorists they kill, Al Qaeda can always recruit more. I'm pretty sure theres MILLIONS of radical Muslims willing to work for Al Qaeda so don't give me some "kill them all" crap because its not realistic and won't happen.
Here's what we need to do to stabilize Iraq. Either do this or PULLOUT IMMEDIATELY BEFORE MORE AMERICANS DIE.
1. We need 500,000+ troops in Iraq. Former Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki recommended that we needed 300,000+ to stablize Iraq. Guess what Don Rumsfeld did - basically told him to shutup and decided we only needed about half. GREAT JOB DON, THATS WHY YOU'RE UNEMPLOYED NOW BECAUSE YOU'RE INCOMPETANT.
At the rate Iraq is going, we probably need even more than General Shinseki recommended. I'd say 500,000.
2. Declare temporary martial law in Iraq.
3.Win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. My goodness this CANNOT be stressed enough. We WILL NOT win this war unless the Iraqi people support us. And right now they don't. They don't want us in their country. That means
a) No aerial/artillery bombardment. I don't care how 'precision' our bombs are. They're not precision enough and innocent civilians die. That fuels anti-American sentiment. Think about it. An Iraqi man who just lost his daughter and wife to a US bomb. He just MIGHT go join Al Qaeda. Ever think about that? Obviously American leadership hasn't.
b) NO MORE SCANDALS - Generals need to STRESS that NCOs and Officers DISCIPLINE THEIR TROOPS. Things like Abu Ghraib Prison or Iraqi civilians getting shot and raped by US troops is DETRIMENTAL TO OUR SUCCESS.
c) Convince the Iraqi people that they will be SAFE and BACK IT UP. Thats where the martial law and 500,000 troops come in. We NEED to protect the Iraqi people and HEAVILY reduce the violence. Aggressive patrols. Keeping always on the lookout. American casualties will go up with so many men there, but violence will decrease and it will help us win the war.
d) Train the Iraqi Army to the same standards that we hold in the US military. We don't need a rag-tag undiciplined militia running around. We need a PROFESSIONAL, COMPETANT force that can KEEP THE PEOPLE SAFE once we leave. And EQUIP THESE MEN ACCORDINGLY. That means give them armored vehicles, body armor, and whatever they need for the job.
e) Strike a deal with Iraq's neighbors Heaven knows that Iran and Syria are pouring in extremists to help fight the war. Strike a deal with them somehow and STOP THAT FROM HAPPENING.
Gosh, I've typed enough - IF WE ARE WILLING TO DO ALL THAT, WE STAND A CHANCE OF WINNING THE WAR IN IRAQ. If not, the best course is to pull out before anymore of our brave warriors die. Because 140,000 troops in Iraq just won't cut it.
SkilletsUSMC
11-25-06, 11:04 PM
Did you copy paste this from H.J. Poole's 'Militant Tricks'?
every single word in this post was my own, except those in quotation marks where I quoted Mao Ze Dong and General Eric Shinseki
never read that book
SkilletsUSMC
11-26-06, 12:20 AM
every single word in this post was my own, except those in quotation marks where I quoted Mao Ze Dong and General Eric Shinseki
never read that book
;) Well then you are in good company. HJ Pooles book is an absolutely awsome book about 4GW. But you should know that most of what you and the book are talking about is already in practice in iraq. The only step left in not to back down.
http://www.amazon.com/Militant-Tricks-Battlefield-Islamic-Insurgent/dp/0963869582
I knew that name sounded familiar !!!
I own and read his other book - Militant Muslim Combat Methods
I did a lot of research on this crap...hoping to be a future Marine Officer
for now I'm just a college boy though so forgive the slightly left leaning rhetoric
SkilletsUSMC
11-26-06, 12:40 AM
I knew that name sounded familiar !!!
I own and read his other book - Militant Muslim Combat Methods
I did a lot of research on this crap...hoping to be a future Marine Officer
for now I'm just a college boy though so forgive the slightly left leaning rhetoric
So who were you with before school?
SkilletsUSMC
11-26-06, 12:50 AM
reserve duty
Did your unit deploy to OIF? If so what MOS? I was with 1/1 and Im an 0311.
Unit deployed while I was in boot camp
2nd Bn 24th Marines
They initially told us all who did not go the first time would augment another battalion, I was getting all prepped to go until they selected 8 (un)lucky souls (seems pretty random) and now they are in Iraq.
My philosophy is that I don't want to go. I love college and I'd love to finish my degree and go to OCS.
but if I am sent I would be honored and I would fight hard for the country I love so dearly.
SkilletsUSMC
11-26-06, 12:57 AM
Unit deployed while I was in boot camp
2nd Bn 24th Marines
They initially told us all who did not go the first time would augment another battalion, I was getting all prepped to go until they selected 8 (un)lucky souls (seems pretty random) and now they are in Iraq.
My philosophy is that I don't want to go. I love college and I'd love to finish my degree and go to OCS.
but if I am sent I would be honored and I would fight hard for the country I love so dearly.
You are very Patriotic, and Idealistic. I admire that, but remember that you are actually inside the socialist indocrination program. Once you get out and deploy, you will see that what they are teaching about this war has no basis in reality.
SkilletsUSMC
11-26-06, 12:58 AM
Unit deployed while I was in boot camp
2nd Bn 24th Marines
They initially told us all who did not go the first time would augment another battalion, I was getting all prepped to go until they selected 8 (un)lucky souls (seems pretty random) and now they are in Iraq.
My philosophy is that I don't want to go. I love college and I'd love to finish my degree and go to OCS.
but if I am sent I would be honored and I would fight hard for the country I love so dearly.
we were with 2/24 in South Bagdhad
I love my country but I wouldn't see myself as Idealistic....I don't know what you mean by the Socialist Indoctrination Program...The University of Illinois? lol doesnt seem like it...I'm all about CAPITALISM. CAPITALISM BREEDS OPPORTUNITY but on that note...college boy is going to bed
got church tommorrow then gotta pick up a friend flying in from Califronia then a 3 hour ride to Champaign Illinois
pretty good discussion with you Corporal, we'll continue tommorrow lol (after I respond to the rest of your posts)
we were with 2/24 in South Bagdhad
omg for real? pretty sweet...we took 14 KIA in Iraq...may our Marines rest in peace
10thzodiac
11-27-06, 08:39 AM
<TABLE id=table1 style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" width=600 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>
http://ih.constantcontact.com/fs035/1101266608938/img/1.gif?a=1101413386893
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
"Stay the course" is fading; it will soon be retired to the list of other Iraq war catch-phrases like "shock and awe" and "mission accomplished." With Democrats gaining control of Congress and an Iraq Study Group set to advise the President to pursue alternative strategies in Iraq, it is clear that change is imminent. Now a debate that should have begun three years ago is taking place at the highest levels of power: what credible alternatives to "stay the course" are out there?
President Bush has publicly expressed a desire for a "last big push" and chides those who wish to "cut and run." The war, in the Administration's eyes, can still be won. With more troops and more resolve, the Iraqi people can be forced into submission. There are some Democrats like Senator Carl Levin who believe reducing troop levels will force the Iraqi political leadership to make the difficult concessions necessary to achieve a national government. " The only way for Iraqi leaders to squarely face that reality is for President Bush to tell them that the United States will begin a phased redeployment of our forces within four to six months," as he recently said.
Other individuals, including the authors of this newsletter, believe the war could never be "won" in a conventional sense--and cannot now. With genocidal militias prowling the streets of Baghdad, it is difficult to conceive of a fledgling government with an under-trained army and a corrupt police force controlling the insurgency and maintaining order. The Biden/Gelb plan remains the only solution that addresses the problem of sectarian strife, which the US military has identified as the greatest security problem in the country. Iraq is already splintering off into three distinct federalized regions.
Implementing the plan, therefore, will not require the forced removal of peoples like in India/Pakistan; rather, it will look like Bosnia, where Serbs, Croats, and Muslims were allowed to maintain their own armies and now live peacefully alongside each other.
Unfortunately, the Iraq Study Group is likely going to suggest increasing the troop levels to make one final sustained effort to secure the country. American Respect never had much confidence in this group, for its chairman – James Baker – has publicly stated that Iraq's current problems could have been avoided if we kept the Iraqi Army intact in the immediate aftermath of our invasion, and if we had used more troops from the beginning. These two positions overlook the fact that sectarian violence is the greatest threat to stability in the region: Iraq's army was largely comprised of Sunnis and used as a tool of Shiite oppression. Sectarian militias have penetrated the police force, which is funded, trained, and organized by the US military. More troops, therefore, would not have made a significant difference.
Only federalizing Iraq under the Biden-Gelb plan will help bring a lasting peace to the region.
Thanks for your continued support.
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
<HR>
American Respect is a not-for-profit organization that believes invading Iraq has increased global terrorism, is costing thousands of lives, (and literally trillions of tax dollars) and is increasing energy costs. We believe the US should take a very different approach to addressing this problem. Our principles for reducing terrorism are:
Pursue true terrorists such as al Qaeda by eliminating training camps, preventing arms smuggling, freezing financial assets and apprehending terrorist leaders.
Find balanced solutions in sensitive areas which foment terrorism by rebuilding international coalitions. Violence in regions like Chechnya, Kashmir and especially Palestine directly and adversely affects the entire Muslim world.
Decrease our profile in Iraq and use international coalitions to lead a march toward guaranteed rights, limited government and democratic representation. Further recognize that Iraq was arbitrarily assembled in 1919 from three ethnically and religiously different Ottoman provinces, and that a peaceful solution may require a return, either partly or fully, to this pre-1919 arrangement.
Build up the economies of Muslim countries with the goal of creating a larger middle class in each. If abject poverty is a breeding ground for terrorism, then creating broad prosperity is a key part of the solution--especially in the areas of trade and land reform. And success in the economies of any Muslim country--from Morocco to Indonesia--is positive for stability and peace throughout the region.
Establish a tone of goodwill in policies and actions toward these nations and their growing and increasingly global populations.
<HR>
To send your comments to AmericanRespect click here (http://us.f566.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=newsletter@americanrespect.com&Subj=Newsletter)
So we can continue the conversation, visit our site at americanrespect.com (http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=233741866&url_num=1&url=http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=nucvvybab.0.izz8kubab.kzyvjubab.1&ts=S0207&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanrespect.com). We print selected messages in a special ?Letter to the Editor? section. All viewpoints are welcome. email: newsletter@americanrespect.com (http://us.f566.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=newsletter@americanrespect.com)
web: http://www.americanrespect.com (http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=233741866&url_num=2&url=http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=nucvvybab.0.izz8kubab.kzyvjubab.1&ts=S0207&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanrespect.com)
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
drumcorpssnare
11-27-06, 01:03 PM
10thzodiac- Well, here we go again... Regarding "American Respect's" principles for reducing terrorism....
1.) Persue true terrorists- I agree completely. This is not currently being done to the degree needed. Terrorists world-wide need to be flushed out of their rat-holes with diligence and extreme prejudice!
2.)International coalitions are not at all interested in Iraq. (see: France, Spain, Italy, and all the rest who have pulled out of Iraq.) The violence in Chechnya, Kashmir, Palestine, and the Sudan is the result of terrorists who wish to create chaos, specifically to de-stabilize the governmental process.
3.)Decrease our profile in Iraq- ...so the insurgent militias will have an even easier hand in destroying any attempt at peace and security. Also, the vast majority of Iraqi people DO NOT WANT the pre-1919 regional arrangement!
4.) Build up the economies of Muslim countries..."If abject poverty is a breeding ground for terrorism..." then Mexico, Central America, parts of South America, most of Africa, most of China, virtually ALL of the Indian sub-continent, and North Korea would be rife with terrorists! Poverty causes terrorism, just like flies cause garbage!!!
5.) Establish a tone of goodwill... Islamic fundementalist insurgents and Jihadist terrorists are not the least bit interested in goodwill. They are interested in killing non-Moslems! PERIOD!
That is all.
drumcorpssnare:usmc:
Iraq is a mess
there is no simple solution...but one thing for sure we need the support of their people.
outlaw3179
11-27-06, 01:26 PM
I was with 2/24 and we lost 17 Marines. Sunman are you with H/S?
10thzodiac
11-27-06, 02:28 PM
Is Bush's War in Iraq A "Brain Fart"?
http://www.voicesoftomorrow.org/userfiles/photos/880795667452c0ae0652cc.jpg
Did retired General Anthony Zinni really call George W. Bush's war in Iraq a "brain fart"? That seems to be the case. But first, some background.
On Thursday night, Zinni, the former commander of the U.S. Central Command, was interviewed by Ted Koppel on Nightline. And he was rather sharp in his assessment of George W. Bush's policy in Iraq. Before the war, Zinni, who had been an envoy for Bush in the Middle East, opposed a U.S. invasion of Iraq, arguing that Saddam Hussein did not pose an imminent threat. On Nightline, Zinni compared Bush's push for the war with the Gulf of Tonkin incident--an infamous episode in which President Lyndon Johnson misrepresented an attack on two U.S. Navy destroyers in order to win congressional approval of the war in Vietnam--and he challenged "the credibility behind" Bush's prewar assertions concerning Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction and its association with anti-American terrorists. "I'm suggesting," Zinni said, "that either the [prewar] 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 he believed that Hussein had maintained "the framework for a weapons of mass destruction program that could be quickly activated once sanctions were lifted" and that such a program, while worrisome, did not immediately endanger the United States.
Zinni raised the issue that Bush might have purposefully misled the public and not shared with it the true reason for the war: "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 model democracy, or whatever it is, will change the equation in the Middle East, then make the [public] case based on that strategic decision....I think it's a flawed--like the domino theory--it's a flawed strategic thought or concept....But if that's the reason for going in, that's the case the American people ought to hear. They ought to make their judgment and determine their support based on what the motivation is for the attack."
Zinni was, in a way, being polite. Earlier in the month, he addressed a forum sponsored by the U.S. Naval Institute and the Marine Corps Association. There he let loose. Reflecting the views of high-ranking U.S. military officials who were dubious about launching a war against Iraq and skeptical about the occupation that would follow, Zinni accused the Bush crowd of having not been ready for the challenges to come after defeating the Iraqi army. "We're in danger of failing," he noted, because the Bush administration had not readied itself for what would follow the initial military engagement. "We fought one idiot here [in Iraq], just now," he said. "Ohio State beat Slippery Rock 62 to 0. No Sh1t! You know! But we weren't ready for that team that came onto the field at the end of that three-week victory."
He went on: "Right now, in a place like Iraq, you're dealing with Jihadists that are coming in to raise hell, crime on the streets that's rampant, ex-Ba'athists that still running around, and the potential now for this country to fragment: Shi'ia on Shi'ia, Shi'ia on Sunni, Kurd on Turkomen. It's a powder keg. I just got back from Jordan. I talked to a number of Iraqis there. And what I hear scares me even more that what I read in the newspaper. Resources are needed, a strategy is needed, a plan. This is a different kind of conflict. War fighting is one element of it."
Zinni displayed little confidence in Bush and his aides. He said that their Iraq endeavor has landed the United States into the middle of assorted "culture wars" in the Middle East. "We don't understand that culture," he remarked. "I've spent the last 15 years of my life in this part of the world. And I'll tell you, every time I hear...one of the dilettantes back here speak about this region of the world, they don't have a clue. They don't understand what makes them tick. They don't understand where they are in their own history. They don't understand what our role is....We are great at dealing with the tactical problems--the killing and the breaking. We are lousy at solving the strategic problems; having a strategic plan, understanding about regional and global security and what it takes to weld that and to shape it and to move forward."
Do you think Zinni is angry over the war? He did get worked up as he ended his speech:
"We should be...extremely proud of what our people did out there....It kills me when I hear of the continuing casualties and the sacrifice that's being made. It also kills me when I hear someone say that, well, each one of those is a personal tragedy, but in the overall scheme of things, they're insignificant statistically." (Perhaps he had in mind the comment Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made in June, when he played down attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq by saying, "You've got to remember that if Washington, D.C., were the size of Baghdad, we would be having something like 215 murders a month; there's going to be violence in a big city.") Zinni continued: "When we put [our enlisted men and women] in harm's way, it had better count for something, It can't be because some policy wonk back here has a brain fart of an idea of a strategy that isn't thought out."
Brain fart? That's not quite a military term. But those are fighting words. And Zinni practically counseled his audience to rebel against the Bush administration. U.S. troops, he said, "should never be put on a battlefield without a strategic plan, not only for the fighting--our generals will take care of that--but for the aftermath and winning that war. Where are we, the American people, if we accept this, if we accept this level of sacrifice without that level of planning? Almost everyone in this room, of my contemporaries--our feelings and our sensitivities were forged on the battlefields of Vietnam, where we heard the garbage and lies, and we saw the sacrifice. We swore never again would we do that. We swore never again would we allow it to happen. And I ask you, is it happening again? And you're going to have to answer that question, just like the American people are."
Brain fart. Garbage and lies. Never again. This was harsher rhetoric than Zinni deployed on Nightline, though his message was essentially the same. With such talk, he is in sync with Senator Ted Kennedy, who was blasted by Republicans for calling the war a "fraud." Note to Kennedy and other critics of the war: Fire away. If a Republican counter-attacks, you can always reply, at least I didn't say Bush is asking Americans to give their lives for a war based on mental flatulence.
Sgt Leprechaun
11-27-06, 04:56 PM
Personally, anyone caring to quote ole Ted Kennedy is immediately suspect in my book.
10th, is the postiing above a cut and paste? If so, I'd like to see the original place it came from, so I can judge the source of the reporting. If it's yours..well....nice rant LOL...heading out for the night, can't give a full reply at this point...but rest assured...
10thzodiac
11-27-06, 09:19 PM
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/s/e/bush_mideast_peace_plan.jpg (http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushintelligentdesign.htm)
jinelson
11-27-06, 09:38 PM
The Democrat Plan lead by Pelosi, Kennedy, Murtha, Boxer and 10thzodiac
JIM :D
Sgt Leprechaun
11-28-06, 05:09 AM
Actually, I kinda like the idea, 45's at 20 paces...whomever is left standing is the winner...
I was with 2/24 and we lost 17 Marines. Sunman are you with H/S?
yeah
General Anthony Zinni is a brilliant man and a supurb commander. Its a shame we did not have him as Commander of CENTCOM for the war now.
10thzodiac
11-28-06, 09:59 AM
General Anthony Zinni is a brilliant man and a supurb commander. Its a shame we did not have him as Commander of CENTCOM for the war now.
jinelson, makes one wonder: If you know the difference; then I saw the ememy, it was us http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/11.gif
JIM :D
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->__________________
No better friend/No worse enemy
Warnings ignored, says retired Marine
By Rick Rogers
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
April 16, 2004
<!--- BODYTEXT --->Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni wondered aloud yesterday how Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld could be caught off guard by the chaos in Iraq that has killed nearly 100 Americans in recent weeks and led to his announcement that 20,000 U.S. troops would be staying there instead of returning home as planned.
"I'm surprised that he is surprised because there was a lot of us who were telling him that it was going to be thus," said Zinni, a Marine for 39 years and the former commander of the U.S. Central Command. "Anyone could know the problems they were going to see. How could they not?"
At a Pentagon news briefing yesterday, Rumsfeld said he could not have estimated how many troops would be killed in the past week.
Zinni made his comments during an interview with The San Diego Union-Tribune before giving a speech last night at the University of San Diego's Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace & Justice as part of its distinguished lecturer series.
For years Zinni said he cautioned U.S. officials that an Iraq without Saddam Hussein would likely be more dangerous to U.S. interests than one with him because of the ethnic and religious clashes that would be unleashed.
"I think that some heads should roll over Iraq," Zinni said. "I think the president got some bad advice."
Known as the "Warrior Diplomat," Zinni is not a peace activist by nature or training, having led troops in Vietnam, commanded rescue operations in Somalia and directed strikes against Iraq and al Qaeda.
He once commanded the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp Pendleton.
Out of uniform, Zinni was a troubleshooter for the U.S. government in Africa, Asia and Europe and served as special envoy to the Middle East under the Bush administration for a time before his reservations over the Iraq war and its aftermath caused him to resign and oppose it.
Not even Zinni's resumé could shield him from the accusations that followed.
"I've been called a traitor and a turncoat for mentioning these things," said Zinni, 60. The problems in Iraq are being caused, he said, by poor planning and shortsightedness, such as disbanding the Iraqi army and being unable to provide security.
Zinni said the United States must now rely on the U.N. to pull its "chestnuts out of the fire in Iraq."
"We're betting on the U.N., who we blew off and ridiculed during the run-up to the war," Zinni said. "Now we're back with hat in hand. It would be funny if not for the lives lost."
Several things have to happen to get Iraq back on course, whether the U.N. decides to step in or not, Zinni said.
Improving security for American forces and the Iraqi people is at the top of the list followed closely by helping the working class with economic projects.
But it's not the lack of a comprehensive American plan for Iraq nor the surging violence that has cost allied troops their lives – including about 30 Camp Pendleton Marines – that most concerns Zinni.
"In the end, the Iraqis themselves have to want to rebuild their country more than we do," Zinni said. "But I don't see that right now. I see us doing everything.
"I spent two years in Vietnam, and I've seen this movie before," he said. "They have to be willing to do more or else it is never going to work."
Last night at the Kroc institute during his speech "From the Battlefield to the Negotiating Table: Preventing Deadly Conflict," Zinni detailed the approach he believes the United States should take in the Middle East.
He told an overflow crowd that the United States tries to grapple with individual issues in Middle East instead of seeing them as elements of a broader question.
"We need to step back and get a grand strategy," he said.
rktect3j
11-28-06, 10:06 AM
Personally, anyone caring to quote ole Ted Kennedy is immediately suspect in my book.
Might as well quote Michael Moore. I won't care either way.
10thzodiac
11-28-06, 10:24 AM
Of course, it is the same old story. Truth usually is the same old story http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/11.gif
Sgt Leprechaun
11-28-06, 10:39 AM
I like the quote..do I win a beer if I can tellya who first said it?
And, truth is in the eye of the beholder, I believe. I don't see anything wrong with the article, but I do find it interesting...it's two years old. "Stale" intel, as it were.
We all know the occupation was hosed up....not by the guys/girls on the ground, but by policywonkheads in DC, and fobbits in theatre...not exactly news...