The Abu Ghraib Scandal: Who’s Shame is it?
Laila Kazmi May 22, 2004
#35 Posted by HP on May 24, 2004 2:37:31 pm
#31 by malik99
“On one hand you give americans enough credit by stating that americans would never ``vote pakistanis out of america``. On the other hand, by making the above mentioned comment, you caste americans in extremely naive light. Lets give americans, by far the most educated people and logic driven people in the world”
You are clearly running wild with your accusatory tone. The distinction I thought was pretty obvious. Obviously, it escaped you.
The American despite being ruthlessly attacked by Arabs/Muslims would not stoop low to pack Pakistanis or Muslims or Arabs out of this country but the Pakistani/Arabs/and Muslims in the US don’t show even the remotest understanding of the Americans feelings about 911. In fact, like you are doing, they loathe to assign responsibility to the lunatic Arabs. I had already mentioned in my previous post, several wild reasons that Muslims/Pak/Arabs provide are mostly vague and naïve falsifications for justifying the 911 attacks.
“Lets give americans, by far the most educated people and logic driven people in the world, some credit for having the ability to differentiate between Arabs.”
This does sound like tongue in cheek. You, yourself, fail to make the distinction between Arabs/ Muslims and Pakistanis and then you expect Americans to make that distinction?
Let me ask you: How many Pakistani physically participated in 911? If Pakistanis have nothing to do with 911 then why are Pakistanis and that includes you too are the biggest apologists for the lunatic Arabs?
When it comes to defending those lunatics you defend them as Muslims. You don’t even make a distinction and call them Arab but you expect that the American should make that distinction!!
You oppose Iraq war NOT from the American National interests pov but from the Muslim pov. The Americans that are questioning their govt’s lame reasons for the war are doing that from American POV and I know you will find it hard to understand that the Muslim POV is entirely different than the American POV about the Iraq war.
Only last year support for this war among Americans of all shades was over 80%. Most of the American believe that this war was part of the larger war on terrorism and it still is, but the American govt has failed to fully justify that in the absence of any terrorists or terrorist links in Iraq.
The reason the support of the war is down now is: abu ghraib, once it is out of the way the support for this war may rise again.
“The only problem here is that they do not get their facts right through media.”
So which media do you get your news/facts from? What are your sources to get the “Right” news/facts from? Guerrillanews.com, the terroristnews.com,the Jang Urdu international.com or the nawaiwaqt.com
“On one hand you give americans enough credit by stating that americans would never ``vote pakistanis out of america``. On the other hand, by making the above mentioned comment, you caste americans in extremely naive light. Lets give americans, by far the most educated people and logic driven people in the world”
You are clearly running wild with your accusatory tone. The distinction I thought was pretty obvious. Obviously, it escaped you.
The American despite being ruthlessly attacked by Arabs/Muslims would not stoop low to pack Pakistanis or Muslims or Arabs out of this country but the Pakistani/Arabs/and Muslims in the US don’t show even the remotest understanding of the Americans feelings about 911. In fact, like you are doing, they loathe to assign responsibility to the lunatic Arabs. I had already mentioned in my previous post, several wild reasons that Muslims/Pak/Arabs provide are mostly vague and naïve falsifications for justifying the 911 attacks.
“Lets give americans, by far the most educated people and logic driven people in the world, some credit for having the ability to differentiate between Arabs.”
This does sound like tongue in cheek. You, yourself, fail to make the distinction between Arabs/ Muslims and Pakistanis and then you expect Americans to make that distinction?
Let me ask you: How many Pakistani physically participated in 911? If Pakistanis have nothing to do with 911 then why are Pakistanis and that includes you too are the biggest apologists for the lunatic Arabs?
When it comes to defending those lunatics you defend them as Muslims. You don’t even make a distinction and call them Arab but you expect that the American should make that distinction!!
You oppose Iraq war NOT from the American National interests pov but from the Muslim pov. The Americans that are questioning their govt’s lame reasons for the war are doing that from American POV and I know you will find it hard to understand that the Muslim POV is entirely different than the American POV about the Iraq war.
Only last year support for this war among Americans of all shades was over 80%. Most of the American believe that this war was part of the larger war on terrorism and it still is, but the American govt has failed to fully justify that in the absence of any terrorists or terrorist links in Iraq.
The reason the support of the war is down now is: abu ghraib, once it is out of the way the support for this war may rise again.
“The only problem here is that they do not get their facts right through media.”
So which media do you get your news/facts from? What are your sources to get the “Right” news/facts from? Guerrillanews.com, the terroristnews.com,the Jang Urdu international.com or the nawaiwaqt.com
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#34 Posted by stuka on May 24, 2004 11:43:57 am
``the neocons were at the forefront of the campaign to get the US to bomb Serbia...That was without a UN resolution, that was against a country that hadn`t threatened the US...
But I guess that`s OK as long as the right victim group was being saved... ``
Exactly the point I have been making since the start of this war. Not one ``liberal`` bastard will acknowledge the hypocricy.
But I guess that`s OK as long as the right victim group was being saved... ``
Exactly the point I have been making since the start of this war. Not one ``liberal`` bastard will acknowledge the hypocricy.
#33 Posted by stuka on May 24, 2004 11:41:37 am
Malik99:
``So Saddam Hussain has become the standard by which we measure justice, torture, violence. As long as we are doing better than him, we should be patted on our backs.``
Who is ``we``?? It is not a matter of patting on backs. Iif Saddam was not being criticized with the same vehemence that the Americans are being criticized, then your criticism loses all moral value. You might as well be peeing in the wind.
``So Saddam Hussain has become the standard by which we measure justice, torture, violence. As long as we are doing better than him, we should be patted on our backs.``
Who is ``we``?? It is not a matter of patting on backs. Iif Saddam was not being criticized with the same vehemence that the Americans are being criticized, then your criticism loses all moral value. You might as well be peeing in the wind.
#32 Posted by malik99 on May 24, 2004 11:41:28 am
HP # 25 - You wrote ``We as a community fail to understand that Iraq happened because Americans feel that Arabs attacked them first.``
On one hand you give americans enough credit by stating that americans would never ``vote pakistanis out of america``. On the other hand, by making the above mentioned comment, you caste americans in extremely naive light. Lets give americans, by far the most educated people and logic driven people in the world, some credit for having the ability to differentiate between arabs. I agree that the constant bombardment of misinformation by the government confused more people than it should have. However, now that americans are waking up to the fact that they were lied to, they are using their logic and asking ``if 15 of the 19 hijackers were saudis, if iraq had no WMDs or links to al-Qaeda, then why the hell are we there?``.
You see HP, americans are more intelligent than you think. They can understand the simple logic that if they were attacked by A, then why are they fighting G.
The only problem here is that they do not get their facts right through media.
On one hand you give americans enough credit by stating that americans would never ``vote pakistanis out of america``. On the other hand, by making the above mentioned comment, you caste americans in extremely naive light. Lets give americans, by far the most educated people and logic driven people in the world, some credit for having the ability to differentiate between arabs. I agree that the constant bombardment of misinformation by the government confused more people than it should have. However, now that americans are waking up to the fact that they were lied to, they are using their logic and asking ``if 15 of the 19 hijackers were saudis, if iraq had no WMDs or links to al-Qaeda, then why the hell are we there?``.
You see HP, americans are more intelligent than you think. They can understand the simple logic that if they were attacked by A, then why are they fighting G.
The only problem here is that they do not get their facts right through media.
#31 Posted by sadna on May 24, 2004 11:41:28 am
A few more instances of beheading(by no means exhaustive)
Six villagers were beheaded in May 2001
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1323635.stm
Two priests were beheaded in August 2001
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1513091.stm
10 people including three brothers and their wives were beheaded in August 2002 during the elections.
http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/02aug25/news.htm
In May 2003, six of a family - 4 women and 2 children were beheaded:
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2003/05/20/stories/2003052005910100.htm
A man and son were beheaded in August 2003
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030807/j&k.htm#1
A teacher was beheaded last month in April 2004
http://www.swisspolitics.org/en/news/index.php?section=int&page=news_inhalt&news_id=4247110
A cop`s wife and daughter were beheaded in the same month:
http://www.hindu.com/2004/04/26/stories/2004042604851100.htm
As I said, beheading appears to be a chosen technique of Pakistani-sponsored groups. This is something investigators of Berg`s beheading in Iraq ought to consider.
#30 Posted by stuka on May 24, 2004 11:39:45 am
Sadna:
Exactly. Why beheading? Essentially a barbaric act which points to the fact that these people enjoy the killing. What was amazing in the videotape was the sonorous Allah O Akbars while the beheading is going on. It seems that it is not the west that CAIR needs to give lectures on what is Iislamic and what is not, it is to these idiots.
Exactly. Why beheading? Essentially a barbaric act which points to the fact that these people enjoy the killing. What was amazing in the videotape was the sonorous Allah O Akbars while the beheading is going on. It seems that it is not the west that CAIR needs to give lectures on what is Iislamic and what is not, it is to these idiots.
#29 Posted by malik99 on May 24, 2004 11:22:10 am
tahmed32 # 23 - You wrote ``Where, on the other hand, were the self-righteous intellectuals of the islamic world when abu ghraib was being used by Saddam to rape prisoners, to chop of their arms, to drip acid on them?``
hmmm....I see. So Saddam Hussain has become the standard by which we measure justice, torture, violence. As long as we are doing better than him, we should be patted on our backs. Good job!
Since my experience tells me that personal analogies work better in situations where the other side refuses to acknowledge that ``context`` matters, let me state an analogy:
I believe that whether you spank your kid, justly or unjustly, is your business. However, you are not allowed to spank your neigbour`s kid for unruly behaviour, especially if his unruly behaviour is not directed at you. You see my point? It just so happens, that there are things/ treaties / protocols which are called ``internal affairs`` - be it internal affairs of a house or a country. Now if your kids team together and spank you back, that would be an understandable solution on their part to solving their internal problem internally.
As for your point about ``open accountability`` in US - I do agree with you to some point. However, since you do not believe in context and hence perhaps have never picked a history book which might have given you some context, you would not know that this ``open accountability`` did not do much to save the lives of millions of vietnamese who perished, or the Japanese who were interned, or the south americans who suffered from the US sponsored dictators like Pinochet, or the Iranians who saw their popular government in 1953 replaced by a brutal Shah and then had to suffer the ``torture chambers and rape rooms`` of Savak agency of that close friend of US.
I love United States of America. But I don`t want it to be hijacked by those who place themselves on the bully pulpit of morality and issue yearly human rights reports while refusing to sign the treaties on banning torture, or banning land mines which kill and maim thousands. I don`t want my dear country to be ruled by the hypcrites who never cease to lecture us on preserving life by being anti-abortion, yet who bomb and kill thousands with not even a raised eye brow.
hmmm....I see. So Saddam Hussain has become the standard by which we measure justice, torture, violence. As long as we are doing better than him, we should be patted on our backs. Good job!
Since my experience tells me that personal analogies work better in situations where the other side refuses to acknowledge that ``context`` matters, let me state an analogy:
I believe that whether you spank your kid, justly or unjustly, is your business. However, you are not allowed to spank your neigbour`s kid for unruly behaviour, especially if his unruly behaviour is not directed at you. You see my point? It just so happens, that there are things/ treaties / protocols which are called ``internal affairs`` - be it internal affairs of a house or a country. Now if your kids team together and spank you back, that would be an understandable solution on their part to solving their internal problem internally.
As for your point about ``open accountability`` in US - I do agree with you to some point. However, since you do not believe in context and hence perhaps have never picked a history book which might have given you some context, you would not know that this ``open accountability`` did not do much to save the lives of millions of vietnamese who perished, or the Japanese who were interned, or the south americans who suffered from the US sponsored dictators like Pinochet, or the Iranians who saw their popular government in 1953 replaced by a brutal Shah and then had to suffer the ``torture chambers and rape rooms`` of Savak agency of that close friend of US.
I love United States of America. But I don`t want it to be hijacked by those who place themselves on the bully pulpit of morality and issue yearly human rights reports while refusing to sign the treaties on banning torture, or banning land mines which kill and maim thousands. I don`t want my dear country to be ruled by the hypcrites who never cease to lecture us on preserving life by being anti-abortion, yet who bomb and kill thousands with not even a raised eye brow.
#28 Posted by sadna on May 24, 2004 10:57:15 am
stuka #10
``To put things in perspective, imagine the beheading and videotaping of a Hindu by the Hizbul Mujahideen in Kashmir. ``
fyi, Pakistani hijackers did cut the throat of an Indian in the IA 814 hijacking. His murderers were welcomed with open arms in Pakistan. The same group went on to murder Pearl too. Now the Pakistanis are trying to get one of the murderers Omar Shiekh off death row, because he was an agent of the government and threatens to reveal the connection.
This same government-sponsored group had beheaded a Norwegian in J&K in 1995.
In 2002, a group called Lashkar-e-Jabbar beheaded Kashmiri women for not wearing the veil.
This weekend two brothers were beheaded in J&K:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_769514,000600030010.htm
Beheading appears to be a common technique of Pakistani-sponsored groups.
``To put things in perspective, imagine the beheading and videotaping of a Hindu by the Hizbul Mujahideen in Kashmir. ``
fyi, Pakistani hijackers did cut the throat of an Indian in the IA 814 hijacking. His murderers were welcomed with open arms in Pakistan. The same group went on to murder Pearl too. Now the Pakistanis are trying to get one of the murderers Omar Shiekh off death row, because he was an agent of the government and threatens to reveal the connection.
This same government-sponsored group had beheaded a Norwegian in J&K in 1995.
In 2002, a group called Lashkar-e-Jabbar beheaded Kashmiri women for not wearing the veil.
This weekend two brothers were beheaded in J&K:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_769514,000600030010.htm
Beheading appears to be a common technique of Pakistani-sponsored groups.
#27 Posted by Ralph on May 24, 2004 10:57:14 am
saminasha # 11
most of us grieve for everyone
You do. It would be wrong to deny that. But `most of us` don`t. Even a cursory look at Chowk will establish that.
most of us grieve for everyone
You do. It would be wrong to deny that. But `most of us` don`t. Even a cursory look at Chowk will establish that.
#26 Posted by HP on May 24, 2004 10:39:08 am
Unfortunately, what is happening in Iraq is fully tied up with 911. It should never have been the case and w/o going into the merits of the US govts reasons for the war, we need to accept that the US govt had effectively coupled the whole thing with 911. The issue before us is not-what the US govt or system does but the issue is: how we, who call the US our adopted home, have responded and what our stand should be with regards to the current situation.
Since this whole thing is now fully intertwined with 911, we first need to look at what Pakistani attitude was/is about 911? Was that aligned with the general US population?
Since 9/12/01, the approach of the majority of the Pak community in the US was more in tune with the people back home. The community has basically refused to accept the reality that 911 happened because some lunatic Arab planned it that way.
If I were to put myself in American shoes,
I am not going to talk about the zillions of conspiracy theories out there. I would not attempt to fix the blame in a round about way to the US govt itself for some of its past real or imaginary misdeeds. I would not put forward the upside down theory that if there was no Palestine problem, there would be no terrorist problem as that is a shameful camouflage.
Majority of the US population believes that Arabs attacked the US on 911. There may be some if and buts, and why and how but I have yet to meet an American who wouldn’t blame Arabs/Muslims for 911.
Was Pakistani community as much outraged as the US citizens were/are about the 911? If the answer is not positive then I am afraid we need to rethink our opposition to Iraq war and what is happening out there.
Since the Pakistani community failed to understand the anguish and desperation of the US population in general right after 911, the community still is not fully in tune with Americans with regards to this war.
Laila is suggesting that we should vote out the current admin in November because it attacked Iraq. In the same vain, Can I suggest to every American to vote out all Pakistanis who failed to register the pain the US felt on and after 911?
That would not be the right thing to do and a majority of the American would refuse to do that. Americans would not even consider that option.
We as a community fail to understand that Iraq happened because Americans feel that Arabs attacked them first. What is happening in Iraq and Abu Ghraib is vigorously condemned by the Americans but it is also a result of the fury that Americans have for Arabs because of 911.
How many Pakistanis have asked any American about how they feel about 911?
Once we know and understand the answer, we should be better able to define our stand on the Iraq issue.
#25 Posted by harish_hyd on May 24, 2004 10:39:08 am
#10 by Romair on May 23, 2004 3:12pm PT
[How many feel sorry for them? Hardly any. Most were on the forefront of encoruaging the killings of Iraqis]
Same as the number of Pakis who feel sorry for the tens of thousands of fellow-Muslims in Bangladesh in 1971 who were massacred by your ex-employer for merely being Bengali.
The number of people killed by the Americans in Iraq is not even a minute fraction of those raped and/or killed by the Pakistani Army in Bangladesh in 1971.
[The problem with moral outrages is that people only want moral outrages when their own are killed. They don`t worry about moral outrages when they are killing]
Exactly the problem with most Pakis.
#24 Posted by tahmed32 on May 24, 2004 10:39:07 am
The US has the honesty to make everything public, thus ensuring accountability. Where, on the other hand, were the self-righteous intellectuals of the islamic world when abu ghraib was being used by Saddam to rape prisoners, to chop of their arms, to drip acid on them?
How about taking a look into what is happening even today in Pakistani jails - where women are held as prisoners under hadood law because they were raped but could not produce four witnesses who (according to the brilliant mullah logic) should have been there to idly stand by and watch her being raped? How about worrying about the poor immigrants who have their heads chopped every friday in Saudi Arabia?
The hell all you bloody hypocrites.
And now that arch-fool malik99 will no doubt jump in with his usual cheap insults at me for daring to show the mirror to all you hypocrites. You call yourselves muslims? Dont disgrace my religion with your hypocrisy.
How about taking a look into what is happening even today in Pakistani jails - where women are held as prisoners under hadood law because they were raped but could not produce four witnesses who (according to the brilliant mullah logic) should have been there to idly stand by and watch her being raped? How about worrying about the poor immigrants who have their heads chopped every friday in Saudi Arabia?
The hell all you bloody hypocrites.
And now that arch-fool malik99 will no doubt jump in with his usual cheap insults at me for daring to show the mirror to all you hypocrites. You call yourselves muslims? Dont disgrace my religion with your hypocrisy.
#23 Posted by omar_r_quraishi on May 24, 2004 10:39:07 am
no wonder michael moore cant find a distributor for his film yet -- america is such a great democracy isnt it
#22 Posted by arjun_m on May 24, 2004 10:39:06 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#21 Posted by arjun_m on May 24, 2004 10:38:44 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#20 Posted by Saminasha on May 24, 2004 4:09:24 am
Oh dear...why does Gen. Zinni keep talking about Stalinists???
Gen. Zinni: `They`ve Screwed Up`
May 21, 2004
Iraq War Strategy Flawed
Ret. Gen. Anthony Zinni once commanded America`s troops in the Middle East (Photo: CBS)
``Regardless of whose responsibility [it is]...it should be evident to everybody that they`ve screwed up, and whose heads are rolling on this?``
Gen. Anthony Zinni
President Bush named Zinni special envoy to the Middle East. But Zinni wound up breaking ranks with the administration over the war in Iraq. (Photo: AP)
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Amazon: Buy ``Battle Ready`` by Ret. Gen. Anthony Zinni, and co-written by Tom Clancy.
Plus, read an excerpt from Chapter One of the book.
(CBS) Retired General Anthony Zinni is one of the most respected and outspoken military leaders of the past two decades.
From 1997 to 2000, he was commander-in-chief of the United States Central Command, in charge of all American troops in the Middle East. That was the same job held by Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf before him, and Gen. Tommy Franks after.
Following his retirement from the Marine Corps, the Bush administration thought so highly of Zinni that it appointed him to one of its highest diplomatic posts -- special envoy to the Middle East.
But Zinni broke ranks with the administration over the war in Iraq, and now, in his harshest criticism yet, he says senior officials at the Pentagon are guilty of dereliction of duty -- and that the time has come for heads to roll. Correspondent Steve Kroft reports.
“There has been poor strategic thinking in this,” says Zinni. “There has been poor operational planning and execution on the ground. And to think that we are going to ‘stay the course,’ the course is headed over Niagara Falls. I think it`s time to change course a little bit, or at least hold somebody responsible for putting you on this course. Because it`s been a failure.”
Zinni spent more than 40 years serving his country as a warrior and diplomat, rising from a young lieutenant in Vietnam to four-star general with a reputation for candor.
Now, in a new book about his career, co-written with Tom Clancy, called ``Battle Ready,`` Zinni has handed up a scathing indictment of the Pentagon and its conduct of the war in Iraq.
In the book, Zinni writes: ``In the lead up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility, at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption.``
“I think there was dereliction in insufficient forces being put on the ground and fully understanding the military dimensions of the plan. I think there was dereliction in lack of planning,” says Zinni. “The president is owed the finest strategic thinking. He is owed the finest operational planning. He is owed the finest tactical execution on the ground. … He got the latter. He didn’t get the first two.”
Zinni says Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time - with the wrong strategy. And he was saying it before the U.S. invasion. In the months leading up to the war, while still Middle East envoy, Zinni carried the message to Congress: “This is, in my view, the worst time to take this on. And I don’t feel it needs to be done now.”
But he wasn’t the only former military leader with doubts about the invasion of Iraq. Former General and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf, former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, and former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki all voiced their reservations.
Zinni believes this was a war the generals didn’t want – but it was a war the civilians wanted.
“I can`t speak for all generals, certainly. But I know we felt that this situation was contained. Saddam was effectively contained. The no-fly, no-drive zones. The sanctions that were imposed on him,” says Zinni.
“Now, at the same time, we had this war on terrorism. We were fighting al Qaeda. We were engaged in Afghanistan. We were looking at `cells` in 60 countries. We were looking at threats that we were receiving information on and intelligence on. And I think most of the generals felt, let`s deal with this one at a time. Let`s deal with this threat from terrorism, from al Qaeda.”
One of Zinni`s responsibilities while commander-in-chief at Centcom was to develop a plan for the invasion of Iraq. Like his predecessors, he subscribed to the belief that you only enter battle with overwhelming force.
But Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld thought the job could be done with fewer troops and high-tech weapons.
How many troops did Zinni’s plan call for? “We were much in line with Gen. Shinseki`s view,” says Zinni. “We were talking about, you know, 300,000, in that neighborhood.”
What difference would it have made if 300,000 troops had been sent in, instead of 180,000?
“I think it`s critical in the aftermath, if you`re gonna go to resolve a conflict through the use of force, and then to rebuild the country,” says Zinni.
“The first requirement is to freeze the situation, is to gain control of the security. To patrol the streets. To prevent the looting. To prevent the `revenge` killings that might occur. To prevent bands or gangs or militias that might not have your best interests at heart from growing or developing.”
Last month, Secretary Rumsfeld acknowledged that he hadn`t anticipated the level of violence that would continue in Iraq a year after the war began. Should he have been surprised?
“He should not have been surprised. You know, there were a number of people, before we even engaged in this conflict, that felt strongly we were underestimating the problems and the scope of the problems we would have in there,” says Zinni. “Not just generals, but others -- diplomats, those in the international community that understood the situation. Friends of ours in the region that were cautioning us to be careful out there. I think he should have known that.”
Instead, Zinni says the Pentagon relied on inflated intelligence information about weapons of mass destruction from Iraqi exiles, like Ahmed Chalabi and others, whose credibility was in doubt. Zinni claims there was no viable plan or strategy in place for governing post-Saddam Iraq.
“As best I could see, I saw a pickup team, very small, insufficient in the Pentagon with no detailed plans that walked onto the battlefield after the major fighting stopped and tried to work it out in the huddle -- in effect to create a seat-of-the-pants operation on reconstructing a country,” says Zinni.
“I give all the credit in the world to Ambassador Bremer as a great American who`s serving his country, I think, with all the kind of sacrifice and spirit you could expect. But he has made mistake after mistake after mistake.”
What mistakes?
“Disbanding the army,” says Zinni. “De-Baathifying, down to a level where we removed people that were competent and didn’t have blood on their hands that you needed in the aftermath of reconstruction – alienating certain elements of that society.”
Zinni says he blames the Pentagon for what happened. “I blame the civilian leadership of the Pentagon directly. Because if they were given the responsibility, and if this was their war, and by everything that I understand, they promoted it and pushed it - certain elements in there certainly - even to the point of creating their own intelligence to match their needs, then they should bear the responsibility,” he says.
“But regardless of whose responsibility I think it is, somebody has screwed up. And at this level and at this stage, it should be evident to everybody that they`ve screwed up. And whose heads are rolling on this? That`s what bothers me most.”
Adds Zinni: “If you charge me with the responsibility of taking this nation to war, if you charge me with implementing that policy with creating the strategy which convinces me to go to war, and I fail you, then I ought to go.”
Who specifically is he talking about?
“Well, it starts with at the top. If you`re the secretary of defense and you`re responsible for that. If you`re responsible for that planning and that execution on the ground. If you`ve assumed responsibility for the other elements, non-military, non-security, political, economic, social and everything else, then you bear responsibility,” says Zinni. “Certainly those in your ranks that foisted this strategy on us that is flawed. Certainly they ought to be gone and replaced.”
Zinni is talking about a group of policymakers within the administration known as ``the neo-conservatives`` who saw the invasion of Iraq as a way to stabilize American interests in the region and strengthen the position of Israel. They include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith; Former Defense Policy Board member Richard Perle; National Security Council member Eliot Abrams; and Vice President Cheney`s chief of staff, Lewis ``Scooter`` Libby.
Zinni believes they are political ideologues who have hijacked American policy in Iraq.
“I think it`s the worst kept secret in Washington. That everybody - everybody I talk to in Washington has known and fully knows what their agenda was and what they were trying to do,” says Zinni.
“And one article, because I mentioned the neo-conservatives who describe themselves as neo-conservatives, I was called anti-Semitic. I mean, you know, unbelievable that that`s the kind of personal attacks that are run when you criticize a strategy and those who propose it. I certainly didn`t criticize who they were. I certainly don`t know what their ethnic religious backgrounds are. And I`m not interested.”
Adds Zinni: “I know what strategy they promoted. And openly. And for a number of years. And what they have convinced the president and the secretary to do. And I don`t believe there is any serious political leader, military leader, diplomat in Washington that doesn`t know where it came from.”
Zinni said he believed their strategy was to change the Middle East and bring it into the 21st century.
“All sounds very good, all very noble. The trouble is the way they saw to go about this is unilateral aggressive intervention by the United States - the take down of Iraq as a priority,” adds Zinni. “And what we have become now in the United States, how we`re viewed in this region is not an entity that`s promising positive change. We are now being viewed as the modern crusaders, as the modern colonial power in this part of the world.”
Should all of those involved, including Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, resign?
“I believe that they should accept responsibility for that,” says Zinni. “If I were the commander of a military organization that delivered this kind of performance to the president, I certainly would tender my resignation. I certainly would expect to be gone.”
“You say we need to change course -- that the current course is taking us over Niagara Falls. What course do you think ought to be set,” Kroft asked Zinni.
“Well, it`s been evident from the beginning what the course is. We should have gotten this U.N. resolution from the beginning. What does it take to sit down with the members of the Security Council, the permanent members, and find out what it takes,” says Zinni.
“What is it they want to get this resolution? Do they want a say in political reconstruction? Do they want a piece of the pie economically? If that`s the cost, fine. What they’re gonna pay for up front is boots on the ground and involvement in sharing the burden.”
Are there enough troops in Iraq now?
“Do I think there are other missions that should be taken on which would cause the number of troops to go up, not just U.S., but international participants? Yes,” says Zinni.
“We should be sealing off the borders, we should be protecting the road networks. We`re not only asking for combat troops, we’re looking for trainers; we’re looking for engineers. We are looking for those who can provide services in there.”
But has the time come to develop an exit strategy?
“There is a limit. I think it’s important to understand what the limit is. Now do I think we are there yet? No, it is salvageable if you can convince the Iraqis that what we`re trying to do is in their benefit in the long run,” says Zinni.
“Unless we change our communication and demonstrate a different image to the people on the street, then we`re gonna get to the point where we are going to be looking for quick exits. I don`t believe we`re there now. And I wouldn`t want to see us fail here.”
Zinni, who now teaches international relations at the College of William and Mary, says he feels a responsibility to speak out, just as former Marine Corps Commandant David Shoup voiced early concerns about the Vietnam war nearly 40 years ago.
“It is part of your duty. Look, there is one statement that bothers me more than anything else. And that`s the idea that when the troops are in combat, everybody has to shut up. Imagine if we put troops in combat with a faulty rifle, and that rifle was malfunctioning, and troops were dying as a result,” says Zinni.
“I can`t think anyone would allow that to happen, that would not speak up. Well, what`s the difference between a faulty plan and strategy that`s getting just as many troops killed? It’s leading down a path where we`re not succeeding and accomplishing the missions we`ve set out to do.”
60 Minutes asked Secretary Rumsfeld and his deputy Wolfowitz to respond to Zinni`s remarks. The request for an interview was declined.
© MMIV, CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Gen. Zinni: `They`ve Screwed Up`
May 21, 2004
Iraq War Strategy Flawed
Ret. Gen. Anthony Zinni once commanded America`s troops in the Middle East (Photo: CBS)
``Regardless of whose responsibility [it is]...it should be evident to everybody that they`ve screwed up, and whose heads are rolling on this?``
Gen. Anthony Zinni
President Bush named Zinni special envoy to the Middle East. But Zinni wound up breaking ranks with the administration over the war in Iraq. (Photo: AP)
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Amazon: Buy ``Battle Ready`` by Ret. Gen. Anthony Zinni, and co-written by Tom Clancy.
Plus, read an excerpt from Chapter One of the book.
(CBS) Retired General Anthony Zinni is one of the most respected and outspoken military leaders of the past two decades.
From 1997 to 2000, he was commander-in-chief of the United States Central Command, in charge of all American troops in the Middle East. That was the same job held by Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf before him, and Gen. Tommy Franks after.
Following his retirement from the Marine Corps, the Bush administration thought so highly of Zinni that it appointed him to one of its highest diplomatic posts -- special envoy to the Middle East.
But Zinni broke ranks with the administration over the war in Iraq, and now, in his harshest criticism yet, he says senior officials at the Pentagon are guilty of dereliction of duty -- and that the time has come for heads to roll. Correspondent Steve Kroft reports.
“There has been poor strategic thinking in this,” says Zinni. “There has been poor operational planning and execution on the ground. And to think that we are going to ‘stay the course,’ the course is headed over Niagara Falls. I think it`s time to change course a little bit, or at least hold somebody responsible for putting you on this course. Because it`s been a failure.”
Zinni spent more than 40 years serving his country as a warrior and diplomat, rising from a young lieutenant in Vietnam to four-star general with a reputation for candor.
Now, in a new book about his career, co-written with Tom Clancy, called ``Battle Ready,`` Zinni has handed up a scathing indictment of the Pentagon and its conduct of the war in Iraq.
In the book, Zinni writes: ``In the lead up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility, at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption.``
“I think there was dereliction in insufficient forces being put on the ground and fully understanding the military dimensions of the plan. I think there was dereliction in lack of planning,” says Zinni. “The president is owed the finest strategic thinking. He is owed the finest operational planning. He is owed the finest tactical execution on the ground. … He got the latter. He didn’t get the first two.”
Zinni says Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time - with the wrong strategy. And he was saying it before the U.S. invasion. In the months leading up to the war, while still Middle East envoy, Zinni carried the message to Congress: “This is, in my view, the worst time to take this on. And I don’t feel it needs to be done now.”
But he wasn’t the only former military leader with doubts about the invasion of Iraq. Former General and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf, former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, and former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki all voiced their reservations.
Zinni believes this was a war the generals didn’t want – but it was a war the civilians wanted.
“I can`t speak for all generals, certainly. But I know we felt that this situation was contained. Saddam was effectively contained. The no-fly, no-drive zones. The sanctions that were imposed on him,” says Zinni.
“Now, at the same time, we had this war on terrorism. We were fighting al Qaeda. We were engaged in Afghanistan. We were looking at `cells` in 60 countries. We were looking at threats that we were receiving information on and intelligence on. And I think most of the generals felt, let`s deal with this one at a time. Let`s deal with this threat from terrorism, from al Qaeda.”
One of Zinni`s responsibilities while commander-in-chief at Centcom was to develop a plan for the invasion of Iraq. Like his predecessors, he subscribed to the belief that you only enter battle with overwhelming force.
But Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld thought the job could be done with fewer troops and high-tech weapons.
How many troops did Zinni’s plan call for? “We were much in line with Gen. Shinseki`s view,” says Zinni. “We were talking about, you know, 300,000, in that neighborhood.”
What difference would it have made if 300,000 troops had been sent in, instead of 180,000?
“I think it`s critical in the aftermath, if you`re gonna go to resolve a conflict through the use of force, and then to rebuild the country,” says Zinni.
“The first requirement is to freeze the situation, is to gain control of the security. To patrol the streets. To prevent the looting. To prevent the `revenge` killings that might occur. To prevent bands or gangs or militias that might not have your best interests at heart from growing or developing.”
Last month, Secretary Rumsfeld acknowledged that he hadn`t anticipated the level of violence that would continue in Iraq a year after the war began. Should he have been surprised?
“He should not have been surprised. You know, there were a number of people, before we even engaged in this conflict, that felt strongly we were underestimating the problems and the scope of the problems we would have in there,” says Zinni. “Not just generals, but others -- diplomats, those in the international community that understood the situation. Friends of ours in the region that were cautioning us to be careful out there. I think he should have known that.”
Instead, Zinni says the Pentagon relied on inflated intelligence information about weapons of mass destruction from Iraqi exiles, like Ahmed Chalabi and others, whose credibility was in doubt. Zinni claims there was no viable plan or strategy in place for governing post-Saddam Iraq.
“As best I could see, I saw a pickup team, very small, insufficient in the Pentagon with no detailed plans that walked onto the battlefield after the major fighting stopped and tried to work it out in the huddle -- in effect to create a seat-of-the-pants operation on reconstructing a country,” says Zinni.
“I give all the credit in the world to Ambassador Bremer as a great American who`s serving his country, I think, with all the kind of sacrifice and spirit you could expect. But he has made mistake after mistake after mistake.”
What mistakes?
“Disbanding the army,” says Zinni. “De-Baathifying, down to a level where we removed people that were competent and didn’t have blood on their hands that you needed in the aftermath of reconstruction – alienating certain elements of that society.”
Zinni says he blames the Pentagon for what happened. “I blame the civilian leadership of the Pentagon directly. Because if they were given the responsibility, and if this was their war, and by everything that I understand, they promoted it and pushed it - certain elements in there certainly - even to the point of creating their own intelligence to match their needs, then they should bear the responsibility,” he says.
“But regardless of whose responsibility I think it is, somebody has screwed up. And at this level and at this stage, it should be evident to everybody that they`ve screwed up. And whose heads are rolling on this? That`s what bothers me most.”
Adds Zinni: “If you charge me with the responsibility of taking this nation to war, if you charge me with implementing that policy with creating the strategy which convinces me to go to war, and I fail you, then I ought to go.”
Who specifically is he talking about?
“Well, it starts with at the top. If you`re the secretary of defense and you`re responsible for that. If you`re responsible for that planning and that execution on the ground. If you`ve assumed responsibility for the other elements, non-military, non-security, political, economic, social and everything else, then you bear responsibility,” says Zinni. “Certainly those in your ranks that foisted this strategy on us that is flawed. Certainly they ought to be gone and replaced.”
Zinni is talking about a group of policymakers within the administration known as ``the neo-conservatives`` who saw the invasion of Iraq as a way to stabilize American interests in the region and strengthen the position of Israel. They include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith; Former Defense Policy Board member Richard Perle; National Security Council member Eliot Abrams; and Vice President Cheney`s chief of staff, Lewis ``Scooter`` Libby.
Zinni believes they are political ideologues who have hijacked American policy in Iraq.
“I think it`s the worst kept secret in Washington. That everybody - everybody I talk to in Washington has known and fully knows what their agenda was and what they were trying to do,” says Zinni.
“And one article, because I mentioned the neo-conservatives who describe themselves as neo-conservatives, I was called anti-Semitic. I mean, you know, unbelievable that that`s the kind of personal attacks that are run when you criticize a strategy and those who propose it. I certainly didn`t criticize who they were. I certainly don`t know what their ethnic religious backgrounds are. And I`m not interested.”
Adds Zinni: “I know what strategy they promoted. And openly. And for a number of years. And what they have convinced the president and the secretary to do. And I don`t believe there is any serious political leader, military leader, diplomat in Washington that doesn`t know where it came from.”
Zinni said he believed their strategy was to change the Middle East and bring it into the 21st century.
“All sounds very good, all very noble. The trouble is the way they saw to go about this is unilateral aggressive intervention by the United States - the take down of Iraq as a priority,” adds Zinni. “And what we have become now in the United States, how we`re viewed in this region is not an entity that`s promising positive change. We are now being viewed as the modern crusaders, as the modern colonial power in this part of the world.”
Should all of those involved, including Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, resign?
“I believe that they should accept responsibility for that,” says Zinni. “If I were the commander of a military organization that delivered this kind of performance to the president, I certainly would tender my resignation. I certainly would expect to be gone.”
“You say we need to change course -- that the current course is taking us over Niagara Falls. What course do you think ought to be set,” Kroft asked Zinni.
“Well, it`s been evident from the beginning what the course is. We should have gotten this U.N. resolution from the beginning. What does it take to sit down with the members of the Security Council, the permanent members, and find out what it takes,” says Zinni.
“What is it they want to get this resolution? Do they want a say in political reconstruction? Do they want a piece of the pie economically? If that`s the cost, fine. What they’re gonna pay for up front is boots on the ground and involvement in sharing the burden.”
Are there enough troops in Iraq now?
“Do I think there are other missions that should be taken on which would cause the number of troops to go up, not just U.S., but international participants? Yes,” says Zinni.
“We should be sealing off the borders, we should be protecting the road networks. We`re not only asking for combat troops, we’re looking for trainers; we’re looking for engineers. We are looking for those who can provide services in there.”
But has the time come to develop an exit strategy?
“There is a limit. I think it’s important to understand what the limit is. Now do I think we are there yet? No, it is salvageable if you can convince the Iraqis that what we`re trying to do is in their benefit in the long run,” says Zinni.
“Unless we change our communication and demonstrate a different image to the people on the street, then we`re gonna get to the point where we are going to be looking for quick exits. I don`t believe we`re there now. And I wouldn`t want to see us fail here.”
Zinni, who now teaches international relations at the College of William and Mary, says he feels a responsibility to speak out, just as former Marine Corps Commandant David Shoup voiced early concerns about the Vietnam war nearly 40 years ago.
“It is part of your duty. Look, there is one statement that bothers me more than anything else. And that`s the idea that when the troops are in combat, everybody has to shut up. Imagine if we put troops in combat with a faulty rifle, and that rifle was malfunctioning, and troops were dying as a result,” says Zinni.
“I can`t think anyone would allow that to happen, that would not speak up. Well, what`s the difference between a faulty plan and strategy that`s getting just as many troops killed? It’s leading down a path where we`re not succeeding and accomplishing the missions we`ve set out to do.”
60 Minutes asked Secretary Rumsfeld and his deputy Wolfowitz to respond to Zinni`s remarks. The request for an interview was declined.
© MMIV, CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- tahmed32: #26 hurricane: please dont... And Then There Was
- MeiraJ08: Hi Nadeem, just started... Quarter No.5
- hurricane: Re: # 24 chaccha... And Then There Was
- hurricane: Who's redflagging? Hey, it's... And Then There Was
- tahmed32: hurricane: sorry bro (or... And Then There Was
- krishna_abcd: Pakistan - An Islamic... And Then There Was
- hurricane: Those that know me,... And Then There Was
- tahmed32: #20 india monkeyman speakee... And Then There Was
