a berlin blog
|
a berlin blog |
|
|
Thursday, October 02, 2003 Why we went to warRetired General Anthony Zinni's TV interview on Iraq earlier this week should be devastating for the Pentagon. "The case that was made to the American people for going in," he said, "was exaggerated," he said. "And I think that's dangerous. We've been down that road before. If it was to take down Saddam because he is bad and evil, if it was to improve things in the region, if it was a strategic decision based on some strategic assessment, it should have run on its own merits."I can think of plenty of good reasons for the U.S. and its allies to replace Saddam with a democracy. But we never had that debate, not properly, and one result was a grave lack of planning. "There was no secret as to the conditions that these [government] institutions might be in once you ripped out the leadership, once you dismantled them," said Zinni. "I think that should have been anticipated. I think the tensions in the Sunni triangle should have been anticipated. I think the potential for civil war, the potential for outsiders, Jihadis coming in to see this as a potential battlefield, seeing this as a place where if they can defeat us and make us fail, their stature in the region improves. That should have been seen clearly." He stops short of naming Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld. But they're responsible. Zinni also hedges about who, exactly, is to blame for getting the weapons intelligence on Iraq so desperately wrong, but I think the CIA got screwed around by this war's architects, which may account for the current mess in Washington. posted by Michael Scott Moore | 8:10 PM | |
|
|
 Too Much of Nothing, a novel  Politics and Prose  about our editor 
The Underground Grammarian  current Berlin blog page  |
