One of the harshest criticisms I’ve seen of the Bush administration’s war in Iraq came last Thursday in a devastating critique that lamented the White House’s failure to plan for peace before the war and reliance on deception in the buildup towards war. The surprise, however, was the source.
“My contemporaries, our feelings and sensitivities were forged on the battlefields of Vietnam, where we heard the garbage and the lies, and we saw the sacrifice,” this person, who was severely wounded while serving as an infantry officer in that conflict, said. “I ask you, is it happening again?”
So, who said it? John Kerry at the Democratic debate? John McCain on the Senate floor? Wesley Clark in New Hampshire?
No, it was Gen. Anthony Zinni speaking to the U.S. Naval Institute and the Marine Corps Association. Zinni, as you may know, is a Republican who endorsed Bush in the last election. He currently serves as a consultant to the Bush administration’s State Department, was former President Bush’s Middle East envoy, and is the former commander of Centcom. This President Bush has even sent Zinni to represent the administration to negotiate with Israel and the Palestinians in 2001.
Zinni’s criticism, in other words, carries some weight.
“There is no strategy or mechanism for putting the pieces together [in Iraq],” Zinni said, so “we’re in danger of failing.”
Zinni also specifically charged Bush with declaring “Mission Accomplished” far too early.
“It’s not a phased conflict,” Zinni said. “There isn’t a fighting part and then another part. At the end of the third inning we declared victory and said the game’s over. It ain’t over.”
This isn’t the first time Zinni has spoken out against Bush’s Middle East policies. In October 2002, the former general warned in advance of the Iraqi invasion, “It’s pretty interesting that all the generals see it the same way, and all the others who have never fired a shot, and are hot to go to war, see it another. We are about to do something that will ignite a fuse in this region. [We] will rue the day we ever started.”
What’s striking about last week’s comments, however, were their tone and their audience. For Zinni to compare the “garbage and lies” associated with Vietnam with the failures of the Bush administration on Iraq is startling. Of course, it’s also correct.
As for the audience, Bush was speaking to professional groups for military officers. Not only was Zinni’s condemnation well received, it was also capped with “prolonged applause at the end,” according to a Washington Post reporter in attendance. “Some officers bought tapes and compact discs of the speech to give to others,” the Post’s Thomas Ricks reported.
This is fascinating to me. The perception that Bush and the GOP are in lock-step with the military is completely false. They’re growing more distant all the time. In fact, as I’ve been arguing for months, the political support from U.S. troops may be shifting very quickly away from the Republicans.
The GOP, after all, has supported a pay cut for the troops in Iraq, cuts in soldiers’ family-separation allowance, less funding for military housing, cuts to the military’s construction budget, cuts in veterans’ benefits, and cuts to schools for children of soldiers who fought in Iraq.
As blogger Daily Kos, who served in the military, said last week, “We’re witnessing a profound cultural change within our military’s officer ranks. There is a sudden realization that things were pretty good under the last Democratic president, and that Bush has made a profound mess of things. Under Clinton, all they had to worry about was gays in the military. Now, they have to worry about dead comrades, shattered lives, broken families, and an administration that gives lip service to our men and women in uniform while ignoring their real needs.”
Hmm, maybe if Dems nominated an experienced military leader with broad national appeal, we might actually win next year. Paging Gen. Clark…