60 Minutes: General Zinni to Bushies: You Screwed Up The War

There is no question that Don Hewett's 60 Minutes, where The Don is about to fade into the reddish-bronze sunset of retirement on Martha's Vinyard, has been perhaps the most influential anti-Bush media outlet. Howard Stern probably ranks in a close second, pulling the conservative ethnic Democrats as well as Republican white manual labor crowds, people who usually might normally vote for Bush, but won't. But one would be hard pressed indeed to find another media player other than 60 Minutes so consistently and brutally anti-Bush, not even the New york Times. And Sunday night's 60 Minutes continues that trend, with the clock ticking for the Bush Administration's demise.

Bill Clinton's former Commander-in-Chief of Centcomm, Ret. Gen Anthony Zinni, is not happy with the way the Bushies are handling the war, according to the CBS 60 Minutes website:

"Accusing top Pentagon officials of 'dereliction of duty,' retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni says staying the course in Iraq isn't a reasonable option.

"'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,' he tells CBS News Correspondent Steve Kroft in an interview to be broadcast on 60 Minutes, Sunday, May 23, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

"The current situation in Iraq was destined to happen, says Zinni, because planning for the war and its aftermath has been flawed all along.

"'There has been poor strategic thinking in this...poor operational planning and execution on the ground,' says Zinni, who served as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Central Command from 1997 to 2000."

This sets up Zinni to address the ongoing Civil War within the the nation at large, the Realists versus the Neoconservatives. Ironically, as it has been, up to now, Conservatives have ridiculed the utopianism and naivite (Nietzsche and Kissinger's favorite perjorative) of the Left.They'd like to buy the world a Coke and we'd like to open markets for soft drinks in Central Asia, that sort of thing. The pendulum swings:

"Zinni blames the poor planning on the civilian policymakers in the administration, known as neo-conservatives, who saw the invasion as a way to stabilize the region and support Israel. He believes these people, who include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense, have hijacked U.S. foreign policy.

"'They promoted it and pushed [the war]... even to the point of creating their own intelligence to match their needs. Then they should bear the responsibility,' Zinni tells Kroft.

"In his upcoming book, 'Battle Ready,' written with Tom Clancy, Zinni writes of the poor planning in harsh terms. 'In the lead-up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw, at minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility; at worst, lying, incompetence and corruption,' he writes.

"Zinni explains to Kroft, 'I think there was dereliction in insufficient forces being put on the ground and [in not] fully understanding the military dimensions of the plan.'"

Could there be--somehow -- a connection with an overly idealistic geopolitical philosophy and the inability to accurately predict and incorporate the military dimensions of that plan? Are idealists at a disadvantage in war, on the ground, in reality? And does the incompetence in executing a ground war serve as a final refutation of idealist philosophy in war? I'm just saying, yo ...

"(Zinni) still believes the situation is salvageable if the United States can communicate more effectively with the Iraqi people and demonstrate a better image to them.

"The enlistment of the U.N. and other countries to participate in the mission is also crucial, he says. Without these things, says Zinni, '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.'

"Also central to success in Iraq is more troops, from the United States and especially other countries, to control violence and patrol borders, he says.

"Zinni feels that undertaking the war with the minimum of troops paved the way for the security problems the U.S. faces there now, the violence Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently admitted he hadn't anticipated.

"'He should not have been surprised,' says Zinni. 'There were a number of people who before we even engaged in this conflict felt strongly that we underestimated ... the scope of the problems we would have in [Iraq].'"

They were called realists.

CBS' 60 Minutes website concludes:

"The fact that no one in the administration has paid for the blunder irks Zinni. 'But regardless of whose responsibility [it is]...it should be evident to everybody that they've screwed up, and whose heads are rolling on this?'"

Perhaps this could be true of Secretary Rumsfeld, if, indeed, his effectiveness and usefulness to the Administration has run it's course. Or, as Senator Warner said last year, Rumsfeld is becoming a "millstone around the President's neck." In that instance, Rummy would resign. I have 50-50 odds that he does.