General Anthony Zinni: His Vision for National Security Brings Stability where there is Instability that is the Battle for Peace

GENERAL ANTHONY ZINNI: HIS VISION FOR NATIONAL SECURITY BRING STABILITY WHERE THERE IS INSTABILITY THAT IS THE BATTLE FOR PEACE -- (Extensions of Remarks - May 10, 2006)

* Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor General Anthony Zinni for his courage and for his vision for Peace and to insert into the Congressional Record an article published in the Washington Post on April 10, 2006, entitled ``A General with an Alternative Vision.'' His recently published book with Tony Koltz is entitled The Battle for Peace: A Frontline Vision of America's Power and Purpose. I am pleased General Zinni is now an author of his third book. I am especially pleased that this third book is available now at this time in our country's history when General Zinni's ideas and leadership are so sorely needed.

* The Washington Post calls General Zinni a ``General with an Alternative Vision.'' It is that alternative vision which I want to celebrate in this Record. Because General Zinni has a vision for America he is able to set out specific strategic goals he believes would achieve his vision for America. According to General Zinni, this Nation's purpose and most important strategic goal is to bring stability wherever there is instability. It is his belief that stability should be the centerpiece of the Nation's national security policy and the most important purpose of the U.S. government. As Michael Abramowitz, National Editor of the Washington Post put it in this article, Zinni's view of ``job number one'' for the U.S. government as ``Wresting order out of a chaotic world.'' The remarkable part of this vision and purpose for American and its part in the battle for peace is that it is a combat hardened veteran and diplomat who has had the vision. War and a near-death experience in Vietnam; listening to the rationale for the loss of 60,000 Americans in Vietnam and hearing similarities in the rationales given for going to war in Iraq and a promise he made himself as he lay dying in Vietnam to always speak the General Zinni has envisioned it, is who General Zinni is and the events that have shaped his life.

* Upon graduating from Villanova University in 1965, Anthony Zinni was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Marine Corps. Sent to Vietnam in 1967 as a Infantry Battalion Advisor to the Vietnamese Marine Corp, he returned as a company commander where he suffered life threatening wounds, taking three rounds from an AK-47 in the chest and back.

* From 1997 to 2000, he was Commander in Chief of the U.S. 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 him. Following his retirement, he was selected by the President Bush to one of the highest diplomatic posts in the administration, special envoy to the Middle East. General Zinni has 40 years serving his country as a marine and as a diplomat. He is widely respected. He is known for his candor.

* General Zinni supported the Bush-Cheney ticket in 2000 but broke with the administration on the issue of going to war in Iraq. He spoke out in print and on television against an invasion of Iraq. In his first book, Battle Ready written with co-author Torn Clancy, Gen. Zinni wrote that he saw true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility in the lead up to the war as well as lying, incompetence and corruption. He was especially critical of the insufficient number of forces and lack of planning for the invasion. He voiced his criticism on the CBS program 60 Minutes. He blamed the war on the civilian leadership at the Pentagon. General Zinni characterized the Iraq war as one the generals did not want but the civilians at the pentagon wanted.

* In his new book, The Battle for Peace: A Frontline Vision of American's Power and Purpose General Zinni has in fact become a visionary. I have long searched for a visionary for our beleaguered military. Our forces are stretched dangerously thin in Iraq, a war based on lies from President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rice and others in the Administration who deliberately sold the war as a ``product'' to the Congress and the American people. I have looked back on General Zinni's statements on 60 Minutes and as quoted in The Washington Post. In an article by Thomas E. Ricks in the December 23 2003, issue of The Washington Post General Zinni was quoted stating: ``Iraq is in serious danger of coming apart because of lack of planning, underestimating the task and buying into a flawed strategy,'' he says. ``The longer we stubbornly resist admitting the mistakes and not altering our approach, the harder it will be to pull this chestnut out of the fire.'' Ricks wrote: ``Zinni long has worried that there are worse outcomes possible in Iraq than having Saddam Hussein in power--such as eliminating him in such a way that Iraq will become a new haven for terrorism in the Middle East.'' Again, Zinni was quoted:

* ``I think a weakened, fragmented, chaotic Iraq, which could happen if this isn't done carefully, is more dangerous in the long run than a contained Saddam is now,'' he told reporters in 1998. ``I don't think these questions have been thought through or answered.''

* We know now Gen. Zinni's words were prescient. That is why it is so important we listen to him now when he talks about the use of our military in the future and the goal of our national security policy. Although General Zinni remains a strong critic of the Bush Administration, this book The Battle for Peace is not a screed against the administration, but it is a condemnation of its war policies and its use of the military. But what is best about the book is that it contains a positive plan for real national security. He remains a strong critic of the Bush Administration. In fact, in The Battle for Peace, General Zinni offers a vision of national security policy and national purpose that is the complete opposite of those stated by President Bush. In doing so, General Zinni offers the harshest and truest criticism of President Bush's most recent rationale for his misbegotten Iraq war. There is no talk in Zinni's book of bringing ``freedom to the people of the world because all men and women deserve to be free.'' There is no talk of making democracies so they will become our allies.'' Instead Gen. Zinni gives pragmatic and realistic ideas and plans for stabilizing any nation-state or country that is about to destabilize.

* In his book Zinni writes: ``The real threats do not come from military forces or violent attacks; they do not come from a nation-state or hostile non-state entity. They do not derive from an ideology (not even from a radical, West-hating, violent brand of lslam). The real new threats come from Instability. Instability and the chaos it generates can spark large and dangerous changes anywhere in the land.''

* General Zinni believes that the most urgent problem facing the country is the problem posed by dysfunctional countries or those in danger of becoming dysfunctional. These countries, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, are the breeding grounds for the radicals and terrorists who hate the United States and want to attack us.

* But, General Zinni believes we cannot rely only on the military to solve the problems we face from these countries. He believes we use the military in ways that alienate other countries. Most importantly, General Zinni, a military veteran and retired General believes we should better organize U.S. agencies to respond to droughts, famines and civil wars and other sources of instability before they metastasize into situations that require military force. He advocates for an interdepartmental team drawn from relevant agencies to watch for tensions and other signs of instability and a deployable force of civilians to handle recovery and reconstruction in war zones.

* I view General Zinni's statement of what he believes should be this nation's purpose and plan for national security to be a direct refutation of President Bush's often stated depiction of our ``enemy'' the one driven by an evil ideology who ``lurks'' everywhere and must be fought ``over there,'' as well as General Zinni's strong statement that it is the business of the U.S. to bring stability where there is chaos is a reality based statement of what our national purpose should be.

* General Zinni was one of the generals who endorsed President Bush in 2000. It is clear now that he would take the country in an entirely different direction on national security than the path the President is on. That is in sync with the American people who also believe the President is taking the country in the wrong direction. [From the Washington Post, Apr. 10, 2006]

A GENERAL WITH AN ALTERNATIVE VISION
(By Michael Abramowitz)

Well into his new book, Gen. Tony Zinni lists what he thinks ought to be the nation's strategic goals. They include, among other things, keeping regions and countries stable; making unstable countries stable; and working with regional partners to address unstable conditions. For Zinni, stability is the lodestar of modem national security policy. Wresting order out of a chaotic world is the mission he sees as job number one for the U.S. government.

``The real threats do not come from military forces or violent attacks; they do not come from a nation-state or hostile non-state entity. They do not derive from an ideology (not even from a radical, West-hating, violent brand of Islam),'' Zinni writes. ``The real new threats come from Instability. Instability and the chaos it generates can spark large and dangerous changes anywhere in the land.''

Notably absent from Zinni's list is any mention of spreading democracy and freedom, among the goals articulated recently by the White House in its National Security Strategy, often with soaring, idealistic rhetoric. The document states: ``The United States possesses unprecedented--and unequaled--strength and influence in the world. Sustained by faith in the principles of liberty, and the value of a free society, this position comes with unparalleled responsibilities, obligations, and opportunity. The great strength of this nation must be used to promote a balance of power that favors freedom.''

Zinni's contrast in tone and emphasis seems purposeful. With ``The Battle for Peace,'' the retired Marine general has set out to present an alternative vision of the national interest to the one espoused by President Bush. It is a less ambitious, more incrementalist vision. If adopted by the Democrats, his dry, bureaucratic approach may lack for popular appeal. Yet might it bring about a more rational alignment of our national purpose with our fiscal and military resources? That is the implicit question raised in this slender volume by one of the nation's most prominent military voices.

Zinni is a combat veteran whose experience in Vietnam brought him three rounds from an AK-47 and a near-death experience. Before retiring, Zinni served as chief of the military's Central Command, which oversees operations in the Middle East and South Asia, a post that brought him into direct contact with many of the region's leading political and military figures and a firsthand experience in the most challenging foreign policy questions facing the United States. He was one of a raft of former generals who endorsed Bush for president in 2000, but he has since broken with the administration over what he sees as its ill-thought-out adventurism in Iraq. Zinni was against the war before it was popular to be so.

Those hoping for an intemperate screed against Bush's policies, however, will be disappointed. Zinni writes soberly and, largely, without invective. Although he disapproves of what he considers Bush's excessive faith in military power and the imprudence of the Iraq invasion, he does not frontally attack the administration. But by the end of this book, it is clear Zinni would have us move into a radically different direction on national security matters.

Zinni believes far too little thought and attention are being paid to the management of what, as he describes it, is the most urgent issue facing the country--how to manage the problems posed by dysfunctional countries or those that are in danger of becoming dysfunctional. Those countries, such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, are the breeding grounds for the radicals and terrorists who hate the United States and want to attack us.

Yet as Zinni tells it, we have expertise in only one tool--military force--for dealing with these countries, and we too often use our power in ways that alienate other societies. He offers a variety of proposals to better organize U.S. agencies to respond to droughts, famines, civil wars and other sources of instability before they metastasize into situations that require military force. He wants an interdepartmental team drawn from relevant agencies to watch for tensions and other signs of instability and a deployable force of civilians to handle recovery and reconstruction in war zones.

This is not an easy book to read. Even with the help of a professional writer, there is a fair amount of jargon in here, and the structure of the book is a bit mysterious. Zinni veers between interesting accounts of his involvement in various crises--such as the effort to aid the Iraqi Kurds after the Persian Gulf War--and his analysis of the shortcomings in U.S. grand strategy and how we are organized to deal with the threats of the 21st century. It is hard to judge whether his proposals would amount to more than a reshuffling of the bureaucratic deck.

Still, Zinni is an interesting man, and he has a lot of interesting things to say about the dangers of pursuing our current course in foreign policy. He is a distinctly non-ideological man in an era when ideology is running rampant both home and abroad. He seems to be saying that the world is full of problems that can be better managed if only we had more competent U.S. leadership, different bureaucracies and less idealism from our leaders. The premise is debatable, but the next president may decide to give it a go.

http://thomas.loc.gov