The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
Source: Anthony Zinni, remarks to Economic Club of Florida, Iraq-related transcript, Center for Defense Information (CDI), 23 August 2002, http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/generalsview.cfm Zinni is a ‘CDI Distinguished Military Fellow’. CDI Zinni Url: http://www.cdi.org/aboutcdi/Zinni.html Center for Defense Information transcript introduction: [begin] Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni (Ret.) was commander in chief of the U.S. Central Command, which commands U.S. forces in much of the Middle East and Central Asia, during 1997-2000. He was the first to have served previously as deputy commander in chief of the command. He had also been deputy commanding general of the combined task force during Operation Provide Comfort immediately after the Gulf War, and commander of the combined task force for Operation United Shield. After a speech about the Israeli-Palestinian peace process to the Economic Club of Florida on August 23, 2002, he made the following comments in response to a question about a war against Iraq. [end] Excerpts: [begin] Attacking Iraq now will cause a lot of problems. I think the debate right now that's going on is very healthy. If you ask me my opinion, Gen. Scowcroft, Gen. Powell, Gen. Schwarzkopf, Gen. Zinni, maybe all see this the same way. It might be interesting to wonder why all the generals see it the same way, and all those that never fired a shot in anger and are really hell bent to go to war see it a different way. That's usually the way it is in history. But let me tell you what the problem is now as I see it, if you need to weigh this: what are your priorities in the region? That's the first issue in my mind. The Middle East peace process, in my mind, has to be a higher priority. Winning the war on terrorism has to be a higher priority. More directly, the situation in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Central Asia needs to be resolved, making sure al Qaeda can't rise again from the ashes, [that they are] destroyed. [That the] Taliban cannot come back. That the warlords can't gain power over Kabul and [Afghan President] Karzai, and destroy everything that has happened so far. Our relationships in the region are in major disrepair, not to the point where we can't fix them, but we need to quit making enemies we don't need to make enemies out of. And we need to fix those relationships. There's a deep chasm growing between that part of the world and our part of the world. And it's strange, about a month after 9/11, they were sympathetic and compassionate toward us ... how did it happen over the last year? And we need to look at that — that is a higher priority. The country that started all this, Iran, is about to turn around, 180 degrees. We ought to be focused on that. The father of extremism, the home of the ayatollah — the young people are ready to throw out the mullahs and turn around, become a secular society and throw off these ideas of extremism. That is more important and critical. They're the ones that funded Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations. That ought to be a focus. And I can give you many, many more before you get down to Saddam and Iraq. Our friends in the region who, a couple years ago, every time we wanted to throw a bomb at Saddam, kept saying, "Why don't you get serious? We'll support you if you take him out. But if you're only going to piss him off and let him rise from the ashes, we don't want to do it." Now that we want to do it, it's the wrong time. He'll drag Israel into the war. The mood on the street is very hostile at this moment. It is the wrong time. You could create a backlash to regimes that are friendly to us. You could create a sense [in the region] of anti Arab, anti Islamic feelings from the West, [people could] misinterpret the attack. We could end up with collateral damage. You could inherit the country of Iraq, if you're willing to do it — if our economy is so great that you're willing to put billions of dollars into reforming Iraq. If you want to put soldiers that are already stretched so thin all around the world and add them into a security force there forever, like we see in places like the Sinai. If you want to fight with other countries in the region to try to keep Iraq together as Kurds try and split off and Shiites try and split off, you're going to have to make a good case for that. And that's what I think has to be done, that's my honest opinion. You're going to have to tell me the threat is there, right now, that it's immediate, that it takes the priority over all those things I've just mentioned. [end] Nathaniel Hurd 90 7th Ave. Apt. #6 Brooklyn, NY 11217 Tel. (M): 917-407-3389 Tel. (H): 718-857-7639 _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk