[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 6]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 7862-7863]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




GENERAL ANTHONY ZINNI: HIS VISION FOR NATIONAL SECURITY BRING STABILITY 
        WHERE THERE IS INSTABILITY THAT IS THE BATTLE FOR PEACE

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, 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.

[[Page 7863]]

  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.

                          ____________________