Analysis: Blurring Political Lines in the Military Debate

Anthony Zinni before forced retirement

WASHINGTON, Dec. 4 — No military expert was more forthright in opposing the Iraq war than Anthony C. Zinni.

General Zinni, a retired marine who once served as the top American military officer in the Middle East, contended that the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was vastly overstated and that invading Iraq would be a burdensome distraction from the struggle against Al Qaeda.

These days General Zinni is delivering another provocative message: that leaving Iraq quickly would strengthen Iranian influence throughout the Middle East, create a sanctuary for terrorist groups, encourage even more sectarian strife in Iraq and risk turmoil in an oil-rich region.

“This is not Vietnam or Somalia or those places where you can walk away,” General Zinni said in a recent interview. (He served in both countries.) “If we just pull out, we will find ourselves back in short order.”

Instead, he says, the United States should leave open the door for a temporary increase in American troops, an argument he included in a broader plan prepared for the World Security Institute, a research organization, and made public on Monday. “It may be necessary to surge them for a short term,” he said.

General Zinni noted that his position was similar to that of Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, a staunch supporter of the decision to invade. “I do believe more troops are required on the ground,” the general said. “I believe what Senator McCain says.”

The Iraq debate roiling Washington cuts across partisan divides and has led to some odd bedfellows. For example, the troop reduction and pullback options suggested by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in a memo written just before he resigned reflect some convergence between him and Democratic lawmakers who have criticized the war.

Read the rest at the Washington Post