Zinni: Don't Delay Decision on Afghan War

(CBS)  The former U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General Anthony Zinni, warned that the deliberations over whether to send additional troops to Afghanistan - as many as 40,000, as suggested by General Stanley McChrystal - should not go on too much longer, lest the debate be viewed as indecision or weakness.

On CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday, Zinni said it was positive to have a strategic debate and to take all opinions into account. "But I think we have to be careful how long this goes on," he told CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer. "It could be seen not only out there in the region but our allies, even [by] the enemy, as being indecisive, unable to make a decision."

He questioned why the White House is questioning the advice of their commander in Afghanistan, General McChrystal who made the request for additional troops.

"We have a general out there who is probably the best qualified we could have that's telling us what we need on the ground to have the security space and the time to get those non-military things done," Zinni said. "I just don't understand why we're questioning that judgment at this point.

"I hope this doesn't go on much longer."

The former commander said he agrees that America's success in Afghanistan is dependent upon an influx of troops. "I don't know much about the politics but I can certainly tell you, to prosecute the military perspective you have the finest lineup in Mullen, and McChrystal on the ground. It is what you need on the ground if you're going to make this kind of strategy work," he said.

Asked if he thought al Qaeda would make Afghanistan a safe haven should the Taliban return to power in the region, Zinni said, "I think they could find themselves with the safe sanctuary inside Afghanistan to work against the Pakistani military in the tribal areas, in the Swat Valley - just like the reverse, when they went into Pakistan to fight our forces there."

He warned that the battle over an Afghan strategy is not just about militants, but also about neighboring India and Pakistan. "We have two nations out there with nuclear weapons, one of which had the Taliban 65 miles from their capital. We have the Taliban and others trying to provoke some sort of conflict between these two nations. We also have a Taliban that is stretching their influence into Central Asia."

In the debate over the U.S. supplying more combat troops versus simply providing forces to train the indigenous military, Zinni (who has trained local militias) said that while it's "wonderful" to have trainers on ground, "Who protects the trainers? Who ensures the roads they're on aren't going to be full of IEDs because you can't control them? If you don't have enough forces on the ground, you give maneuvering space to the enemy, [and] the freedom to attack our outposts that are remote, ineffectively manned. I think you need both. It's not a matter of either/or."

[yossid85]

Since Biblical times and given the rush to war in the case of Iraq;President Obama will be ill-advised to rush this critical decision.
The great thing about America is that the civilian leadership makes the call to war not and not the generals;less so Bush's generals.General Zinni didn't win the war during his command. So should Obama listen to him??.
In this chorus of surge and surge;it's instructive to remind ourselves about the original mission of the war,namely:dismantle,destroy el qaeda and capture or kill Ben Laden.
President Bush and Congress approved that mission not counterinsurgency and nation-building.Its a question of smart versus dumb war;its about open-ended versus clearly defined mission!!1.

[AOCGUY]

"The former U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General Anthony Zinni ..."

Gen Zinni was never the U.S. Commander in Afghanistan. He was the Commander in Chief (CinC) of US Central Command from August 1997 to September 2000 when he retired from the USMC. Gen Zinni can speak with authority on this subject but when CBS begins an article with an easily researched inaccuracy, the rest of the article becomes suspect.

[formrusmcsgt]

He questioned why the White House is questioning the advice of their commander in Afghanistan, General McChrystal who made the request for additional troops.
---
Zinni doesn't understand the acronym CIC after all his years of service?

[pvperson3]

Bush took 4 months to decide his "surge" in Iraq and then went AGAINST his Generals to decree the increase, let's not even mention the waste of increasing troops into the WRONG country, let's just give Obama the same courtesy given the Shrub.

[Regats]

RE: Impeach Obama:

Okey Dokey.

But first, give him a chance to launch a fair and reasonable health care
system with a public option, to counter the bottomless greed and corruption of private insurers and pharmaceutical giants.

Let him wind down the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan but concentrate on capturing Bin Ladin, and maybe leave a small contingent of military to train Afghan allies to combat the Taliban.

Start getting paid back the loans made to auto and finance companies as the economy recovers and unemployment begins to wane.

Then, go ahead. Impeach the bum.

[odiecologne]

We salute all our troups and their service. The current Admin.should listen twice as much as talk. That's why we have two ears.Reading Sun Tzu instead of trying rewrites might achieve victory.Nobody has a crystal ball.Or if the suits think they have all the answers we say.Shuffle UP Buckle Up and hit the LZ.Vaya Con Dios!

[Willyum40]

If Obama decides to not send additional troops, he will be criticized. If he opts to send additional troops he will be criticized for waiting too long to adhere the General's request. Bottom line this is a no-win moment for the president. I applaud the efforts to deliberate and weigh all possible options and I am surprised that there is such a public debate about this matter. As a former member of the military I support the President's decision to fully review this matter and I think that perhaps we should reimpose the draft!

[jwesel1]

It is better to be criticized for not wasting money than for wasting money

[pvperson3]

NOOOO, no draft, then neo-con children would have to serve, WE CAN'T HAVE THAT NOW CAN WE?

[Stevenapoli7]

Tick-tock Obama, tick-tock.

[Regats]

Wasn't he already on Sixty Minutes?

[beejle]

So the military is now decreeing what is and is not "weak" for the civilian leadership. Isn't it too bad that the President will no longer salute, bow, and cry, "Yes, General, whatever you say, General." God, how it must gall the military to have a President who actually wants to understand his options and the reasons for each. What a change from the previous "decider".

[mav547166]

The military holds the gravest respect for the President and the Constitution no matter who sits there. Do not take my word for it though go sign up, learn something about the military and selfless service versus what your grad school education is obviously failing to provide.

[maistir]

The facts of the matter are that Pres. Obama declared that the Afghan war was the essential military conflict (more so, he said, than Iraq). He removed General David McKernan (sp?) from that command in May and replaced him with Gen. McChrystal.

Gen McChrystal has made his recommendation about the military and political needs in Afghanistan. If Pres. Obama will not back up his own appointee, the question must be asked whether he knows what his own policy is? Does his policy in this critical theater of operations change every six months?

Gen. Zinni's comments seem to be perceptive, especially so on a day when the Taliban have launched one of their most successful attacks of the war.