Zinni, again

Well, I finished 'Battle Ready'. It was a really fascinating read. I didn't know, going into it, that Zinni had been the special envoy for Palestinian/Israeli peace talks in 2002-3. It was fascinating to read about his personal interactions with Sharon and Arafat and his opinions of them.

(Remember I said he'd been in the news? He was on 60 Minutes, and here's one report of what he said.)

Some ideas (his) and thoughts (mine) from the rest of the book:

TZ: Clinton's strategy of engagement and multilateralism was right.
SM: I agree with this. I didn't agree with Bush in his campaign when he said 'no nation-building'. Now he's trying to build two nations after having been isolationist and unilateralist. Makes it hard.

TZ: Middle Eastern leaders complained, when he was CINC of CENTCOM, that the US didn't listen enough to them, in crises, and, even worse, between them. We just came with our own agenda.

SM: Based on Zinni's arguments, I conclude that Al Qaeda is the first post-national state.

TZ objected to Ahmed Chalabi from the start, and now he's been charged with spying.

TZ: Politics in Washington are vicious and petty.

TZ really likes Musharraf (of Pakistan), and he relates a fair number of positive stories about him.

SM: I'm not sure Zinni's position on peace/negotiating/no judgments works. I'm much more compelled by seeking justice, which requires judgments. Maybe he's right from the standpoint of trying to get something done. But peace without justice usually leads to more injustice, and, thus, the seeds of future conflict. Truth, forgiveness, and reconciliation (like in South Africa) also work. I don't think Zinni would advocate peace at any cost, but we've got to keep away from that.

TZ has a lot of respect for Colin Powell.

He viewed Arafat as the major barrier to the peace process, that Arafat wouldn't confront Hamas et al.

TZ takes too much blame for the presenting 'bridging proposals' which Arafat later used as an excuse for stalling the process again.

SM: At the end of the book, Zinni makes an impassioned plea for values in USAmerica. Values would be nice. But I believe that we've cut lose the moorings we had that allowed us to share common values. I believe we're in an age when there aren't enough of us who have enough in common to share values that won't be undercut by those who decide to go the Nietzschean route and do whatever they want that they can.

Please understand me: I'm not arguing that everyone should have my values or their foundational principles. I'm simply assessing that, without common foundations we can't come up with common values.

I see Zinni as a first generation relativist: he believes in a god (he happens to be Catholic), but he won't tell you what to believe, though he wants you to believe in a Higher Power. That stuff doesn't work in the second generation. They conclude, rightly I think, that if it doesn't matter which god I believe in, there must not be a god at all. Then chances are slim that we'll arrive at common values.

But I recommend this book if you're interested in the military of the last 40 years and its place in international relations. It was the perfect mix for me and the best of this series. I read almost every word, and that's saying a lot.