Minister Al-X

Draft Anthony Zinni for U.S. Senate (Pennsylvania) 2006!

*Please note that this is a draft. The actual posting for this will end up at Young Philly Politics

Like most Democrats, I’m sick of losing. Losing, however, is a symptom of much greater problems for Democrats and Progressives. One major part of the problem is structural—we lack an effective and efficient party organization, we lack sufficient messaging capabilities—but the other problem stems from our inability to frame ourselves in a way that appeals to the people whom we claim to represent. One key to successfully reframing our party is to field candidates who embody the frames we’re trying to put forth, and the lack of strategic thinking when it comes to putting forth national candidates is one area where we desperately need to improve. So with that in mind, I am putting forth this suggestion- that in the biggest race of 2006, the race for Rick Santorum’s Senate Seat, that it is insufficient to put forth a candidate who will simply win. This is why I am advocating that we Draft Anthony Zinni for US Senate in 2006.

Here’s a short Zinni bio:

Anthony Zinni was born in 1947 to Italian immigrants in Philadelphian. Zinni’s father gained his citizenship through his enrollment as an American soldier in World War II.

Zinni joined the Marine Corps while enrolled in Villanova University in 1961, and he was made a an infantry second lieutenant when he graduated, with a BA in Economics, in ‘65.

His numerous assignments for the military brought Zinni to over 70 countries, and into contact with numerous and diverse cultures. As Frank Kaplan notes:

His final posting, before retiring in 2000, was commander in chief of U.S. Central Command (CentCom)—the command that, under his successor, Gen. Tommy Franks, ran the war in Iraq. Through his 40-year military career, Zinni was director of operations for the Somalia task force (before and after the Mogadishu disaster, but not during), head of the Marines' counterterrorism unit, commander in chief of U.S. European Command, deputy commandant of the Marine Corps, commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, director of various training and doctrine commands, and a decorated Vietnam veteran. Finally, from 2002-03, Secretary of State Colin Powell named Zinni to be his special envoy to the Middle East.

The BBC bio on Zinni notes that:

During his time (in Vietnam), he lived with Vietnamese people, learned the language and had little contact with other Americans.

"I immersed myself in that culture," he told the Washington Post in 1998. "I saw the world differently than my peers ... I viewed it through my prism."
The general says his experience taught him the importance of developing understanding of different cultures, particularly non-Western ones.

It also notes that when Zinni took over CentCom he “began learning Arabic, read a string of books on Arab culture, and spent several months traveling to meet Arab leaders.”

Zinni’s travels have helped him to keep an open mind when dealing with people with different cultures and beliefs. As Zinni noted “I have spent my life as a U.S. military man in the Caribbean, in the Far East, in Africa, in the Middle East, in Southwest Asia, and in Central Asia, in Europe, Eastern Europe. Our biggest flaw is that we never take time to understand the culture. Some things we do that make perfect sense to us do not make perfect sense in another culture.”

This, I believe, would be the first frame that Zinni could help us to push- that we need to be more understanding of other cultures and work with the International Community to solve our collective security problems.

It also doesn’t hurt that Zinni is very well educated. Besides his studies at Villanova, Zinni

has attended numerous military schools and courses including the Army Special Warfare School, the Marine Corps Amphibious Warfare School, the Marine Corps Command and Staff College, and National War College. He holds a bachelor's degree in economics from Villanova University, a master's in international relations from Salvae Regina College, a master's in management and supervision from Central Michigan University, and honorary doctorate’s from William and Mary College and the Maine Maritime academy.

And before you ask “is Zinni even a Democrat?” The answer is “no”, unless something has drastically changed. Zinni voted for Bush the first time, and has called himself a “Lugar-Hagel-Powell” Republican. But then again, Wes Clark voted for Reagan and Nixon, and possibly the first Bush, and he tried to become the Democratic nominee for president in 2004.

But, and this gets to the heart of what I’m trying to say, we need to reframe what it means to be a Republican and a Democrat. Why in the world would this incredibly intelligent and open-minded working class guy, who has selflessly given his life to his country, align himself with religious extremists (many of whom, I might add, hate Catholics), neoconservative fanatics, and the corporate-greed lobby? I don’t know for certain what the answer to this is, but my guess is that Zinni felt that the Republicans were the stronger party, and that the Democrats were just a bunch of spoiled brats who thought that everything in the world should be provided to them, and who didn’t understand the harsh realities of the world we live in. This brings me to the first image that we must reframe- the Democrats need to be seen, once again, as the party of Strength

Democrats Are The Party Of Strength
Here is the perception that Democrats must fight, from an interview with General Wes Clark, on why he voted for Nixon, Reagan, and the first Bush:

I fought so that people could demonstrate in the streets and have the freedom to voice their disagreement with the government. But unfortunately, those disagreements often focused on not the government (policies) . . . but on the people that were carrying them out. I was just doing my duty as a soldier. I didn't make the policy in Vietnam, but I did raise my right hand and take an oath to obey the orders of the commander-in-chief.

How can any mature person blame our soldiers for our leader’s mistakes? War is hell, and you know what? Bad things happen in hell. If you don’t want those hellish things to happen don’t start wars (obviously when you have the choice), but once it starts don’t blame shit on our troops. Our troops are out there laying sacrificing for their country, and it is never their fault if they are misused or sent into action without a good strategy for winning. I have no idea how based in fact this perception of Democrats was (I assume that it was largely overblown), but the perception is there, and it is seriously damaging the image of Democrats, and thus our chances for winning back our majority status.

This quote from General Clark, where he describes why he left the Republican Party illustrates the shift in party identification that I hope a Zinni candidate could foster.

Well, in the United States Army you never have a party, at least most of us didn't as far as I know. You just voted for people that were strong for national security. When Bill Clinton ran in '92 and I listened to him and I had of course known of his record from Arkansas, I found him extraordinarily inspirational and I voted Democratic. I later ended up working around the White House when I was at the Pentagon. I was back and forth across the Potomac for various staff meetings and so forth. And I was impressed with the people in the Clinton administration . . . . That's when I learned that the old myths were wrong. That it wasn't that the Republicans were tough and strong on defense and the Democrats were soft and blame America. I t was really that the Republican Party had become shrill and partisan and isolationist and the Democrats were working mightily to craft a new strategy to take us into a new world. And that's where I found myself.

But while I feel that Zinni could help reframe the national security image of Democrats, he could also help us to reframe many other issues as well.

Healthcare as a National Security Issue
Zinni can help us talk about a strong national health care system as a national security issue. Zinni is at the fore of military thought and he understands that we now face threats from a variety on non-traditional areas, the most disturbing of which is the possibility of a large scale WMD attack.

As Zinni has noted:

We will eventually see a weapon of mass destruction used in a terrorist act. And, I would say we had better start thinking about how we're going to be prepared for the threat, because we're woefully unprepared for that event, and that's inevitable.

And as this study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)- a semi-governmental non-partisan defense think tank- points out:

The US and its allies also need to rethink internal security planning, public health, response, and defense efforts to deal with the broad range of CBRN threats. This requires us to refocus homeland defense on attacks using each type of CBRN weapons, and covert means of delivery.

Within the United States, we need to examine the full range of options for defense and response, make hard trade offs between them, and develop an integrated mix of federal programs to deal with them. The most urgent effort, however, should be in dealing with biological attacks, simply because they combine high potential lethality with greater ease of acquisition and use. This means developing new detection, characterization, and warning systems where these can be proved to be cost-effective. It also means rethinking the national stockpile of vaccines and medical goods, and our investment in public health services and surplus medical capacity.

As Ron Brookmeyer, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, noted (sorry, the link to this is now dead):

Strengthening the public health infrastructure to improve early detection and rapid response is going to be a better use of resources to improve disease surveillance and to get drugs out to people quicker than a mass pre-attack vaccine program

Strong defense equals a strong public health system. I believe we have a lot bigger chance of getting hit with a biological agent than a nuclear one--do to the much lower restrictions on production, acquisition, transport, and delivery-- so why are we investing in Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems that don't work instead of building up a dual-use public health system?

Affirmative Action and Education.
Zinni was a signature of the 'friend-of-the-court brief' in defense of Affirmative Action. You can tell from this that education itself is vital, in the eyes of the military, to maintain national security.

As the brief states:

Based on decades of experience, amici have concluded that a highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps educated and trained to command our nation’s racially diverse enlisted ranks is essential to the military’s ability to fulfill its principal mission to provide national security.
...
The absence of minority officers seriously threatened the military’s ability to function effectively and fulfill its mission to defend the nation.
...
The crisis that mandated aggressive integration of the officer corps in the service academies and in ROTC programs is a microcosm of what exists in our society at large, albeit with potentially more severe consequences to our nation’s welfare. Broad access to the education that leads to leadership roles is essential to public confidence in the fairness and integrity of public institutions, and their ability to perform their vital functions and missions.

Honesty and Accountability in Government/Speaking Up in a Time of War
Zinni, one of the most outspoken critics of the Iraq War, had this to say about those who try to silence dissent in a time of war.

Look, there is one statement that bothers me more than anything else, and that's the idea that when the troops are in combat everybody has to shut up. Imagine if we put troops in combat with a faulty rifle, and that rifle was malfunctioning and troops were dying as a result. I can't think anyone would allow that to happen, that would not speak up. Well, what's the difference between a faulty plan and strategy that's getting just as many troops killed?

And this about holding our leaders accountable for their actions:

”I blame the civilian leadership of the Pentagon directly. Because if they were given the responsibility, and if this was their war, and by everything that I understand, they promoted it and pushed it - certain elements in there certainly - even to the point of creating their own intelligence to match their needs, then they should bear the responsibility,” he says.

”But regardless of whose responsibility I think it is, somebody has screwed up. And at this level and at this stage, it should be evident to everybody that they've screwed up. And whose heads are rolling on this? That's what bothers me most.”

Adds Zinni: “If you charge me with the responsibility of taking this nation to war, if you charge me with implementing that policy with creating the strategy which convinces me to go to war, and I fail you, then I ought to go.”

On lying to the public to go to war:

I also think the case that was made to the American people for going in was exaggerated. And I think that's dangerous. We've been down that road before. If it was to take down Saddam because he is bad and evil, if it was to improve things in the region, if it was a strategic decision based on some strategic assessment, it should have run on its own merits.

Other Possible Framing Areas And Marketing Areas:
1. Deficits are a national security problem.
2. Maintaining a strong manufacturing base is a national security issue.
3. Environmental Protection has a national security componant.
4. Zinni is a strong and handsome father-figure type guy, qualities that should help any candidate to win.

I'm sure that there are other framing areas that I am leaving out here, and all of this would, in my opinion, have to be tested out across the state to guage the actuall effectiveness of each area.

Oh, there’s another problem with drafting Zinni to run for office, other than the fact that he hasn’t left the party that turned its back on national security. Zinni has stated unequivocally that he would not run for public office. Here’s one episode where he was asked about the possibility:

At the end of an appearance by Zinni before the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington on Tuesday night, the event’s host, Washington power broker, Aspen Institute president, and former CNN head Walter Isaacson turned to Zinni, a registered Republican, and suggested that Kerry might call him and say, “You should run with me on a ticket of national unity.”
The audience of 200 retired State Department officials, Washington lawyers, and foreign policy think tank experts burst into applause.
Zinni replied, “I’m not interested in any political office in either party.” When Isaacson persisted, Zinni said, “Do you have trouble with the ‘N’ or the ‘O’?”

And as this piece notes: Zinni vows that he has learned a lesson. Reminded that he endorsed Bush in 2000, he says, "I'm not going to do anything political again -- ever. I made that mistake one time.

Maybe it’s just my imagination, but I have faith that if we drafted Zinni to run that he would actually consider it. I mean nobody has been more outspoken about the internal threat faced by the Neo-Cons. Nobody has had a better seat to watch as the Bush Administration guts the military, state, and intelligence agencies. And I believe that Zinni understands the unique threat we face from this revolutionary administration, so why wouldn’t he, in the face of a great threat to our nation, heed the call to once again protect and serve the United States of America?

Draft Anthony Zinni for US Senate in 2006!

posted by Anonymous @ 8:28 PM