Speechless.
By kowalski Posted in War — Comments (60) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I don't know enough of the details about Sanchez' career to comment on his qualifications as a Commander, but a few things are clear at least:
1) He absolutely, positively hated Paul Bremer.
[Update: Never believe anything you read in the first 24 hours. It's been brought to my attention that at the very least Sanchez has said that he and Paul Bremer were not as set against each other as other accounts have led people to believe.]
2) He's been pretty dang angry ever since he lost his command over Abu Ghraib (or says that he lost his command over Abu Ghraib, I don't know which is really true.)
3) Holy moly can angry, retired Generals make your war effort sound like a very bad idea indeed in a few short paragraphs.
4) I think it's a very sad thing that any general who commanded our forces in war is now standing back and repeating the title of antiwar documentaries in his appraisal of the situation.
“There was been a glaring and unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders,” he said, adding later in his remarks that civilian officials have been “derelict in their duties” and guilty of a “lust for power.”
Does it get any worse than that? Even considering that this is a quote from the New York Times and therefore obviously taken one snippet at a time and reassembled into the worst Frankenstein's Monster possible, it's a pretty ugly monster.
Sanchez' statements are pretty much the worst thing I've read since this Presidency started. His indictment isn't just of the administration but of the entire effort -- the entire government, really. I don't think there's much else in the same category of downbeat assessments that I've ever read.
How could things have gotten this bad? What are we going to do to change it?
I just look at this situation and I don't know what to believe, who to believe, or why to believe any more. That's the emotional reaction right now.
I don't know what the cognitive response is yet. I just don't know enough about Sanchez to make a judgment. I hope someone else will fill us in.
Either way, it's a lowdown shame that the commander of the forces in Iraq is now making these absolutely nuclear statements. The really tragic thing is that I no longer know who to believe.
however, we should make clear he is a "former commander". Also, many former top Generals end their careers bitterly. To get into the area of 3 star plus, you have to have a lot of ambition. I am not saying anything against Sanchez, I am simply saying it is not unheard of for a former top General to feel he had the best ideas out there.
Molon Labe!
but as the field commander of the Army of the Potomac, he was pretty much the highest ranking Major General in history.
Molon Labe!
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
"But his main criticism was leveled at the Bush administration, which he said he said has failed to mobilize the entire United States government, other than the military, to contribute meaningfully to reconstructing and stabilizing Iraq.
“National leadership continues to believe that victory can be achieved by military power alone,” he said. “Continued manipulations and adjustments to our military strategy will not achieve victory. The best we can do with this flawed approach is stave off defeat.”
**************
I think that is an indictment of the toxic political climate we have that we cannot get consensus and public support behind our actions to finish a job properly. Our country as a whole has taken the situation pretty lightly leaving the military to shoulder the entire burden. It's an indictment on the softness of America that we cannot hold our own traitors and liars who attack our military accountable.
Of course this will be spun into BushFault only. And we will have once again missed an opportunity for a massive lesson in acting like a real Nation like our military has bravely done.
Ask not what I can do for my country, ask what my country can do for me. Washington Elected Elite
So there's no possibility that General Sanchez is speaking the truth as he sees it? Is it possible to only honor and support the opinions and pronouncements of those military who agree with the President, and not those that once free of the ethical, legal and traditional boundaries of military service speak aloud another point of view?
While I realize that the only litmus test left in the Republican party is fervor to which to follows the path set by the President without question, but might there be other points of view from other Generals who have served with honor that have value?
At the end of the day I suppose once history casts it's vote, the answer will be neither the President's point of view or the Loony lefts.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
And the possibility that it's sour grapes over not getting star-number-4.
As am I, on both.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
that Sanchez wants a book deal.
In these days, it is difficult not to be a little cynical and suspicious.
Though an AP article (lost the link) that just came out implied that he was still working as a consultant to the military.
Odd business, this.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Including but not limited to the possibilities of:
1) That Sanchez is still sore over what he views as taking the fall for Abu Ghraib.
2) That Sanchez is a reliable commentator on the current scene in Iraq and that his accounts bear witness to a credible view of what is actually happening.
3) That Sanchez is priming the pump for a book deal and an active speaking tour.
4) That Sanchez believes that the military and civilian efforts in Iraq were genuinely hobbled by the things he criticizes.
5) That Sanchez is suffering from a colossal case of sour grapes and has now decided to squeeze them into particularly bitter wine.
6) That Sanchez felt that he took the fall for things that weren't his fault, doesn't think the war effort is all the Administration is cracking it up to be, and will be damned if he goes down with the ship -- twice.
7) That more than one of the above is going on.
8) That more than one of the above is completely untrue.
But it doesn't sound good, no matter how you slice it. These statements taken together go far beyond the category of "damning with faint praise" and fall more under the heading "Letting everyone have it, but good."
"Letting everyone have it, but good."
Sanchez - the one man above all others about whom it could be fairly said was in a position to change policies for the better while he was in country - actually goes quite a long way toward leaving himself out of the "everyone" part of the equation.
He mentioned it, sure, in passing, in response to a question - but immediately draws the focus back on others. I for one seem to recall a somewhat common critizism of Sanchez (and Bremmer - about whom I believe history will be quite unkind indeed) at the time was that he (they) was (were) very slow to recognize the growth of the insurgency at a time when it could have been choked in its crib. Fair? Maybe, maybe not.
I think it's also pretty fair to say that Bremmer and Sanchez never appeared to function particularly well as a team - but that it's Bremmer who has a MoF hung around his neck while Sanchez has (rightly or wrongly) Abu Ghraib hung around his.
The more I think about it, the more this looks a whooooooole lot like another rather historical general from ages past.
(Ancitipating SteveLA jumping all over me once again for something I'm not saying) This hardly means he's ipso facto wrong or that his statements need to be discounted or taken with so many grains of salt. But I don't think reasonable people should be beyond questioning whether LG Sanchez is giving us the whole story or whether there are, erm, other forces at play here as well.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
docJ
No jumping, I have no problem with your comment at all.
My concern is one of the fear that the more rabid supporters of the war and the President will trash the reputation of Lt. General Sanchez because they disagree with what he's saying. You and K are clearly NOT doing this.
Gaging the outrage over the personal attacks from the Left on General Petraeus a few weeks back, you have to be ready to be outraged over commentary from other quarters that go in the same direction in regards to Lt. General Sanchez because he is not supporting the President. I'll state for the record that I am not implying that you are doing such a thing. But there are others that see the war in Iraq in such terms that it's way too easy to go there.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
I do not doubt he believes what he said. But first things first. You must actually read the transcript not believe only excerpts. Also, he can believe something and be wrong, or simply countered by other Generals. The point is, something Kowlowskie hints at, the sadness is this who thing where people are not united, everything is politicized and most comments not from the President are damaging.
Molon Labe!
Doc
The Don Rumsfeld's record, and for that matter the President's record with his lack of support for another term for Peter Pace has not been what I would call all that great when it comes to supporting senior serving officers.
I don't think you can assert that all Generals who have retired while President Bush have agreed with his policies in Iraq, and you have to wonder if Sanchez is the first break in the dam with more to come.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Steve - first, Sanchez was a 3-star general and the chief of military ops in Iraq for a year. He was "power".
But as to your point, there are several people on this board who can comment with more inside scoop than I (streiff, for instance), but it suffices to say that there are a sizeable number of senior officers - green-suits in particular - who were ready to get their first-through-third star after coming up through the ranks during the Clinton/Clark years who weren't, shall I say, "with the program" when the new sheriff came to town. And they hate Rummy (in particular) with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns.
So while Sanzchez is hardly the first, and will certainly not be the last, senior military (and particularly Army) official to toss the Administration under the bus on their way out the door (Tony Zinni, anyone?), it is entirely fair, to my mind, to speculate how much their own personal career fortunes have played into this.
Life in the big leagues - and at that level, it's all big.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Docj
Well perhaps I'm a little slow to discount what Sanchez and others are saying. I value their opinion the same, or perhaps a bit more than someone on active duty. The rules of the game for active duty vers retired are different, and there is no need for keeping to the party line, or in this case the line put forth by civilian leadership.
There's also perhaps the question of discounting the views of a retired general because he/she is disagreeing with the President, something that is hard to support.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Did I say anything about discounting Sanchez? Ever? At any point in this conversation?
Nope - don't see it there. Anywhere. That's the point you're flogging.
FWIW, I think it can be both sour grapes and he's right.
Sorry, I think we're talking past each other.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
it is not particularly Army, the reality is Iraq is and has been primarily an Army operation along with the Marines. I doubt some Admiral will come out and bash the entire plan.
Molon Labe!
Only that the condition is acute with Army officers, the Army remaining (to this day) largely not-on-board with Rummy's whole Force Transformation program.
But Zinni is still an example of someone who tossed the new kid on the block down the stairs on his way out the door, no?
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
“The administration, Congress and the entire inter-agency, especially the State Department, must shoulder responsibility for the catastrophic failure, and the American people must hold them accountable,” General Sanchez said.
(Emphasis added)
People in the know will recognize that our current State Department is a Bush foe, not supporter. And, Sanchez does include the legislative branch in his criticism.
Now, when asked to clarify his comments---and some conservative journalists really should ask for clarification---if Sanchez later makes clear that he's only critical of the GOP Congress, then we have a problem. (Unless GEN Sanchez turns into the next Wes Clark and lets his bias flow freely and in public, for all to see).
But, if he he holds ALL of Congress (which the Democrats now run) at fault, then I'm not so sure that the Dems will want to make GEN Sanchez their new poster boy.
Then, there's this (emphasis again added):
Asked after his remarks what strategy he favored, General Sanchez ticked off a series of steps — from promoting reconciliation among Iraq’s warring sectarian factions to building effective Iraqi army and police units — that closely paralleled the list of tasks frequently cited by the Bush administration.
Tasks which the Bush administration and General Petraeus are now successfully accomplishing. (OK---maybe not the police forces. But, there ARE signs of improvement in Iraq).
And, even if Sanchez inflicts some serious damage on the image of Bush 43 and the Rumsfeld-led DOD----Rumsfeld is gone and Bush 43 departs in 15 months.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Sanchez went on to offer a pessimistic view on the current U.S. strategy against extremists will make lasting gains, but said a full-scale withdrawal also was not an option.
"The American military finds itself in an intractable situation ... America has no choice but to continue our efforts in Iraq," said Sanchez, who works as a consultant training U.S. generals.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
"The American military finds itself in an intractable situation ... America has no choice but to continue our efforts in Iraq," said Sanchez, who works as a consultant training U.S. generals.
Hmmmmmm....stuck in a mess where we can barely move forward without expending every last man we can spare and spending our money overseas instead of on our own country....we but have no choice but to continue.
If only someone in this country had predicted a quagmire...
he is saying we are in Hell, we can not win, but we must continue. Lincoln would have fired him on the spot.
Molon Labe!
"would have fired him on the spot." If there ever was a "quagmire," it was the situation Lincoln faced in the late summer of 1864. After enduring enormous casualties, the AOTP was bogged down before the Richmond fieldworks, the AOT was bogged down before Atlanta, and Lincoln was considered unelectable in November. Grant did not earn his nickname of "Butcher" by killing Confederates, Sherman was widely considered to be little short of nuts, and The War was widely unpopular, so much so that the '64 election was considered to be a referendum on the conduct of the war with a popular general who left under unpleasant circumstances carrying the Democrat standard. When it would have been politic to fire Grant and Sherman, Meade and Thomas would certainly have appreciated it, Lincoln "stayed the course." Really, only Pope and Hooker got anything like the "fired on the spot" treatment, and even in their cases it was as much because of backbiting by their fellow generals as from any decisiveness on Lincoln's part.
And if Jefferson Davis hadn't foolishly, and largely for political reasons, relieved Johnston and replaced him with Hood who graciously destroyed his own army before Atlanta, November '64 might well have had a very different outcome.
In Vino Veritas
Is there an actual transcript of the speech available?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Look, Iraq has clearly been a horrible mess in many ways. We didn't think it would go this badly, but historically the death toll is still very low and the cause is still worth fighting for. But maybe Sanchez is just telling the truth. How do we know?
Maybe YOU didn't think it would go this badly, but all us soft headed liberals predicted that invading Iraq would turn out exactly this way...It was an obviously half baked try at nation building founded on equal parts wishful thinking and hubris. Just the the Democrats were weak willed morons without the cojones to stand up for thier beliefs doesn't mean that "We" thought it wouldn't go this badly.
Historical examples only, and respond in your next post, please.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
So I really cant think of a proper historical analogy to compare the Iraq fiasco to Moe. The whole concept of Pre emptive war hadn't been tried by America before, so what can we compare it to?
Are you making the argument that it has gone well? Compared to what?
Historical examples only, and you can respond in any post you please
died liberating Kuwait and acheiving a ceasefire. Iraq tried to kill Bush 41 and fired on our planes daily. See provocation
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
if a state of war had existed between Iraq and the US since 1991 -- since Saddam Hussein had signed an agreement ending Gulf War I and then never lived up to any of the provisions of that agreement? OR, would it be different if Saddam Hussein had repeated fired upon US aircraft -- a clear act of war in most peoples book?
We'd have been happy to correct that for you; alas, now you'll have to present us with a 1,000 word essay on the causes and results of the Mexican-American War before we'll think you're worth the bother. You'll love the plot; it's everything that you thought that the Iraqi War was, only true.
Write it up, send it in and if it's worthwhile, we'll think about turning your account back on.
Moe
PS: BTW, and for the record. The Iraq liberation? Not In Your Name.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
"Lust for power"? Give me a break. How could he possibly know this? And how could it possibly be consistent with our Iraq policy? Its prime faults have been overoptimism and insufficient force/resources.
I don't see anything else new here:
Bad strategy for many years. Check.
Not getting sufficient political/economic support. Check.
Some generals believing Petraeus can't pull it off. Check.
Look, it's a bad situtaion. That doesn't mean it's an insoluble problem. It does mean we have to go back to basics, and define what the problem is. What exactly do we want? What are we willing to tolerate to get it?
In the meantime, news from Iraq's been pretty good. I've never been a big fan of the operation, but I've been impressed with recent accomplishments.
and the other won't call them on it.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
There is more going on here than simply "brave truth-telling" (which will certainly be the Kos take on things). It is in Sanchez's interest to say these things, especially now. His place in history is at stake, and this is the perfect opportunity to deflect blame away from himself. That's why he spreads the blame so thick on the civilian leadership (especially Bremer), the intelligence community, and the rest of the military hierarchy.
At the same time Sanchez, the man who was in charge of military operations in Iraq for the first year of the occupation, apparently did nothing wrong. He was just following orders, doing what soldiers do. Right. But that still leaves one big, gaping hole in his story. Why now? Why come forward now, in late 2007, years after he left Iraq and ceased having any significant role in the operation there. Why not speak up at the time? Or, failing that, why not speak up as soon as he retired? Not to be cynical, but I smell a book tour coming up.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Commander of coalition ground forces - MNF-Iraq - June 2003 through June 2004.
Or is my snark-detector on the blink again?
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
If General Sanchez is mad and attacking the administration, what does the left do? They've accused both sides of being war criminals.
They will pivot on a dime and declare Sanchez their new hero - Speaking Truth To Power™ and such.
They're never called on to square circles, you know.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
From what I've read, he doesn't say he lost his command over Abu Ghraib. He says he was passed over for promotion after ending his command, and didn't get the Southern Command job because of Abu Ghraib.
Scrappleface has *real* quotes showing what the mainstream press *isn't* covering of what he thinks.
Kowalski asks "How could things have gotten this bad?"
How? By mindlessly supporting this war, that's how. As I recall anyone who didn't clap louder for this mess was called a traitor, an Islamo-fascist, or some other name.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
elected officials, have been timid in the face of the PC re-definition of patriotism since the 60s, coupled with a longer than usual hot war.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
...is deplorable, but not our fault. Please do try to concentrate on the fact that you've switched universes; it's only common politeness.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
now the Kossacks who trash Petraeus will be lauding Sanchez. plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
Molon Labe!