Doc75, I was going to mention this very thing. I have heard and read that Sanchez structured operations in Iraq in such a manner as to allow the insurgency to grow in many areas, by limiting direct interaction between troops and citizens. I have also heard that Marine Command was less than happy with the centralized base strategy.
All that said, his critique of journalists is dead-on.
2hotel9, I had lunch with my friend this week. We got on this topic when we discussed how much Middle Eastern food he has eaten. I asked where and he said when he was in Iraq. I thought this was odd since I assumed everyone was inside of the FOB and only ventured out when on patrol or in a convoy. Then he told me the whole story about Petraeus and Sanchez butting heads and how Sanchez won. That ruined a lot of trust, goodwill and relationship built between members of the 101st and the Iraqi population. A sad tale but not one the media will pursue now that Sanchez is their new darling.
Ah, that gets back to your comment about “leveling the countryâ€. The Conan graphic speaks volumes as to your juvenile concept of war, which you undoubtedly have never experienced.
How do you “level a country†without killing millions of innocent people? You know, the kind of innocent people that we had to topple Saddam so that HE wouldn’t kill them?
Perhaps, in your mind, the death of millions isn’t quite as important as a Republican President “winning†a war that never had to happen.
I Don’t ...
Know whose military YOU served in, Convoluted, but in THIS man’s Army we were taught to steamroll over the enemy. If necessary, chase them up into the mountains and pick ‘em off one at a time, but still KILL THEM.
YOU and YOURS put the “civilian” death toll at SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND+ ... What could be WORSE ... Sacrificing AMERICANS to make sure that human shields aren’t nicked or killing the bastards? You Saddam-worshippers make me sick.
Know whose military YOU served in, Convoluted, but in THIS man’s Army we were taught to steamroll over the enemy. If necessary, chase them up into the mountains and pick ‘em off one at a time, but still KILL THEM.
“This man’s army”? Would that be the Chickenhawk Brigade of Fat Bloggers?
You haven’t answered the question ( and I don’t expect you to)
One more time:
How do you “level a country” without killing millions of innocent people?
(Get ready for another scary military graphic, always a good substitute for rational discussion when you have painted yourself into a bloody corner)
How do you “level a country” without killing millions of innocent people? You know, the kind of innocent people that we had to topple Saddam so that HE wouldn’t kill them?
It’s doubtful that “millions” of people (many innocent) would actually be killed to “level” Iraq.
Relevant question....why do so many retired Generals, when they are finally free to speak, say the same thing, basically that the Bush administration is completely incompetent andthe situation is worse than spin would have us believe?
The list keeps growing…
That is a relevant question. Here’s another… why does only the part where they criticize the administration get published?
Gen. Sanches just gave a blistering indictment of the press… in fact, he reserved the majority of his critic for the inaccurate, agenda-driven coverage the press has given. He specified how it has distorted the view of the war to Americans, and how the press has aided the propaganda efforts of our terrorist enemies.
He went to heap criticism on Congress, gov’t agencies and yes, the administration. He reserved the majority and priority of his remarks for the press. He lumped the administration in with the team who has led a less than effective war effort.
So the press singles out the administration… completely proving the first half of the General’s speech.
Why also are the long list of retired generals who support the war and the war strategy ignored.
I liked how he speaks first about how the press is agenda-driven and doesn’t report the whole truth and distorts events to suit their own purposes. The key line is how the press is actually contributing to the poisonous partisan politics that keeping us from being united as a nation. You couldn’t possibly have a clearer example of what he meant when they ignored his critique of the press and only printed his critique of the war policy. That is precisely the sort of thing he was talking about and it went right above their heads. The ironymeter here is off the scale.
How do you “level a country” without killing millions of innocent people? You know, the kind of innocent people that we had to topple Saddam so that HE wouldn’t kill them?
It’s doubtful that “millions” of people (many innocent) would actually be killed to “level” Iraq.
2.7 million would be 10% of Iraq’s population
What number would be considered acceptable?
That’s the sad/bad thing about war.
Let us know when you find a workable alternative.
As is said “those that refuse to learn from history are destined to repeat it”
History tells us that the longer you wait to confront evil the greater the price of defeating it becomes. For years as Nazi Germany prepared for war the response was sanctions, appeasement and rhetoric. When the free world was finally forced to face them the costs in human life was so great that even today decades later we still don’t really know how many millions died.
The CNN.com coverage of this story is fantastic. There is absolutely no reference at all to the scathing comments of press war reporting irresponsibility. The headline in the No. 1 spot is: Sanchez: Iraq war ‘a nightmare with no end in sight’. And then to top it off, the additional links box on the page points readers to more of their slanted stories confirming what a nightmare the war is:
Don’t Miss
Police convoy bombed in Iraq
15 Iraqi women, children die in U.S.-led attack
‘No proof Blackwater shot at’
Australian contractors kill 2 women in shooting
Irony is entirely lost on our great media literati.
Unlike the vast majority of the MSM’s consumers, I took the time to read the entire transcript.
It is worth noting that Sanchez’ blistering criticism of the media is being validated at this moment, in the biased, agenda driven, self-serving selectivity in their reporting of his attack on the very media tactics used to report his remarks.
One of the great tragedies in our history is that the more the media betrays its trust, the less anyone believes anything they report. And this makes it possible for all manner of lunatics to believe any and every possible madness. It makes the unity of purpose Sanchez says is an absolute national security necessity completely impossible to achieve.
And so those entrusted with the duty to save us from lies and manipulation become both the prime culprits and the prime causes of mass lies and mass manipulations of public opinion.
Relevant question....why do so many retired Generals, when they are finally free to speak, say the same thing, basically that the Bush administration is completely incompetent andthe situation is worse than spin would have us believe?
The list keeps growing…
Nice try-actually, there are nearly five THOUSAND retired general officers, so the number of them that have actually spoken out about this stuff is extremely small-something like one-half of 1 percent of the total “retired General” community.
Once again this conclusively shows the leftist bias of the media. They’re totally ignoring the 99 percent of the retired Generals who are NOT speaking out against Bush. Wonder why that is?
Where are the headline stories highlighting these major ideas? Why none? Becasue they contradict the Laft-wing narrative of our commercial propaganda ministries.
1) “AMERICA HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO CONTINUE OUR EFFORTS IN IRAQ.â€
2) “AT NO TIME IN AMERICA’S HISTORY HAS THERE BEEN A GREATER NEED FOR BIPARTISAN COOPERATION. THE THREAT OF EXTREMISM IS REAL AND DEMANDS UNIFIED ACTION AT THE SAME LEVELS DEMONSTRATED BY OUR FOREFATHERS DURING WORLD WAR I AND WORLD WAR II. AMERICA HAS FAILED TO DATE.â€
3) “AS A NATION WE MUST RECOGNIZE THAT THE ENEMY WE FACE IS COMMITTED TO DESTROYING OUR WAY OF LIFE. THIS ENEMY IS ARGUABLY MORE DANGEROUS THAN ANY THREAT WE FACED IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY. OUR POLITICAL LEADERS MUST PLACE NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES ABOVE PARTISAN POLITICS, DEMAND INTERAGENCY UNITY OF EFFORT, AND NEVER AGAIN COMMIT AMERICA TO WAR WITHOUT A GRAND STRATEGY THAT EMBRACES THE BASIC TENETS OF THE POWELL DOCTRINE.â€
To understand Sanchez and his motives you only need to look to history and George B. McClelland during and after the Civil War. McClelland was sacked by Lincoln for in inability to pull the trigger on his army even though he had Lee at a huge disadvantage. McClellands response was to attack Lincoln and the entire war effort as a way to justify his short comings.
This is no different than what many, many Generals from almost every war have done. It takes infinitely more courage to call for an attack knowing lives will be lost than to sit in a defensive position. It is a common shortcoming among Generals.
Above are the key points in considering anything Sanchez has to say. Sanchez’s ego comes before everything, especially the morale of the men still in the field. Sanchez could have offered constructive criticism but he had to use words like “nightmare,” fully knowing that words like that would be the headline that the NY Times would use. He’s despicable.
Gen. Sanchez was recently reported lambasting past and present strategy in Iraq, on grounds, according to Stars and Stripes, that “Such a strategy should involve political reconciliation among Iraqis, building up the Iraqi security forces and getting Iraq’s regional partners.”
True, but one of the things that strikes a visitor to Iraq is that the officers, major to colonel, and Gen. Petraeus himself reiterate exactly that tripartite approach-that is, they stress reconciliation (Gen. Petraeus has an entire working group formally entitled ‘reconciliation’), training Iraq police and army, and involving neighboring states at the formal diplomatic level and the more informal military liaisons and private investors.
In other words, Gen. Sanchez just summed up the present strategy and effort in Iraq. I’m not suggesting this is new, or that under his tenure we weren’t doing the same, only that his present suggestions of what we should be doing are exactly what we are doing.
A final point. What is depressing is that a host of formal civilian and military officials, who during their tenure assured everyone that victory over the insurgents was in sight, then, upon leaving in the wake of criticism (one thinks of Bremer, Franks, Sanchez, etc.), post facto lambasted the effort. The net effect is a lack of credibility among the military and civilian overseers—sort of ‘why should I believe you now, since when and if you are relieved, you will only retroactively tell us how bad was what you now say is good.’
Almost no one senses that the tragedy of war is always error and costly error at that, the side winning who makes the fewest and learns the most from them—and then doesn’t give up.
Depressing.
10/13 01:45 PM
VDH gets it right. I’m posting this here and on the other sanchez thread. The comparison to Mc Clelland is quite apt and well said.
