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.
VDH is on track but misses much. First, he is right about General Petraus’ philosophy and approach. BUT BUT BUT. I think Gen Sanchez’ argues that a) it is probably too late, b/c we only have so much will power left at home (see Clausewitz) and b) a 30k surge is a joke. If we truly want to implement Gen P’s strategy, IT REQUIRES A NATIONAL EFFORT AND FAR MORE OF A PLUS-UP OF 30K FOR 6-15 MONTHS.
Recall, about a year ago when the President was given 3 courses of action by his Generals: 1) Begin w/draw, but leave forces behind to train (Go light; e.g. 50k); 2) Go short (I forget the title for the middle option), which was a short term plus-up; or 3) Go Big.
The first choice required too much eating crow. The last choice, Go Big, required a national effort. The middle choice (the one selected) was the pussy, loser choice that LtGen Sanchez is criticizing.
Lastly, Rumsfeld denied an insurgency for most of 2004. We are well aware of Cheney’s last throes comments. It isn’t that they said these things that was criminal - it is that they believed them AND WERE ALLOWED TO BELIEVE THEM by people who should have known better.
We’ve seen heroes like General Pace, and now LtGen Sanchez admit to their mistakes. I suspect we’ll never see Rummy, Cheney, or the neo-con narcissists ever see their errors - much less admit to them.
This is also what LtGen Sanchez is getting at. That is, we need to get frank about our failures so we can get frank about what lies ahead. It is not surrender, nor is it victory. It is one very very very long battle with some ups and many downs.
The operative word concerning Gen. Sanchez’s comments is “abuse.” We are quite familiar with the notion of political abuse of power, corporate abuse of power, etc. We have to begin talking more explicitly about media abuse of power. During a period in which information is paramount, the last abuse has become particularly significant, for while (in its traditional role) the media expose political, corporate, and other abuses of power, they have themselves become so powerful a force for the suppression, glossing, obfuscation, and downright misrepresentation of the truth that they are an overwhelming force to be contended with. The “freedom of the press” has become, in some quarters, the freedom to ignore or alter the truth. It has taken us some time to realize that “All the news that’s fit to print” can be construed as “All the news WE SEE FIT to print (broadcast, blog, etc.).”
Democritus
Right you are! We can no longer rely on the press. More often than not, the news they print are but extensions of the editorial pages.
VDH is on track but misses much. First, he is right about General Petraus’ philosophy and approach. BUT BUT BUT. I think Gen Sanchez’ argues that a) it is probably too late, b/c we only have so much will power left at home (see Clausewitz) and b) a 30k surge is a joke. If we truly want to implement Gen P’s strategy, IT REQUIRES A NATIONAL EFFORT AND FAR MORE OF A PLUS-UP OF 30K FOR 6-15 MONTHS.
Well let me rephrase this statement: I quit. did I get that right? it sure seems that way. Its only “too late” if you think it is. Clearly you’re interested in defeat.
Recall, about a year ago when the President was given 3 courses of action by his Generals: 1) Begin w/draw, but leave forces behind to train (Go light; e.g. 50k); 2) Go short (I forget the title for the middle option), which was a short term plus-up; or 3) Go Big.
The first choice required too much eating crow. The last choice, Go Big, required a national effort. The middle choice (the one selected) was the pussy, loser choice that LtGen Sanchez is criticizing.
This is complete hogwash. first you rely on faulty logic. You offer only three choices and you then describe each of these choices as either unattractive or unobtainable. sorry, but that’s just nonsense.
Lastly, Rumsfeld denied an insurgency for most of 2004. We are well aware of Cheney’s last throes comments. It isn’t that they said these things that was criminal - it is that they believed them AND WERE ALLOWED TO BELIEVE THEM by people who should have known better.
Please take some advice: don’t quit your day job to become a historian. You have absolutely no way to support this little fantasy. It’s utter nonsense again.
We’ve seen heroes like General Pace, and now LtGen Sanchez admit to their mistakes. I suspect we’ll never see Rummy, Cheney, or the neo-con narcissists ever see their errors - much less admit to them.
Oh my. Here’s a question for you William: so what? What does this have to do the price of onions in Afghanistan?
This is also what LtGen Sanchez is getting at. That is, we need to get frank about our failures so we can get frank about what lies ahead. It is not surrender, nor is it victory. It is one very very very long battle with some ups and many downs.
Two things here Mr Wallace. First if we count up the poor choices in Iraq, Gen Sanchez’s entire philosophy was an error. As I’ve noted elsewhere Sanchez preferred force protection to actual fighting. If we contrast the approach to COIN offered by Petraeus to the hunker down nonsense offered by Sanchez we see the stark difference. Sanchez was wrong.
Next, of course there will be victory. You sound exactly like the morons in the seventies who demanded that we simply learn to live with the soviet empire. they were wrong, and so are you. We will win, in fact we are already clearly winning. If you don’t realize that its your problem.
Recall, about a year ago when the President was given 3 courses of action by his Generals:
I believe the President left the choice up to the generals, not vice versa.
The first choice required too much eating crow.
???
The last choice, Go Big, required a national effort
What we’re doing now, thank God!
The middle choice (the one selected) was the pussy, loser choice that LtGen Sanchez is criticizing.
I think Sanchez picked this and is trying to make it look like he didn’t so he can save face.
Lastly, Rumsfeld denied an insurgency for most of 2004.
No, he didn’t.
We are well aware of Cheney’s last throes comments.
But they were in the last throes--haven’t you noticed lately how with a little extra pressure and effort, we’ve rolled them up?
I
t isn’t that they said these things that was criminal - it is that they believed them AND WERE ALLOWED TO BELIEVE THEM by people who should have known better.
What’s criminal has been the determined effort by the Left, which would include disinformation agents like you, to spread the meme of all this crap and to get the American people to believe it!
I suspect we’ll never see Rummy, Cheney, or the neo-con narcissists ever see their errors - much less admit to them.
I don’t accept your definition of “errors” nor do I see anything to be gained by anyone if they “admitted” they’d made “errors.”
That is, we need to get frank about our failures so we can get frank about what lies ahead.
What are you talking about???
You just want to have mass show trials of Republican leaders.
Where do you get this stuff? Are you Chinese?
Because it sounds like what when on during the Cultural Revolution in Red China.
It is not surrender, nor is it victory.
So why bother?
Clearly, you enjoy gestures in futility.
I, for one, want victory.
Time to...move on, as they say. Big time.
Another whiner and loser is heard from.
Sanchez got blamed for Abu Ghraib, which was another big steaming pile of nothing!
He’s bitter.
But he’s completely right about the Enemedia even if he’s wrong about the war.
I think the General does pigs a disservice. No self respecting hog would sink as low as somw of these vermin. In fact, similies including any of the families of ‘chordata’ do not suffice. They are most akin to bacteria or viruses.
Absent a return to good old-fashioned horsewhipping for these trash, I think a campaign to spread Sanchez’s remarks to all media coporate folks with requests for comment might get the point across.
These idiots simply do not comprehend the harm they do nor the peril we face.
When is someone going to name chapter and verse? This is a generalized denouncement. But it includes no precise examples of media dishonesty and treason. A very detailed analysis has been long overdue--especially on the part of the Commander-in-Chief. Bush ought to have focused on the dangers of media distortion and bias long ago and he should have clearly articulated the harm it has done to our military and to the safety of the nation. It’s inconceivable that Bush hasn’t appreciated the need to do this. The mainstream media has been undermining the war effort for years now. Why hasn’t Bush fought back forcefully--openly accusing the NY Times, for instance, of giving aid and comfort to the enemy when it published top secrets useful to their cause? Has the instinct to fight fire with fire been bred out of him? (This is still another reason I’m backing Giuliani. I’m fairly sick of gentlemanly GOP rule. If the opposition wants to play rough, then let’s put somebody in office who knows how to play even rougher.)
All good points, but why would the media lying and misleading the public, misreporting the facts by omission and distortion, be justification for taking away from the president’s time performing his presidential duties?
It IS his duty to address the deliberate effort by the media to undermine the military. The press is pushing for defeat--even to the point of publishing secret documents which give aid and comfort to the enemy. That is not something that is ignorable. The mainstream media long ago should have been countered from the bully pulpit with a recitation of chapter and verse. Yet nothing happens. Instead we’ve had a full-blown investigation of Scooter Libby for a non-crime while the editors and publisher of the NYTimes proceed unscathed despite their clear violation of the Expionage Act. No formal inquiry of that newspaper has even been pursued by Justice--which was so eager to look into the affairs of the WH. Why not? Maybe somebody on this blog can clue me in. The President has many strengths as a leader--but fighting his domestic opponents forcefully is not one of them.
Well, yes but the lefty media has been enabled by the democratic leadership. To address and rebuke the media when it had that much political cover, wouldn’t have been very effective. That’s just my opinion. Now, however, the lefty media are being exposed as frauds and I think they’ve got a lot of splainin to do.
I understand Gen. Sanchez’s frustration when the MSM reports something that’s distorted or isn’t true. After all, most of us normal people have felt that way about all the pro-war distortions of the MSM—like when the New York Times reports that Iran is a major factor in the Iraq violence (when it isn’t), or that everyone we kill in Iraq is “Al Qaeda,” when CNN reports that the surge is working (when in fact the surge caused Iraq violence to go up, not down, throughout the summer).
But though the MSM’s parroting of Bush talking points may annoy me, I don’t see that they’re the enemy, the way Sanchez seems to. Does he really think that the MSM reporting is making us lose? If so, how does this work? And what are his solutions, short of censorship? Given the fact that the MSM has been much more pro-war than anti-war (as anyone knows who even vaguely remembers 2002-3), how can anyone really believe that they are responsible for the public turning against the war?
As for the comments here about his more germane comments—that Sanchez is just a sour-grapes type jealous of the Glorious Success of Saint Petraeus—this ignores the fact that Iraq was actually less violent when Sanchez was in charge, and that Petraeus has been a big factor in helping to make Iraq more violent (first with his failed training of Iraqi forces, then with the “surge” which succeeded only in driving violence levels higher for most of the summer).
But ultimately it’s just more scapegoating. Five years from now when General Petraeus tries to blame the failure of Iraq on Bush and the MSM, you and Victor Davis Hanson and other genocide advocates will just blame him for not killing enough Arabs. It’s all an excuse to a) Shift the blame away from Bush, and b) Keep us in Iraq so that more Americans and Iraqis can have their brains blown out.
I understand Gen. Sanchez’s frustration when the MSM reports something that’s distorted or isn’t true. After all, most of us normal people have felt that way about all the pro-war distortions of the MSM—like when the New York Times reports that Iran is a major factor in the Iraq violence (when it isn’t), or that everyone we kill in Iraq is “Al Qaeda,” when CNN reports that the surge is working (when in fact the surge caused Iraq violence to go up, not down, throughout the summer).
But though the MSM’s parroting of Bush talking points may annoy me, I don’t see that they’re the enemy, the way Sanchez seems to. Does he really think that the MSM reporting is making us lose? If so, how does this work? And what are his solutions, short of censorship? Given the fact that the MSM has been much more pro-war than anti-war (as anyone knows who even vaguely remembers 2002-3), how can anyone really believe that they are responsible for the public turning against the war?
As for the comments here about his more germane comments—that Sanchez is just a sour-grapes type jealous of the Glorious Success of Saint Petraeus—this ignores the fact that Iraq was actually less violent when Sanchez was in charge, and that Petraeus has been a big factor in helping to make Iraq more violent (first with his failed training of Iraqi forces, then with the “surge” which succeeded only in driving violence levels higher for most of the summer).
But ultimately it’s just more scapegoating. Five years from now when General Petraeus tries to blame the failure of Iraq on Bush and the MSM, you and Victor Davis Hanson and other genocide advocates will just blame him for not killing enough Arabs. It’s all an excuse to a) Shift the blame away from Bush, and b) Keep us in Iraq so that more Americans and Iraqis can have their brains blown out.
I give Toliver too much credit. He’s not an idiot. He’s retarded.
We moderate our media in just this way—through criticism. It is true, most of the media is biased, unethical, really quite despicable. It is our place to expose this. That helps keep things in check.
The press is deplorable. The Abu Gharib situation is one of those the left have really focused on to the exclusion of all other issues. Like, what positive things we are doing in Iraq. I have frequently had posters here write to me as if Abu Gharib were somehow ordered from above or was representative of our behavior there. I guess, as they constantly obsess on it, it starts to become representative of our work there—in their own deluded minds.
Were that we would spend the slightest fraction of attention to Burma, for instance (among nearly countless ones) that we have spent on Abu Gharib, I dare say, I think this world would actually be a much better place.
I give Toliver too much credit. He’s not an idiot. He’s retarded.
Could be I’m a retarded idiot.
Amazing, though, that as a retarded idiot I manage to point out some obvious facts (the MSM has been mostly pro-war in its coverage, the surge has been an almost complete failure) and you’re still getting furious at any Phony Soldier who points out that Iraq has been a failure.
I think the most important part of Gen. Sanchez’s speech is this:
GIVEN THE LACK OF A GRAND STRATEGY WE MUST MOVE RAPIDLY TO MINIMIZE THAT FORCE PRESENCE AND ALLOW THE IRAQIS MAXIMUM ABILITY TO EXERCISE THEIR SOVERIEGNTY IN ACHIEVING A SOLUTION.
What he’s saying is that while we can’t withdraw precipitously, we have to transition from pretending we can “win” to trying to find a safe way to reduce our forces. Most people who have been in Iraq understand this; the only ones who won’t say it are Bush, who wants to pretend that we can “win” so he can blame Iraq on his successor, and Petraeus, who wants to continue the failed war to help his career. But it’s clear that if you don’t want America to fail in Iraq, you have to give up the retarded fantasy that we can “win.”
I understand Gen. Sanchez’s frustration when the MSM reports something that’s distorted or isn’t true. After all, most of us normal people have felt that way about all the pro-war distortions of the MSM—like when the New York Times reports that Iran is a major factor in the Iraq violence (when it isn’t),
But it is.
or that everyone we kill in Iraq is “Al Qaeda,”
A great deal of them are.
when CNN reports that the surge is working (when in fact the surge caused Iraq violence to go up, not down, throughout the summer).
Bull!
The surge has been working so well that the Marines now want to go to Afghanistan to work the same magic!
But though the MSM’s parroting of Bush talking points may annoy me, I don’t see that they’re the enemy, the way Sanchez seems to. Does he really think that the MSM reporting is making us lose? If so, how does this work?
Censorship works for me.
In wartime, it may be essential.
If the MSM is going to lie, why shouldn’t they be censored?
Given the fact that the MSM has been much more pro-war than anti-war (as anyone knows who even vaguely remembers 2002-3), how can anyone really believe that they are responsible for the public turning against the war?
The MSM has never been pro-war: quite the contrary!
I hold them directly responsible for turning the public against the war.
The only bright spot is that this has back-fired--between Harry Reid saying the “The war is lost.” and MoveOn’s “General Betray Us” ad, the American public is pushing back against the MSM to state their support for the war effort.
this ignores the fact that Iraq was actually less violent when Sanchez was in charge, and that Petraeus has been a big factor in helping to make Iraq more violent (first with his failed training of Iraqi forces, then with the “surge” which succeeded only in driving violence levels higher for most of the summer)
All this is babbling bull!
“Less violent under Sanchez, more violent under Petraeus, yada, yada, yada"--you don’t know squat!
But ultimately it’s just more scapegoating. Five years from now when General Petraeus tries to blame the failure of Iraq on Bush and the MSM, you and Victor Davis Hanson and other genocide advocates will just blame him for not killing enough Arabs.
First of all, there is no genocide in Iraq and I’m SICK TO DEATH of the Left overusing that word!!!
Stop it!! The word has become meaningless!!!
As for who will be blamed, it will be you and the rest of the Left because that’s where the blame lies--The U.S. doesn’t lose wars, commit genocide or capriciously kill civilians in wartime.
If the “message” says differently, time to “kill the messenger” as Sanchez pretty clearly states in this speech.
I understand Gen. Sanchez’s frustration when the MSM reports something that’s distorted or isn’t true. After all, most of us normal people have felt that way about all the pro-war distortions of the MSM—like when the New York Times reports that Iran is a major factor in the Iraq violence (when it isn’t),
But it is.
or that everyone we kill in Iraq is “Al Qaeda,”
A great deal of them are.
when CNN reports that the surge is working (when in fact the surge caused Iraq violence to go up, not down, throughout the summer).
Bull!
The surge has been working so well that the Marines now want to go to Afghanistan to work the same magic!
Well, you’re proving my point. None of those things are true, yet you believe they are because of the pro-war coverage of the MSM.
Even Rush Limbaugh bases much of his information on the MSM; when Rush says, falsely, that we’re mostly fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, he’s basing this on the MSM’s coverage and proving that the MSM is pro-war.
So if you believe various false things about Iraq, the question is, who reported these false things? The answer: The MSM, with its pro-war biased reporting.
The operative word concerning Gen. Sanchez’s comments is “abuse.” We are quite familiar with the notion of political abuse of power, corporate abuse of power, etc. We have to begin talking more explicitly about media abuse of power. During a period in which information is paramount, the last abuse has become particularly significant, for while (in its traditional role) the media expose political, corporate, and other abuses of power, they have themselves become so powerful a force for the suppression, glossing, obfuscation, and downright misrepresentation of the truth that they are an overwhelming force to be contended with. The “freedom of the press” has become, in some quarters, the freedom to ignore or alter the truth. It has taken us some time to realize that “All the news that’s fit to print” can be construed as “All the news WE SEE FIT to print (broadcast, blog, etc.).”
Democritus
The world is an evil place. People are evil. In fact, the free world has so much evil about it, many even smart people doubt the very existance of “good” and “evil”. I write things like this, and they take extreme offense at it. As if these were not things we deal with - all of us - on a daily basis.
If you can not decide between “better” or “worse”, if you literally can not make value judgements—then there is no “good” and “evil” for you. These people know the difference, but they value evil over good wherever and whenever possible. It is the basic nature of man.
Freedom of the press does not make us better people, per se. It opens the door for abuse just as totalitarian countries have systematic abuse. But, it does something else, as well: it opens the door for truth. And one need not shout the truth day and night to get it heard, as one must do with a lie… because the truth stands day and night and is shouted from all of creation itself.
Material power, of course, will be abused whenever and however man might have no curbing to do so. The problem is with curbing is that we can not even trust ourselves to do this. That is what totalitarian countries claim to do: act as moral thought police for the “benefit” of the public.
“Evil”, though people seem to have problems understanding it, is corrosive. It is destructive. That is what material power gives: destruction.
Recall, about a year ago when the President was given 3 courses of action by his Generals:
I believe the President left the choice up to the generals, not vice versa.
The first choice required too much eating crow.
???
The last choice, Go Big, required a national effort
What we’re doing now, thank God!
The middle choice (the one selected) was the pussy, loser choice that LtGen Sanchez is criticizing.
I think Sanchez picked this and is trying to make it look like he didn’t so he can save face.
Lastly, Rumsfeld denied an insurgency for most of 2004.
No, he didn’t.
We are well aware of Cheney’s last throes comments.
But they were in the last throes--haven’t you noticed lately how with a little extra pressure and effort, we’ve rolled them up?
I
t isn’t that they said these things that was criminal - it is that they believed them AND WERE ALLOWED TO BELIEVE THEM by people who should have known better.
What’s criminal has been the determined effort by the Left, which would include disinformation agents like you, to spread the meme of all this crap and to get the American people to believe it!
I suspect we’ll never see Rummy, Cheney, or the neo-con narcissists ever see their errors - much less admit to them.
I don’t accept your definition of “errors” nor do I see anything to be gained by anyone if they “admitted” they’d made “errors.”
That is, we need to get frank about our failures so we can get frank about what lies ahead.
What are you talking about???
You just want to have mass show trials of Republican leaders.
Where do you get this stuff? Are you Chinese?
Because it sounds like what when on during the Cultural Revolution in Red China.
It is not surrender, nor is it victory.
So why bother?
Clearly, you enjoy gestures in futility.
I, for one, want victory.
Time to...move on, as they say. Big time.
Another whiner and loser is heard from.
Sanchez got blamed for Abu Ghraib, which was another big steaming pile of nothing!
He’s bitter.
But he’s completely right about the Enemedia even if he’s wrong about the war.
The conservatives to which we, non-neo-con hawks attach, include: Al Haig and John McCain.
I simply want a national effort so that every hawk on this webpage will have the opportunity to carry a weapon into battle. I criticize wimpy hawks just as I criticize liberal doves. Both extremes damage the United States. I must add, however, that the will power at home may have already been spent by this administration, so you’ll be able to sleep soundly tonight as our heroes deploy for a 3rd time to protect your sorry butt.
One link for your “view” and it’s a blog that has “ Breaking news and views for the Progressive Community.”
Nuff said.
Why don’t they just admit it’s the Communist community?
The conservatives to which we, non-neo-con hawks attach, include: Al Haig and John McCain.
Good for you.
Al Haig kinda lost his credibility with “As of this moment, I am in control.”
And no-one seems to be backing McVain for President or giving him money, much less allowing him to be the commanding general in the war.
I simply want a national effort so that every hawk on this webpage will have the opportunity to carry a weapon into battle. I criticize wimpy hawks just as I criticize liberal doves.
I would love to carry a weapon into battle, but I’m too old and I’m a female.
This war is largely man’s work.
Saying you have to fight in this war or you can’t support it is ludicrous.
The “chicken hawk” argument has been invalid since it was first used.
I must add, however, that the will power at home may have already been spent by this administration, so you’ll be able to sleep soundly tonight as our heroes deploy for a 3rd time to protect your sorry butt.
You’re the one with the sorry butt talking trash about our military, our President and our country!
I’ll sleep fine, thanks.
And our will power at home has been revived in large part because we’ve seen how the DemocRats are sleeping with the enemy.
Your attempts to end the war and pull out our troops or defund them has made ordinary Americans (those Independents and former DemocRats in the “middle") realize that they want this war fought (with gloves off!) and won.
