Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez

The buzz this morning is the former U.S. commander in Iraq, retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who "delivered a withering indictment of the the White House’s handling of the war, telling a gathering of military journalists that “America is living a nightmare with no end in sight.”"

“There was been a glaring and unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders,” said Sanchez, who commanded U.S. forces from June 2003 to July 2004.

“After more than fours years of fighting, America continues its desperate struggle in Iraq without any concerted effort to devise a strategy that will achieve victory in that war-torn country or in the greater conflict against extremism,” Sanchez said, adding that a military-only strategy will simply “stave off defeat,” not achieve victory. “From a catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan, to the administration’s latest surge strategy, this administration has failed to employ and synchronize the political, economic and military power.” (USAToday)

I'm going to keep my personal comments on this very short, since as one reader said that I ... "used to be very centrist and even-handed" and I "used to be a class act", but "Not here. Not any more. I've been watching you shift position as your blog grew and got more attention." Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I've always opened the comments to views from all ends of the political spectrum, In my "other reading" I always include links to opposing views and I even quote opposing views in the text of my posts, so that everyone is represented. I've always thought that debate is healthy.

So with that in mind, I'm going to leave the commentary to you readers. What do you think of Sanchez and his comments? Everybody's comments are welcome.

Here's what others are saying. But if you don't read all of the links below, please read Black and Right.

First, The Oxford Medievalist

According to MSNBC, Sanchez was asked when he thought the moment was when the war effort went sour:

Asked when he realized the war was on the skids, Sanchez said, "15 June 2003" — the day he took over as commander of coalition forces.

The officers and military leadership involved in the planning for the war in Iraq suffered from "an absolute lack of moral courage to stand up and do what was right in terms of planning," Sanchez said. "We allowed ourselves to believe we would be greeted as liberators," he said.

Big Dog's Weblog:

I wish Sanchez well in whatever he does but I think he might have done the troops more good if he had spoken up a few years ago rather than wait. I also think pointing the fingers in every direction except inward is just a defense mechanism to deflect some of the blame that certainly rests upon his shoulders.

If you fail to speak up about something that you know is wrong you are just as responsible for it as the folks who did it.

Insomnia:

Since 2003, the politics of war have been characterized by partisanship as the Republican and Democratic parties struggled for power in Washington. National efforts to date have been corrupted by partisan politics that have prevented us from devising effective, executable, supportable solutions. At times, these partisan struggles have led to poltical decisions that have endangered the lives of our sons and daughters on the battlefield. The unmistakable message was that poltiical power had greater priority than our national security objectives. Overcoming this strategic failure is the first step towards achieving victory in Iraq. Without bipartisan cooperation, we are doomed to fail. There is nothing going on in Washington that would give us hope.

PoliBlog:

Funny, this sounds pretty much like what every critic of the war has been saying for some time. I wonder how the hard-core war supporters will deal with this? My guess is that they will attack Sanchez–which will be interesting to watch, given that the drum beat for months has been that we have to show deference to high level military leaders like General Petraeus, as they know better about these things than the rest of us. Of course, much of the counter-punch will be along these lines:

his role as commander in Iraq during the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal leaves General Sanchez vulnerable to criticism that that he is shifting the blame from himself and exacting revenge against an administration that replaced him as the top commander in the aftermath of the scandal and declined to nominate him for a fourth star, forcing his retirement.

The Captain's Journal:

Perhaps the General is conveniently ignoring the advances in Iraq of late, ... [snip]

But if he felt so strongly about these issues, could he not have at least spoken with leadership about strategy? [snip]

Are his actions now placing the troops in any less jeopardy than bringing attention to what he believed to be a failed strategy? If he had taken the actions he said he was so reluctant to take, would the possibility not have existed in his calculus to effect a change for the better, thus ensuring the greatest possible likelihood of success in Iraq?

DailyKos:

Stunned delight, I think, sums up the response of many of us to Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez's savaging of the Bush administration's record on Iraq.

BlackFive, and also here:

Be sure to take notice of the what the mass media and the Left conveniently are NOT reporting about what GEN Sanchez had to say about the unethical mass media: A Tree Falls in the Forest

...ON THE OTHER HAND, UNFORTUNATELY, I HAVE ISSUED ULTIMATUMS TO SOME OF YOU FOR UNSCRUPULOUS REPORTING THAT WAS SOLELY FOCUSED ON SUPPORTING YOUR AGENDA AND PRECONCIEVED NOTIONS OF WHAT OUR MILITARY HAD DONE. I ALSO REFUSED TO TALK TO THE EUROPEAN STARS AND STRIPES FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS OF MY COMMAND IN GERMANY FOR THEIR EXTREME BIAS AND SINGLE MINDED FOCUS ON ABU GHARAIB.

Angry Bear:

Steve wonders if RUSH will tag these generals to be phony soldiers.

Could Black and Right be, correct???

If ever there was a clearer example of selective reporting and bias by the media, here is the best example to date.

The left is translating and selectively quoting LTG (Ret) Ricardo Sanchez' comments during the October 12 Military Reporters and Editors Luncheon in Washington D.C.

Words do matter. The media jumps on the idea of being "first" with a report, and many times fails to be "correct" in their reporting. Hugh Hewitt quotes Sanchez:

My assessment is that your profession, to some extent, has strayed from these ethical standards and allowed external agendas to manipulate what the American public sees on TV, what they read in our newspapers and what they see on the web. For some of you, just like some of our politicians, the truth is of little to no value if it does not fit your own preconceived notions, biases and agendas.

More at Powerline and Washington Post

I happen to agree with a few of the things Sanchez says. We went into Iraq with the idea of taking out Saddam and being finished within a few days/weeks. Washington had no idea what a mess things would be when the differing factions each had an opportunity to come into power and take revenge for past treatment by other groups. The result was we were unprepared, not enough troops on the ground, and a military controlled in Washington rather than on the ground. We have paid a huge price for that in lives, money, goodwill in the world, and divisions at home.

Comments

[Free]

IBD Editorial

Rising Above Terror Below In Baghdad

By DAVID IGNATIUS
Posted 10/26/2009 06:49 PM ET

BAGHDAD — From the air Sunday morning, this looked like a city restored. You could see paddle boats skimming the pond at Zawra Park, and go-karts and water slides. And in every direction, new schools and soccer fields and bustling warehouses — all taking shape under the canopy of the new Iraq.

But down below, it turned out to be a morning from hell. Terrorists exploded two massive car bombs at the Justice Ministry and the Baghdad provincial administration, killing more than 100 and wounding more than 500. It was the worst day of violence this year, and it was, as the terrorists intended, a reminder of the fragility of Iraqi security.

Around the time the bombers struck, I was flying over the city in a Black Hawk helicopter with Gen. David Petraeus. As commander of U.S. forces in Iraq from 2007 to 2008, he helped restore stability here.

He was returning Sunday as Centcom commander, and he decided on his way in from the airport to conduct one of his careening airborne tours of the city, which he used to make so frequently that the helicopter pilots gave them the code name "Purple Rain."

The signs of recovery seemed to be everywhere. "See, the houses are occupied again," Petraeus said, pointing to a neighborhood that several years ago was a virtual ghost town. "Always good to see a crane," he said, motioning to a new construction site. "Traffic jam, that's good to see."

Petraeus pointed out the evidence of normality — the schools, the police stations, the sports stadiums, the bus and train stations, the parks and markets and riverside restaurants. And, to be honest, the city, seen in panorama, reminded me of the Baghdad I first visited in 1981, big and burly and, for an Arab city, fairly well organized.

We didn't learn about the horrific bombings until we landed in the Green Zone. I guess that tells you something about the difference between life, close up, and what you see from several hundred feet. On the ground, all those freshly painted new ministries and bustling Baghdadis are, to the terrorists, just so many targets.

When the bombs exploded, an Iraqi friend told me later, the cell phone system temporarily crashed, as people frantically called to see if their loved ones were safe.

Foreigners may forget that, when they see the endless Baghdad carnage on television, Iraqis are people just like everyone else; they love their spouses and children and grandparents just as much as you and I do. When service went back to normal, my friend said, he had 30 text messages asking if he was all right.

While Petraeus was off visiting officials, I had lunch with two Iraqi friends at the Al-Rashid Hotel. The last time I had eaten there was in October 2003, when I was traveling with Paul Wolfowitz, then deputy secretary of defense.

That was the famous trip when the Al-Rashid was hit by rockets; I watched them arc toward the hotel from a blue cart several hundred yards away. For many people, that was a day when a new darkness enveloped the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

But my Iraqi friends were surprisingly upbeat about the future, even after Sunday's terrible bombings. "In every sector, Iraq is coming back to its normal mode," said one. "There is no way it will slip back," insisted the other. I wondered at their confidence on such a day, but that is part of the Iraqi toughness.

Rather than talking about the bombings, we talked politics. My friends sharply criticized the incumbent prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki. But as we were debating, one turned to me with a smile: "Here we are talking about who will run the government after the elections. Could you do that in any other country in the Arab world?"

As night fell, Petraeus and his party flew to Camp Victory, near the airport, to spend the night. "Baghdad can be a cruel place," he told me. "You have to keep a grip on your hopes." But as the Black Hawk skimmed over the city, Baghdad seemed to be teeming again, despite the morning's events.

Petraeus surveyed the cityscape at night. "People are back out in the parks," he said. "All the lights are on, cars are driving around." I asked later if he thought Sunday's violence would lead people to request that American troops return to the cities, and he shook his head: "Iraq is a sovereign country. Iraqis will respond to this."

[Debbie]

Always on Watch: You said "I've grown to believe that even thinking that we could "bring democracy to Iraq" was a Pollyanna dream." I agree with you.

PALADIN: Thanks for your unique view, much appreciated.

StinkinBadges: You are not the only one asking those questions. I think the media did themselves a disservice by only concentrating on 1/4 of Sanchez comments, which dealt with Iraq, and avoiding the 3/4 of the article which dealt with his displeasure with the media themselves.

KAREN: Yes, BlackFive always cuts through the crap and gets to the meat of a subject. Read my comment above.

Texas Fred, Rastaman, I'm glad we cleared up all the confusion (I hope)

Tom the Redhunter: Thanks for the history. It's always good to reflect and try to apply what we have learned to present day situations. Yes, we need to win the war, but as I have said before: What kind of country can Iraq have without a functioning government???

[Always On Watch]

As I understand it, Sanchez began his remarks by criticizing the defeatist media. Spot on, IMO.

I've grown to believe that even thinking that we could "bring democracy to Iraq" was a Pollyanna dream.

Why did we ever allow Iraq to incorporate shari'a law into its constitution?

[PALADIN]

SANCHEZ IS RIGHT!!!!!!! RIGHT!!!!!!!!RIGHT!!!!!!! LOOK LETS FACE IT, BUSH IS A RETARD!!!!!!!! IF HE,D OF LISTENED TO PEOPLE LIKE SANCHEZ, AND POWELL, THE MESS IN IRAQ WOULD BE OVER. INSTEAD HE TOOK THE ADVICE OF A BUNCH OF SHITBIRDS LIKE RUMSFELD AND CHENEY WHO ARE LESS THAN HONOURBLE MEN, AND NOW HENCE, WE HAVE A WAR WE WON,T WIN IF THE CURRENT STRATEGY IS FOLLOWED. I,M SURE BUSH WILL GO DOWN AS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY. TO PUT IT BLUNTLY, HE,S A WEAK IMBECILE!!!!!!!!!! MY DOG IS SMARTER THAN HE IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE BETTER.

[StinkinBadges]

Come on Ricardo, just tell us which politician's butt you are kissing, and what job you are angling for. The suspense is just too much.

[Tom the Redhunter]

Well then, if TexasFred says I can't criticize Gen Sanchez, then I guess I can't. Apparently only he, Moveon.org, and their in Congress can criticize generals.

I think that Karen's post | October 13, 2007 at 01:30 PM
has it about right.

Terrible mistakes are made in all wars, we just tend to forget them if it turns out successful in the end. Conside the Civil War. Who today would not want to fight to free the slaves? As it was though about 3 years into it the Democrats bailed. In their party platform for the 1864 presidential elections, the Democrats said that we

"demand that immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities, with a view of an ultimate convention of the States, or other peaceable means, to the end that, at the earliest practicable moment, peace may be restored on the basis of the Federal Union of the States."

(Look it up if you don't believe me. Unfortunately this blog won't accept links in comments)

In other words, they demanded an immediate end to the fighting and a negotiated peace with the South, one that would inevitably left slavery in peace.

But most people have forgotten that part of the war.

But in the end I'm not interested in what Sanchez says, because I'm not interested in refighting the past. What difference does it make whether we screwed up the planning to the war? We are where we are. It's obvious that the anti-war crowd will use Sanchez' remarks in the same way that the "copperheads" of 1864 used what Gen McClellan said to bash Lincoln.

Ater Ft Sumpter Lincoln called for 70,000 90-day volunteers, because he thought that would be all he would need. Oops.

Can we please just concentrate on winning the war? It can be won, I think that with our current "surge" plan it is being won.

[Rastaman]

Sorry. I just can't let this one go by.

Do I detect a chain of over-reactions? Why, YES, I believe I do! Mine over a Gore slam, yours over Freds comment, Fred over my misreading of his comment exactly the same as you did.

The difference in that last one is that Fred was nice to you about your misreading but nasty to me when I did EXACTLY THE SAME THING YOU DID. Hello, Fred? Hello? Are you there?

Fred, if you're going to talk dirty to me, at least kiss me first.

Rasta

[Karen]

I find the comments and facts at Blackfive most helpful in the reporting of this interview. Sanchez is critical, even bitter in tone, to be sure, but is most critical of the press and how he had to stop doing interviews entirely for the European press 2 years before he left command as they skewed everything he said so much. Sound familar? Of course mistakes have been made. I think Rumsfield stayed on too long. But the delight the defeatists will take in this blurb is disgraceful to the military fighting for their right to speak and write freely, safely here at home.

And, they do remember he's the very one they were blasting as the top dog overseeing Abu Ghrib, right?

[Rastaman]

See? Friendly. Didn't I say Fred was Friendly? What a nice person. Thank you, Friendly Fred. Those were kind words and deeply appreciated.

Rasta

[Debbie]

Fred: Whew! Good to clear that up. I read your comment before I came over here to read your article. My bad.

The problem as I’m seeing it, is that some people blindly follow whatever their political party does. Some have failed to think for themselves any longer.

A reader and I were talking about our political system. It really is broken. If we could send everybody in Washington home and start over, it would be wonderful.

No more career politicians. Start term limits for everybody. Allow more than one political party. Stop all the campaign contributions that leave politicians beholden to corporations or individuals. And on and on

[TexasFred]

Rastaman, you really need to read a bit better BEFORE you criticize ME, my post was made last night at 9:39 PM, and that was a copy and paste of it, and if you had bothered to actually READ it before you opened your mouth, I wouldn't be making you look like a fool right about now...

[TexasFred]

No Ma’am, I was NOT talking about you, THAT was written late last night and posted then, I AM psychic..

No, I knew what the reaction would be, that comment was for the Amy’s of this world, all those folks that THINK they have a clue, when they don’t…

For all the Bots with their heads still up their asses, pay attention Gayle and Amy, I am talking to you here, Sanchez DID try to change things and he DID try to tell Bush what was wrong and the little f**khead in the Oval Office didn’t hear what he wanted to hear, now Sanchez is an EX General…

Figure it out for yourselves if you can actually THINK that hard…

[Rastaman]

LOL. Life is Hell when you're a blogger.

Well, I've been mis-read plenty of times me dang self, so don't feel too badly. I can see now that I really did over-react to that Gore post, but the way it looked at the time was the way it looked, same with this one and Friendly Fred. It happens.

You have seemed to me to be siding more and more with the GOP view but maybe that's just from reporting others comments. I get off on tangents from time to time, we all do, otherwise we'd be boring.

Thanks for the trackback. Next week: "Rage of the Blog", opening next Friday at your local theater. Feel free to review it in the meantime.

Rasta

[Debbie]

Fred: Are you talking about ME? Did you read MY comments at the bottom of the post? Here they are:

"I happen to agree with a few of the things Sanchez says. We went into Iraq with the idea of taking out Saddam and being finished within a few days/weeks. Washington had no idea what a mess things would be when the differing factions each had an opportunity to come into power and take revenge for past treatment by other groups. The result was we were unprepared, not enough troops on the ground, and a military controlled in Washington rather than on the ground. We have paid a huge price for that in lives, money, goodwill in the world, and divisions at home."

The purpose of this article was to share what OTHERS WERE SAYING, I tried to give a good roundup of all sides of the situation.

Gee. I get bombed with I give my opinion, then I get bombed when I try to be fair and share everybody's opinions. I can't win.

[TexasFred]

From my post:
http://texasfred.net/archives/628

I can already hear the cries of the ‘Bush is God’ crowd, “Another traitor to the war effort” will likely be the 1st cry, and “Why didn’t he say something when he was running things?? Why wait until now??‘, that’s likely the most popular 2nd crybaby scream from the Bush Bots, and to answer those folks that think the General maybe didn’t do his job, and didn’t TELL Bush what the REAL problems are, here’s the deal, that’s WHY he’s an EX General, he DID tell Bush and you see what it got him??

But to the Bush Bots, Gen. Sanchez will now be a lefty loon, a moonbat, a coward, maybe even a FAKE General, yeah, that’s it, he MUST be a fake, there’s no way he could be a REAL General…

Some of these Bots need to wake the hell up and realize, the DoD is filling em with a load of crap and all that stench you get hanging out and kissing ass at the ‘O’ Club trying to make points for the hubby, well, that ain’t perfume you’re smelling sister…
*******************
And I meant every word of it... I predicted last night EXACTLY what the Bush Bot reaction would be...