Article

2007-10-13 Iraq

Sanchez: Iraq `nightmare' for US

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2007-10-13 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11129 views ] Top
File under: Govt of Iran

#1 See also TOPIX NEWS > WHY ARE WE WINNING? artiiikle.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-10-13 00:41|| 2007-10-13 00:41|| Front Page Top

#2 good fisking. I concur.

Posted by Broadhead6 2007-10-13 01:24|| 2007-10-13 01:24|| Front Page Top

#3 Stuff a burrito in it, Ricardo.

Posted by gorb 2007-10-13 01:33|| 2007-10-13 01:33|| Front Page Top

#4 Here's the Wikipedia entry on this guy. Note that he was promoted to full colonel "shortly after the Gulf War" and became a division commander (Major General billet) in July of 2001. This joker's a Clinton general.

Posted by Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2007-10-13 01:33|| 2007-10-13 01:33|| Front Page Top

#5 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.

The "general" obviously has a superb, MSM grasp of the "nightmarish" geopolitical situation in the ITO.....of which he thankfully, no longer shares direct responsibility. Too bad he couldn't have maintained situational awareness at Abu Garib, rather than denying knowledge and throwing everybody else under the bus when he was ultimately responsible for outcomes in the ITO. Something tells me would might be able to find a better mentor for our new generals than Ricardo Sanchez.

Posted by Besoeker 2007-10-13 01:53|| 2007-10-13 01:53|| Front Page Top

#6 Wretchard's thoughts

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2007-10-13 02:25|| 2007-10-13 02:25|| Front Page Top

#7 Bottom line to me is that the presence of guys like this, along with masterminds like Janice Karpinski and the most recent 3-star ribbon clerk who tried to GCM two Special Forces snipers, has to be laid at the feet of the Commander-in-Chief. Lincoln went through general after general after general before he was able to find two - Grant and Sherman - who were resolute about taking the fight to the enemy. FDR reached WAY down the Army seniority list, elevating George Marshall from one to four stars and Army Chief of Staff. After 9/11, GWB should have summoned Rummy to the Oval Office and said "We have too many McClellans and Burnsides in our forces. Start firing them and find me some Grants and Shermans". Not to mention some James Gavins and Terry Allens...

Posted by Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2007-10-13 02:36|| 2007-10-13 02:36|| Front Page Top

#8 Like many others, he once ladeled the soup he now says someone had pissed in. We should all deplore these men.

Posted by Besoeker 2007-10-13 02:37|| 2007-10-13 02:37|| Front Page Top

#9 The problem with Iraq is that our leaders believed that those savages could democraticize, and that occupation would produce a stable Iraq. Iraqis failed us, as did the German and Japanese majority that supported Fascism and Militarism. Iraqis are no longer an asset; they are a liability, so let's write them off.

Posted by McZoid 2007-10-13 03:19|| 2007-10-13 03:19|| Front Page Top

#10 McZoid, see my other reply. These things take time.
Compare the time span of involvement in Iraq with Germany/Japan. I'd not judge the result as +/- until at least 15 years passed by.

Posted by twobyfour 2007-10-13 04:02|| http://www.twobyfour.info]">[http://www.twobyfour.info] 2007-10-13 04:02|| Front Page Top

#11 Want another Look besides the Burnt out Vision of Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez?

Victor David Hanson just spent a week with Gen. Petraeus in Iraq. Enjoy

Iraq Update from Dr. Victor Davis Hanson (UNCLASSIFIED)

This e-mail is being circulated at the highest levels of the Dept of Defense and Congress.

Dr. Victor Davis Hanson's personal observations of Gen. Petraeus from actual time spent with him, read on.

If you want to read about how he ridicules the academic left and contrasts them versus the professional military...

Enjoy if you haven't already. a bit long but worth it...

Posted by Red Dawg">Red Dawg 2007-10-13 05:15|| 2007-10-13 05:15|| Front Page Top

#12 Seems the MSM forgot to talk about the first half of his talk. I wonder why. PowerLine

Posted by Glolurong Jones1696">Glolurong Jones1696 2007-10-13 08:03|| 2007-10-13 08:03|| Front Page Top

#13 GJ - completing your thought - because he bitch-slapped them over their biased coverage of the war and its military leadership. At that point the journos just stopped writing in their spiral notebooks, stuck their fingers in their ears and said "la la la la la la la!" to themselves.

Posted by WTF 2007-10-13 08:22|| 2007-10-13 08:22|| Front Page Top

#14 This whole thing strikes me as peculiar. It just doesn't make sense. In effect, Sanchez is criticizing himself for lackluster performance. So the big question is why?

What is Sanchez getting out of the deal?

Revenge for being shown up General Petraeus? That only matters if he was publicly humiliated, which he wasn't.

Political ambition? It happened to Weasely Clark, but only works if he is hoping that Democrats will put him back in charge in Iraq. And in *that* case, this may be a calculated ploy to *preserve* US gains. In other words, he supports the mission, but is afraid that the Democrats will put some fool in charge specifically to screw it up.

So by turning on the administration, he makes himself their #1 candidate to replace Petraeus if the Democrats win the Presidency.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-10-13 09:28|| 2007-10-13 09:28|| Front Page Top

#15 Ricky, to paraphrase the former SecDef, you go to war with the Army you have. The organizational problem which no major army has solved is the ability to separate out good managers from good leaders in peacetime. It also shares the nasty behavior of many organizations of institutional 'Peter Principle'. The military is, by social structure, set up to operate like a assembly line for promotion. A lot of rewriting of laws and regulations which will be necessary to alter the institution will come at a significant price in the trenches of the Beltway. We've come to the evolutionary end of organizations that make themselves immune to firing/relief whether its civil service, school systems, or other manifestations which substitute procedure and protection over the original goals of said institutions.

General Sanchez is just another of the old school which hasn't accepted the fact that wars are fought on two fronts. That significant efforts must be put in both and that neither can be outsourced to 'others' to do it. I'm sure the general was right up front in the defense of military bloggers who were the best technology in breaking the 'professional media's' domination of the home front./sarcasm off.

Posted by Procopius2k 2007-10-13 09:34|| 2007-10-13 09:34|| Front Page Top

#16 Snachez is another blanket foldiong politician wearing General's starts.

The mess there is in large part due to HIS ineffective command, crap ROE, and his "Retreat to the base" style that abandoned any gains made by the troops.

He is an utter failure trying to cast blame everywhere except himself.

Posted by OldSpook 2007-10-13 10:32|| 2007-10-13 10:32|| Front Page Top

#17 The problem with Iraq is that our leaders believed that those savages could democraticize, and that occupation would produce a stable Iraq.

I guess the bones through their noses should've been the tip-off...

Iraqis failed us, as did the German and Japanese majority that supported Fascism and Militarism. Iraqis are no longer an asset; they are a liability, so let's write them off.

Post a resume, lad. I hear the think-tanks are hiring.

Posted by Pappy 2007-10-13 11:07|| 2007-10-13 11:07|| Front Page Top

#18 What is Sanchez getting out of the deal?

He's getting it off his chest, he's basically blaming everyone on the NSC level, not the soldiers.

Sounds like a big unorganized mess.

Posted by Bugs Hupusose2306 2007-10-13 11:38|| 2007-10-13 11:38|| Front Page Top

#19 We can attack Ricardo all day to make ourself feel better but the truth is, this could of been done a whole lot better.

Once we get that over with, we can win wars the way America is supposed to.

Posted by Bugs Hupusose2306 2007-10-13 11:40|| 2007-10-13 11:40|| Front Page Top

#20 McZoid,
I suggest you read a 1948 article in LIFE magazine about how our occupation of Germany and Japan was a failure, how our policies were making things worse, and the new Marshall Plan was doomed to failure (etc.etc.).

Actually, the problem was that we went into Iraq with no cultural savy and very few people who even knew the language. Read the latest issue of National Review for an article about how we interacted with the Tribes.

In fact most of the gaffes and misunderstandings occurred on Sanchez's watch. We (and the Iraqis)have been spending the last several years recovering from those mistakes.

Al

Posted by Frozen Al 2007-10-13 11:49|| 2007-10-13 11:49|| Front Page Top

#21 We can attack Ricardo all day to make ourself feel better but the truth is, this could of been done a whole lot better.

About what war can that not be said? Would it have helped things if Patton, Bradley and Ike had told the world what a pompous creeper Montgomery was? We are in the middle of the war. WTF was Sanchez thinking he could improve with these public comments? Nothing except his career. Is there any thing new in his comments?

Once we get that over with, we can win wars the way America is supposed to.

Anybody who thinks this is not how America wins its wars hasn't studied any that occurred before 1990. And the history of blabbering failed ex-generals is also not new. What wasw exceptional was their silence in WWII.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-10-13 11:57|| 2007-10-13 11:57|| Front Page Top

#22 I'd suggest you ignore the paraphrases of this talk which are appearing in the press. Even the blogs aren't printing the whole thing. Sanchez may be self-serving to a degree, but he absolutely lambastes the press and our government. Heh, you don't see anything about the former on Yahoo News or the other MSM outlets.

He's not saying anything that hasn't been said many times here on the 'Burg.

Here's the whole thing, with the ugly capitalization (an attempt to slow diffusion?) removed:

Military Reporters and Editors Luncheon Address Washington D.C.

LtG (Ret) Ricardo S. Sanchez

12 October 2007

Military Reporters and Editors Address Washington D.C.

12 October 2007

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen.

Some of you may not believe this but I am glad to be here. When SIG
asked me if I would consider addressing you there was no doubt that I
should come into the lion's den. This was important because I have
firmly believed since Desert Shield that it is necessary for the
strength of our democracy that the military and the press corps
maintain a strong, mutually respectful and enabling relationship. This
continues to be problematic for our country, especially during times
of war. One of the greatest military correspondents of our time, Joe
Galloway, made me a believer when he joined the 24th infantry division
during Desert Storm.

Today, I will attempt to do two things - first I will give you my
assessment of the military and press relationship and then I will
provide you some thoughts on the current state of our war effort. As
all of you know, I have a wide range of relationships and experiences
with our nation's military writers and editors. There are some in your
ranks who I consider to be the epitome of journalistic professionalism
- Joe Galloway, Thom Shanker, Sig Christensen, and John Burns
immediately come to mind. They exemplify what America should demand of
our journalists - tough reporting that relies upon integrity,
objectivity and fairness to give accurate and thorough accounts that
strengthen our freedom of the press and in turn our democracy. 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.

Let me review some of the descriptive phrases that have been used by
some of you that have made my personal interfaces with the press corps
difficult:

"dictatorial and somewhat dense",

"not a strategic thought",

liar,

"does not get it" and

the most inexperienced LtG.

In some cases I have never even met you, yet you feel qualified to
make character judgments that are communicated to the world. My
experience is not unique and we can find other examples such as the
treatment of Secretary Brown during Katrina. This is the worst display
of journalism imaginable by those of us that are bound by a strict
value system of selfless service, honor and integrity. Almost
invariably, my perception is that the sensationalistic value of these
assessments is what provided the edge that you seek for self
agrandizement or to advance your individual quest for getting on the
front page with your stories! As I understand it, your measure of
worth is how many front page stories you have written and
unfortunately some of you will compromise your integrity and display
questionable ethics as you seek to keep America informed. This is much
like the intelligence analysts whose effectiveness was measured by the
number of intelligence reports he produced. For some, it seems that as
long as you get a front page story there is little or no regard for
the "collateral damage" you will cause. Personal reputations have no
value and you report with total impunity and are rarely held
accountable for unethical conduct.

Given the near instantaneous ability to report actions on the ground,
the responsibility to accurately and truthfully report takes on an
unprecedented importance. The speculative and often uninformed initial
reporting that characterizes our media appears to be rapidly becoming
the standard of the industry. An arab proverb states - "Four things
come not back: the spoken word, the spent arrow, the past, the
neglected opportunity." Once reported, your assessments become
conventional wisdom and nearly impossible to change. Other major
challenges are your willingness to be manipulated by "high level
officials" who leak stories and by lawyers who use hyperbole to
strenghten their arguments. Your unwillingness to accurately and
prominently correct your mistakes and your agenda driven biases
contribute to this corrosive environment. All of these challenges
combined create a media environment that does a tremendous disservice
to America. Over the course of this war tactically insignificant
events have become strategic defeats for America because of the
tremendous power and impact of the media and by extension you the
journalist. In many cases the media has unjustly destroyed the
individual reputations and careers of those involved. We realize that
because of the near real time reporting environment that you face it
is difficult to report accurately. In my business one of our
fundamental truths is that "The first report is always wrong."
Unfortunately, in your business "The first report" gives Americans who
rely on the snippets of cnn, if you will, their "truths" and
perspectives on an issue. As a corollary to this deadline driven need
to publish "initial impressions or observations" versus objective
facts there is an additional challenge for us who are the subject of
your reporting. When you assume that you are correct and on the moral
high ground on a story because we have not respond to questions you
provided is the ultimate arrogance and distortion of ethics. One of
your highly repected fellow journalists once told me that there are
some amongst you who "feed from a pig's trough." If that is who I am
dealing with then I will never respond, otherwise we will both get
dirty and the pig will love it. This does not mean that your story is
accurate.

I do not believe that this is what our forefathers intended. The code
of ethics for the society of professional journalists states:

...public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of
democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking
truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and
issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to
serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is
the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility.

The basic ethics of a journalist that calls for:

1. Seeking truth,

2. Providing fair and comprehensive account of events and issues,

3. Thoroughness and honesty

All are victims of the massive agenda driven competition for economic
or political supremacy. The death knell of your ethics has been
enabled by your parent organizations who have chosen to align
themselves with political agendas. What is clear to me is that you are
perpetuating the corrosive partisan politics that is destroying our
country and killing our servicemembers who are at war.

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 preconcieved notions, biases and agendas.

It is astounding to me when I hear the vehement disagreement with the
military's forays into information operations that seek to disseminate
the truth and inform the iraqi people in order to counter our enemy's
blatant propaganda. As I assess various media entities, some are
unquestionably engaged in political propaganda that is uncontrolled.
There is no question in my mind that the strength our democracy and
our freedoms remain linked to your ability to exercise freedom of the
press - I adamantly support this basic foundation of our democracy and
completely supported the embedding of media into our formations up
until my last day in uniform. The issue is one of maintaining
professional ethics and standards from within your institution.
Military leaders must accept that these injustices will happen and
whether they like what you print or not they must deal with you and
enable you, if you are an ethical journalist.

Finally, I will leave this subject with a question that we must ask
ourselves--who is responsible for maintaining the ethical standards of
the profession in order to ensure that our democracy does not continue
to be threatened by this dangerous shift away from your sacred duty of
public enlightenment?

Let me now transition to our current national security condition.

As we all know war is an extension of politics and when a nation goes
to war it must bring to bear all elements of power in order to win.
Warfighting is not solely the responsibility of the military commander
unless he has been given the responsibility and resources to
synchronize the political, economic and informational power of the
nation. So who is responsible for developing the grand strategy that
will allow America to emerge victorious from this generational
struggle against extremism?

After more than four 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. From a catastrophically
flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan to the administration's
latest "surge" strategy, this administration has failed to employ and
synchronize its political, economic and military power. The latest
"revised strategy" is a desperate attempt by an administration that
has not accepted the political and economic realities of this war and
they have definitely not communicated that reality to the American
people. An even worse and more disturbing assessment is that America
can not achieve the political consensus necessary to devise a grand
strategy that will synchronize and commit our national power to
achieve victory in iraq. Some of you have heard me talk about our
nations crisis in leadership. Let me elaborate.

While the politicians espouse their rhetoric designed to preserve
their reputations and their political power - our soldiers die! Our
national leadership ignored the lessons of WWII as we entered into
this war and to this day continue to believe that victory can be
achieved through the application of military power alone. Our
forefathers understood that tremendous economic and political capacity
had to be mobilized, synchronized and applied if we were to achieve
victory in a global war. That has been and continues to be the key to
victory in iraq. 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. The administration, Congress
and the entire interagency, especially the department of state, must
shoulder the responsibility for this catastrophic failure and the
American people must hold them accountable.

There has been a glaring, unfortunate, display of incompetent
strategic leadership within our national leaders. As a Japanese
proverb says, "Action without vision is a nightmare." There is no
question that America is living a nightmare with no end in sight.

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 political decisions that endangered the lives of our sons
and daughters on the battlefield. The unmistakable message was that
political power had greater priority than our national security
objectives. Overcoming this strategic failure is the first step toward
achieving victory in Iraq - without bipartisan cooperation we are
doomed to fail. There is nothing going on today in Washington that
would give us hope.

If we succeed in crafting a bipartisan strategy for victory, then
America must hold all national agencies accountable for developing and
executing the political and economic initiatives that will bring about
stability, security, political and economic hope for all iraqis. That
has not been successful to date.

Congress must shoulder a significant responsibility for this failure
since there has been no focused oversight of the nations political and
economic initiatives in this war. Exhortations, encouragements,
investigations, studies and discussions will not produce success -this
appears to be the nation's only alternative since the transfer of
soveriegnty. Our continued neglect will only extend the conflict.
America's dilemma is that we no longer control the ability to directly
influence the Iraqi institutions. The sovereign Iraqi government must
be cooperative in these long term efforts. That is not likely at the
levels necessary in the near term.

Our commanders on the ground will continue to make progress and
provide time for the development of a grand strategy. That will be
wasted effort as we have seen repeatedly since 2003. In the mean time
our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines will continue to die.

Since the start of this war, America's leadership has known that our
military alone could not achieve victory in iraq. Starting in July
2003, the message repeatedly communicated to Washington by military
commanders on the ground was that the military alone could never
achieve "victory" in Iraq. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines
were destined to endure decades of fighting and killing people without
the focused, synchronized application of all elements of national
power. This was a necessary condition to stabilize Iraq. Any
sequential solutions would lead to a prolonged conflict and increased
resistance.

By neglect and incompetence at the national security council level,
that is the path our political leaders chose and now America, more
precisely the American military, finds itself in an intractable
situation. Clearly, mistakes have been made by the American military
in its application of power but even its greatest failures in this war
can be linked to America's lack of commitment, priority and moral
courage in this war effort. Without the sacrifices of our magnificent
young men and women in uniform, Iraq would be chaotic well beyond
anything experienced to date.

What America must accept as a reality at this point in the war is that
our army and marine corps are struggling with the deployment
schedules. What is clear is that the deployment cycles of our
formations has been totally disrupted, the resourcing and training
challenges are significant and America's ability to sustain a force
level of 150,000(+) is nonexistent without drastic measures that have
been politically unacceptable to date. The drawdown of the surge to
presurge levels was never a question. America must understand that it
will take the army at least a decade to fix the damage that has been
done to its full spectrum readiness. The president's recent statement
to America that he will listen to military commanders is a matter of
political expediency.

Our army and marine corps will execute as directed, perform
magnificently and never complain-that is the ethic of our warriors and
that is what America expects of them. They will not disappoint us. But
America must know the pressures that are being placed on our military
institutions as we fight this war. All Americans must demand that
these deploying formations are properly resourced, properly trained
and we must never allow America's support for the soldier to falter. A
critical, objective assessment of our nation's ability to execute our
national security strategy must be conducted. If we are objective and
honest, the results will be surprising to all Americans. There is
unacceptable strategic risk.

America has no choice but to continue our efforts in Iraq. A
precipitous withdrawal will unquestionably lead to chaos that would
endanger the stability of the greater middle east. If this occurs it
would have significant adverse effects on the international community.
Coalition and American force presence will be required at some level
for the foreseeable future. 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.

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.

This endeavor has further been hampered by a coalition effort that can
be characterized as hasty, un-resourced and often uncoordinated and
unmanaged. Desperately needed, but essentially ignored, were the
political and economic coalitions that were the key to victory and
stability in the immediate aftermath of the conventional war. The
military coalition which was hastily put together in the summer of
2003 was problematic given the multitude of national caveats,
inadequate rules of engagement and other restrictions on the forces
deployed. Even so, the military coalition was the most extensive,
productive and effective deployment of forces in decades. Today, we
continue our inept coalition management efforts and, in fact, we are
facing ever decreasing troop commitments by our military coalition
partners. America's "revised" strategy does not address coalition
initiatives and challenges. We cannot afford to continue this struggle
without the support of our coalition partners across all elements of
national power. Without the political and economic elements of power
complementing the tremendous efforts of our military, America is
assured of failure. We continue on that path. America's political
leadership must come together and develop a bipartisan grand strategy
to achieve victory in this conflict. The simultaneous application of
our political, economic, information and military elements of power is
the only course of action that will provide a chance of success.

Achieving unity of effort in Iraq has been elusive to date primarily
because there is no entity that has the authority to direct action by
our interagency. Our national security council has been a catastrophic
failure. Furthermore, America's ability to hold the interagency
accountable for their failures in this war is non-existent. This must
change. 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.

It seems that Congress recognizes that the military cannot achieve
victory alone in this war. Yet they continue to demand victory from
our military. Who will demand accountability for the failure of our
national political leaders involved in the management this war? They
have unquestionably been derelict in the performance of their duty. In
my profession, these type of leaders would immediately be relieved or
courtmartialed.

America has sent our soldiers off to war and they must be supported at
all costs until we achieve victory or until our political leaders
decide to bring them home. Our political and military leaders owe the
soldier on the battlefield the strategy, the policies and the
resources to win once committed to war. America has not been fully
committed to win this war. As the military commanders on the ground
have stated since the summer of 2003, the U.S. military alone cannot
win this war. America must mobilize the interagency and the political
and economic elements of power, which have been abject failures to
date, in order to achieve victory. Our nation has not focused on the
greatest challenge of our lifetime. The political and economic
elements of power must get beyond the politics to ensure the survival
of America. Partisan politics have hindered this war effort and
America should not accept this. America must demand a unified national
strategy that goes well beyond partisan politics and places the common
good above all else. Too often our politicians have chosen loyalty to
their political party above loyalty to the Constitution because of
their lust for power. Our politicians must remember their oath of
office and recommit themselves to serving our nation and not their own
self-interests or political party. The security of America is at stake
and we can accept nothing less. Anything short of this is
unquestionably dereliction of duty.

These are fairly harsh assessments of the military and press
relationship and the status of our war effort. I remain optimistic and
committed to the enabling of media operations under the toughest of
conditions in order to keep the world and the American people
informed. Our military must embrace you for the sake our democracy but
you owe them ethical journalism.

Thank you for this opportunity

May God bless you and may God bless America.

Praise be to the Lord my rock who trains my fingers for battle and my
hands for war.

Thank you.

Posted by KBK 2007-10-13 12:10|| 2007-10-13 12:10|| Front Page Top

#23 How does "[Iraq] is a nightmare" add to our understanding over and above what we already knew about war in general: war is hell.

Posted by moody blues 2007-10-13 12:13|| 2007-10-13 12:13|| Front Page Top

#24 Pappy, not sure why you have to be confrontational and use not-so-veiled ad hominem in your reply to McZoid.

Sure, snarks are a spice of RB life, but in this case it is more of an insult. Can you, please, avoid the urge, and direct the condescence where it belong--on trolls or idiotic politicians?

Posted by twobyfour 2007-10-13 12:22|| http://www.twobyfour.info]">[http://www.twobyfour.info] 2007-10-13 12:22|| Front Page Top

#25 It's nice KBK, but ...

He, like too many of his compatriots, refuse to fight the two front war. The one in the field and the one at home. In WWII Marshall oversaw the commitment of significant resources in focusing the message, the story telling. Since WWII, the generals have 'outsourced' the telling of the story. And now they're bitchin. Don't bother me, I just want to focus on the a nicely, neatly defined battlefield. Don't mess it up. Bull. Don't blame the scorpion for being a scorpion.

They lost in Vietnam because they failed to fight the war on the home front. By their actions, they've demonstrated they've still not learned that you can win every fight on the battlefield, but still lose the war at home. You can not outsource the fight at home anymore than outsource the fight in the field. This time they were given the technology and means to get around the scorpions with the internet and what did they do. Instead of exploiting the technology to get 'the story' to the people as their own troops were doing with blogs and media that the young troops and their peers understand, they play CYA and turf protection and shut the process down.

Posted by Procopius2k 2007-10-13 12:46|| 2007-10-13 12:46|| Front Page Top

#26 Pappy, not sure why you have to be confrontational and use not-so-veiled ad hominem in your reply to McZoid.

Because frankly I'm tired of the 'they're all savages' meme. And I'm tired of the cut-n-run, 'rubble don't cause trouble' mentality. I'm tired of people who can't see past their noses, can't look at history, and can't look at what might happen 10, 20, 50 years later with the actions that occur or don't occur today.

I doubt McZoid has ever been to the Middle East. I doubt McZoid has ever dealt with Arabs, or Persians, or Israelis for any length of time. I doubt McZoid has ever had to deal with the political cesspools known as national capitals, with their myriad and conflicting interests. I doubt McZoid has any grasp of long term strategy.

I guess, overall, I'm really sick and tired of people commenting while ignorant.

Posted by Pappy 2007-10-13 13:36|| 2007-10-13 13:36|| Front Page Top

#27 Spook, I'm running into a dilemna:

If I just look at the subject line of the whole article and react to that, I wind up overlooking that a lot of the problems he was mentioning, especially wrt the state department and the need for a "unified effort" across the board by the government, are things I've suspected were true all along.

We have a left hand that's been giving away what the right hand wins at enourmous cost.

We set up the civilian government of Iraq so that voters vote for parties instead of for people when they go off to have elections; this puts a lot more power into the hands of "horse traders" at the expense of the people. And as far as I can tell, winds up causing a lot of the paralysis that everyone's complaining about.

We have a military system that can win all the battles and a political establishment in Washington that is incapable of consolidating any of the gains. And things will just drag on until the country decides to give up.

Posted by Abdominal Snowman 2007-10-13 14:28|| 2007-10-13 14:28|| Front Page Top

#28 KBK, every thing you say is true, but it is also true that he gave the MSM the sound bite they wanted, he knew he was doing it, he knew how they'd use it and he knew how al-Qaeda would exploit it. That is what he should not have done, even though we do it here every day. Al-Qaeda quoting me or Zenster will not have a dramatic impact on their audience. Quoting a general will. He has hurt the war effort by his unfortunate and ill-considered comments. When he criticizes the MSM, it's now pot-kettle as far as I am concerned. Positive comments about how we should conduct the war going forward are perfectly approriate. But he and all the other principals, including Tennet and Perle should wait till the fight's over to make their personal CYA carping public.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-10-13 14:29|| 2007-10-13 14:29|| Front Page Top

#29 So, McZoid is now a chickenhawk, is that it?

Pappy, we are all learning. Tell me, how many people were even remotely aware that there is a cancerous menace growing out of ME before 9/11?

Compare Frozen Al reply with yours.

Do you think that we all are not tired of all this crap that we did not ask for? This is nothing compared to what the load of crap we would have to deal with in the next several years, let alone decades to come.

Nuff said, just ponder.

Posted by twobyfour 2007-10-13 14:37|| http://www.twobyfour.info]">[http://www.twobyfour.info] 2007-10-13 14:37|| Front Page Top

#30 NS, I agree: military leaders, retired or not, should surely not speak out publicly against the official line while there's a war on.

As Sanchez (following Clausewitz) points out, war is an extension of politics. Military personnel should not take on the political task even when their bosses don't handle it effectively.

All these backbiting retired generals consulting to the MSM should disappear, IMO.

You can bet Truman wouldn't have put up with it.

Posted by KBK 2007-10-13 15:06|| 2007-10-13 15:06|| Front Page Top

#31 I don't see the contradiction between Sanchez bitterly complaining about press treatment AND bitter complaining about how everyone else but he was responsible for the mess the war took under his command.

It is IMO both pathetic and deeply, deeply damaging to the US, to the Army he led (but apparently no longer cares much about) and to the cause.

I thought in 2000 that Gore - for whom I voted! - was doing grave damage to the country by his rage-filled refusal to let the election results stand.

And so it was. Because by 9/11, there was such a hate-filled atmosphere in Washington and in the country that a more decisive CINC than Bush would have found it extremely hard to lead and to prosecute a successful war on terror. Gore and the Dems have a great deal to account for.

So too do the Republicans, who both engaged in business as usual corruption (in some cases) and - with the 'decisive' 'leadership' of McCain (spit) - deliberately chose not to act as if national security was really at stake in world events.

The infighting between State under Powell and DoD under Rumsfeld was disgusting and IMO it was State that was in the wrong most of the time. Moreover, there were a lot more Army generals than is widely recognized who were prepared to do scorched earth battle with Rummy over force transformation. Many of them simply don't 'get' the impact of technologies on the world and hence on the battlefield.

Rummy did. He also was very wary about going into Iraq for anything more than a punitive decapitation of the regime. With Bush trying to placate Blair to have a 'coalition', it all turned into a hideous brew of indecision, inner conflict and stupidity.

Posted by lotp 2007-10-13 15:12|| 2007-10-13 15:12|| Front Page Top

#32 With Bush trying to placate Blair to have a 'coalition', and therefore unwilling to allow Iraq to descend into open chaos, and with State having vetoed the Iraqi expat force that Chalabi et al were to have led, we ended up with major forces in theater, the worst scenario possible.

Posted by lotp 2007-10-13 15:15|| 2007-10-13 15:15|| Front Page Top

#33 I have spent time in Turkey and Bahrain, and have discussed democracy with the carpet prostraters. Democracy is anathema to Muslims because they believe it both seizes sovereignty from the "allah" entity, and confers legitimacy on ideas inconsistent with Koran dictate. By its nature, an Islamic state can only be tyrannic, dogmatic and persecutory. As for "political islam" it is only a provisional means to strategic Shariah state ends.

Islamofascists are either in power in the Muslim tyrannies, or are poised for a takeover. If Nazism, Japanese militarism and Baathism warranted abolishment, then why do we indulge political-islam, which is the most dangerous of all because it engages over a billion belligerent savages? Denial of our role in licentious jihadism, abridges an issue of right and wrong. Political-islam is wrong because it empowers the mortal enemies of Western Civilization. Reducing belief in same to a matter of individual conscience, is as unconscionable as that evil ideology of aggression and genocide. The Dhimmi threat-denier is as bad as the Jihadi terror-actor. As President Bush said in launching GWOT, "You are either with us or you are with the terrorists." In general, the Muslim enemy has raised its weapons, and turned the world into a salient. It is wrong to avoid engaging them, in context of their nuclear jihadism. Either we pre-empt a future ICBM threat to the Homeland, or future generations will hold pilgrimages to spit on our graves.

See this paraphrasal of Maududi's concept of an Islamic religio-political entity. This is Koran prescribed belief; no real Muslim can believe other than what follows:

1. The right to rule belongs to God and God alone. He is the master of all the worlds and he alone should have the right to dictate the workings of the universe. Maududi states that there is only one way to carry out Gods right to rule on earth and that is through a khalifa, which will be a vicegerent of God on earth. It should be emphasized that the khalifa is merely an agency through which God executes his will and does not vest any political power in itself.

2. On the basis of the above argument, the right to legislate has been taken away from man and accorded to God alone. Moreover, man has been allowed to interpret the ideas presented in the Quran through mutual consultation and the practice of ijtehad. The condition is that it must be done within the purview of the Islamic law. The essential point here is that if man believes in the sovereignty of God, then he is not allowed to hold any other set of laws paramount to the laws laid down by God.

3. True justice and equality can only be established, if it is established according to the laws God, revealed through his chosen men.

4. Maududi states that the law of God is not a de-facto piece of law. It is a de-jure, and it must be followed in its entirety. Any government that does not follow the above stated norms and develops its own ideologies is to be declared as deviant and a rebel to the Islamic principles.

Posted by McZoid 2007-10-13 15:42|| 2007-10-13 15:42|| Front Page Top

#34 McZoid, OK, so you've been over there. This is not meant as a double dog dare; but, based on that, what would you do differently than Bush given the whole constellation of pressures he operates under? I'd fault him for only two things, letting loser generals stay in place too long and doing a poor job of presenting his case to the American and world public. I think he's gone a long way toward fixing the command problem with Petraeus, though I not sure far enough with the rest of the general populace. But he also is doing a worse job daily in the PR field as he becomes a lamer duck. I think the donks and rinos have done a great job of wearing him down. I hope he avoids the theater in Washington for the balance of his tenure.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-10-13 16:32|| 2007-10-13 16:32|| Front Page Top

#35 I am one of those 'ignorant' ones. I have no experience of foreign countries, cultures & religion. I have learnt much from Rantburg and thank you to all commenters and especially Fred.

I think we will keep going around in circles even if there is bi-partisan support from politicians because Islam is a religion in political clothing.

They don't care about our political way of life only the religious. They see Rome (the Pope) as the prize and it seems to me they are baiting him at the moment (the Anglicans in England have already become dhimmis). The Pope can't have a dialogue with Muslims, as they are currently requesting, because any perceived criticism however constructive or nicely put will result in mass violence/hysteria on the part of the muslims.

Islam has thrown down the gauntlet and they are waiting for a response from the Pope. His answer will determine what happens next.

Posted by Gladys 2007-10-13 17:21|| 2007-10-13 17:21|| Front Page Top

#36 Nimble S:
The last 6 years have been a learning experience for most of us. I have altered my views based on a realistic understanding of the enemy. Over time, your ideas about the nominal mix of democracy and islamic slavery to the "allah" entity, will change. I blame Muslims rather than the President, for the jihadi menace in Iraq. In fact, in less than a year, he has deferred judgment in order to expand information available to policy-makers. And Mr Bush has used the term "Islamofascism," on one occasion. That showed good judgment and good faith.

Posted by McZoid 2007-10-13 19:01|| 2007-10-13 19:01|| Front Page Top

#37 NS my issue is that Sanchez seems more intersted in blamecasting than he does in solutions, and that he is dead wrong on saing what we have now is a failure. Its Petraues and classic COIN that are saving the bacon from his garbage ROE that had us retreating to cantonments and leavint the populce exposed every day.

Is he right about the NCA? Yeah, disorganized and disjoints is putting it mildly (state hasn't supported things well at all, nor have the other civil branches of the government, CIA has been next to useless more involved in thwarting Bush than protecting the country, all of which result in heapinga tons on the mIlitary). He is also right on the press ot a large extent. But he was also in COMMAND. That means you accept responsibility and take your lumps. But he's whining like a little bitch. and he blew it - and is now trying to stir a shitstorm that will cast blame away from him at the expense of troops over there now.

And THAT is where he earns the opprobrium form many others.

Like Weasley Clarke, he would sell out troops for personal gain now that he's out, and THAT I cannot abide.

Posted by OldSpook 2007-10-13 21:36|| 2007-10-13 21:36|| Front Page Top

#38 Even Clarke never whined this much that I can recall.

Preened in the mirror, but not whined.

Posted by lotp 2007-10-13 21:42|| 2007-10-13 21:42|| Front Page Top

#39 I just finished reading the entire text of Sanchez's address. He'd have done the country a great service if he'd cut it off mid-way, having excoriated the press-- and then delivered the rest of his remarks in private to whoever in Congress or the White House wanted to hear them.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2007-10-13 21:49|| 2007-10-13 21:49|| Front Page Top

23:48 Zenster
23:42 Zenster
23:29 Karl Rove, evil genius
23:26 Alaska Paul
23:23 twobyfour
23:22 ed
23:07 Zenster
23:06 ed
23:05 Karl Rove, evil genius
23:05 Frank G
23:01 BA
22:42 whitecollar redneck
22:38 Zenster
22:37 ed
22:09 Neville Phereng4211
22:08 trailing wife
22:07 JohnQC
22:03 JohnQC
22:03 JohnQC
22:00 JohnQC
21:55 john frum
21:54 JohnQC
21:49 Dave D.
21:42 lotp