Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 45
  1.    #1  
    Go figure.

    Ex-Iraq forces commander rips U.S. leadership
    Ex-commander of coalition forces in Iraq lambastes ‘failure of leadership’

    By Jim Miklaszewski and Courtney Kube
    NBC News
    Updated: 8:15 p.m. ET Oct. 12, 2007

    ARLINGTON, Va. - A "failure of the national political leadership" is responsible for the “nightmare” of the Iraq war, retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez said Friday.

    If some of America’s political leaders were in the military they would have been relieved or court-martialed long ago, Sanchez told a conference of military journalists.

    "Neglect and incompetence" by the National Security Council has led to an intractable situation in Iraq, the former commander of coalition forces in Iraq said.

    Sanchez said that the NSC, Congress, the State Department and the national political leadership are all responsible for the "crisis in leadership." He refused to identify specific individuals responsible for the failure, saying that he thought the media should be able to figure it out for themselves.

    His comments appeared to be a broad indictment of White House policies and a lack of leadership in the Pentagon to oppose them. Such assessments — even by former Pentagon brass — are not new, but they have added resonance as debates over war strategy dominate the presidential campaign.

    Sanchez said the war in Iraq is "a nightmare with no end in sight," adding America has no choice but to continue fighting or the country will sink into chaos, which will spread throughout the Middle East. America will be there "for the foreseeable future," he said.

    ‘A desperate attempt’
    The so-called surge of troops in Iraq is "a desperate attempt by the administration," and the best the U.S. can do at this point is to "stave off defeat," Sanchez said.

    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.

    Sanchez said that the decision to disband the Iraqi army disenfranchised 300,000 to 400,000 Iraqis and put them out on the streets, fueling the insurgency.

    Asked whether he had an obligation as commander to speak up if he saw problems in the strategy for the war he said, "Of course."

    Sanchez was caught up in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, and although he was cleared of any involvement, the scandal cost him a fourth star and he was forced to retire.

    Asked whether he is happy with the investigation and prosecutions in the case, Sanchez answered sarcastically, "Is America happy with destroying the careers and the reputations of everyone in the military chain of command involved in Abu Ghraib?"

    Sanchez also railed on the media during his speech, saying that many people covering the war have political agendas and little concern about collateral damage when their stories are wrong. These members of the media are doing "a tremendous disservice to America," he said.

    The Associated Press contributed to this report.

    © 2007 MSNBC Interactive
    URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21272663/
  2. #2  
    And the disengenuous response from this administration after the long, uncomfortable silence?

    A spokeswoman for the NSC responded by saying progress is being made in Iraq. "We appreciate his service to the country," National Security Council spokeswoman Kate Starr said of Sanchez.

    "As Gen. (David) Petraeus and Ambassador (Ryan) Crocker have said, there is more work to be done, but progress is being made in Iraq and that's what we're focused on now," Starr said in a statement, referring to the U.S. military commander in Iraq and the U.S. ambassador to that country.
    This new 'Ownership Society' must only apply to material wealth as ownership of responsibility is clearly devoid of contrition.
  3. #3  
    I'm a middle of the road conservative and I'm sick of this Crap.give Iraq 6 months to build the forces needed to defend there country then we need to get the hell out.If for some reason they fail to put the forces together in 6 months we still pull out.

    Sorry if off topic but,
    Are country needs to focus on border security and bringing back jobs that we sold to China.
    One big Problem though...No one Cares in Washington.all they want is money and power with no leardership skill and are selling us all short of what this country was built on.
  4. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #4  
    And, now, for the source of Mr. Sanchez's angst:

    Sanchez was caught up in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, and although he was cleared of any involvement, the scandal cost him a fourth star and he was forced to retire.

    Asked whether he is happy with the investigation and prosecutions in the case, Sanchez answered sarcastically, "Is America happy with destroying the careers and the reputations of everyone in the military chain of command involved in Abu Ghraib?"


    He sounds, to put it mildly, bitter.
  5. #5  
    Two words: Sour grapes.

    Everything was already lost when he took over...uh sure. And he obviously didn't improve things.

    This guy is a turd. Not because of his criticism, but he lack of taking repsonsibilty that he was not up for the job.
  6.    #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    And, now, for the source of Mr. Sanchez's angst:

    Sanchez was caught up in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, and although he was cleared of any involvement, the scandal cost him a fourth star and he was forced to retire.

    Asked whether he is happy with the investigation and prosecutions in the case, Sanchez answered sarcastically, "Is America happy with destroying the careers and the reputations of everyone in the military chain of command involved in Abu Ghraib?"


    He sounds, to put it mildly, bitter.
    I agree to some extent - he seems to have an axe to grind. But I can also understand that he probably had no idea troops that far down the chain of command were commiting such crimes. Afterall, he was cleared of any criminal wrongdoing. Some of the troops were not, were they?

    One major hole in your theory though...he is not the first. Not by a long shot. I'd say if one were to examine the body of statements from ex-officers having served that have come out against the administration's handling of the war vs. merely one ex-general's opinion with a chip on his shoulder then at the very least his rebuke lends credibility to those before him that have spoken out. And since he is not the first, the comments from those before him would logically add more credence to his rubuke.

    Of course, its much more fun to isolate one fault in the person - ignoring his lifetime of service to his country - and then crucify him for the "loser" that he surely must be for disagreeing with the Bushies.
  7.    #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikec View Post
    This guy is a turd.
    I'd bet he was pretty cool when he supported the war though wasn't he? Or when he led his battalion into Basra back in 1991...he was a pretty good guy then, right?
  8. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I'd bet he was pretty cool when he supported the war though wasn't he? Or when he led his battalion into Basra back in 1991...he was a pretty good guy then, right?
    Similar to how 'Betray-us' was portrayed?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  9.    #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Similar to how 'Betray-us' was portrayed?
    Exactly. Where is the outrage by my friends on the right now?
  10. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post

    One major hole in your theory though...he is not the first. Not by a long shot.
    He is not the first, but he also not part of a large group either.

    A cursory review of our countries military history shows that discord in the military is not uncommon. Every war yields commanders who were not happy with how a war was fought.

    Sanchez is not unique in this regard.

    I'd say if one were to examine the body of statements from ex-officers having served that have come out against the administration's handling of the war vs. merely one ex-general's opinion with a chip on his shoulder then at the very least his rebuke lends credibility to those before him that have spoken out. And since he is not the first, the comments from those before him would logically add more credence to his rubuke.
    I would be the first to say that there are valid criticisms of how Bush has undertaken this war. But to sit there and say there was some sort of "breakdown of leadership" and a "nightmare with no end in site" tells me he had a axe to grind.

    He, meaning Sanchez, forgets that he was part of that leadership he so vigorously criticizes.

    The only thing in the article that Sanchez said that made any sense was the remark about disbanding the Iraqi military. That was a big mistake.

    Of course, its much more fun to isolate one fault in the person - ignoring his lifetime of service to his country - and then crucify him for the "loser" that he surely must be for disagreeing with the Bushies.
    I just find it interesting that some people grow a pair of balls only when it is convenient.
  11.    #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    I would be the first to say that there are valid criticisms of how Bush has undertaken this war.
    Great, we agree on that point.

    But to sit there and say there was some sort of "breakdown of leadership" and a "nightmare with no end in site" tells me he had a axe to grind.
    I think I already agreed he has an axe to grind. Moving right along...

    The only thing in the article that Sanchez said that made any sense was the remark about disbanding the Iraqi military. That was a big mistake.
    Agreed. It was a catatrophic mistake that ultimately will go down in history as one of the primary reasons we lost the war.

    I just find it interesting that some people grow a pair of balls only when it is convenient.
    OK. If he were standing alone I might support your contempt for him given his role (which amounts to ignorance at best, dereliction of duty at worst) in Abu Ghraib. But he does not stand alone - far from it.
  12. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    OK. If he were standing alone I might support your contempt for him given his role (which amounts to ignorance at best, dereliction of duty at worst) in Abu Ghraib. But he does not stand alone - far from it.
    When a majority of the commanders, and generals, believe this war was a wrong one - then Sanchez's observations will carry special meaning.

    Until then, though, I take Sanchez's words for what they are worth.
  13.    #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    When a majority of the commanders, and generals, believe this war was a wrong one - then Sanchez's observations will carry special meaning.

    Until then, though, I take Sanchez's words for what they are worth.
    You do that.

    But what about General Batiste? Lt. Gen. John R. Vines? General Anthony Zinni? No good either? I mean, the gig was a bit of a revolving door (for generals in charge in Iraq) but if you're looking for a statistical majority there weren't that many.

    We ought to be able to simply add up those that have served as the top commander in Iraq and see how many have been vocal about the administration's policies over there, or have remained in support.

    Seriously, I'd like to figure this out if anyone can find the list of those who have been in charge over there.
  14. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    But what about General Batiste?
    Let us not forget something. General Batiste was, at one point, the number one military aide to Paul Wolfowitz during his tenure as Secretary of Defense. As a result of that work, he got a 2nd star - ostensibly - because he went along and enacted their vision.

    By the way, I believe it was Batiste who said of Rumsfeld in Tikrit on Christmas Eve 2004:

    "This is a man with the courage and the conviction to win the war on terrorism."

    Hmmm, so either the general was being disingenuous then, or he is being disingenuous now. Either way, it reflects rather poorly on him.

    General Anthony Zinni?
    Interesting you bring him up.....

    Zinni told Congress in 2000, "Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf region. "Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research, [and] retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions ... Even if Baghdad reversed its course and surrendered all WMD capabilities, it retains scientific, technical, and industrial infrastructure to replace agents and munitions within weeks or months."

    Compare and contrast with what he was quoted in saying later on...

    "What bothered me ... [was that] I was hearing a depiction of the intelligence that didn't fit what I knew. There was no solid proof, that I ever saw, that Saddam had WMD."

    Well damn! Will the real Zinni please stand up....please stand up....please stand up.

    I'll stop here, but I think you see a recurring pattern here.

    These commanders are now private citizens and are, obviously, free to say whatever they want, but perhaps sometimes thinking twice before biting the hand that fed you, so to speak, is the prudent thing to do.
  15. #15  
    No serving general of high officer has expressed reservations or resigned when they first saw the problems that they are now objecting to.

    In their defense, it is not easy to ruin one's career and I don't recall many doing this hara-kiri (speaking figuratively) in earlier wars either.

    However, some generals are speaking out now. And their criticisms cannot be ignored simply because they are speaking late. If they say that the political appointees were/are idiots, maybe they are correct. They would know.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  16.    #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad View Post
    However, some generals are speaking out now. And their criticisms cannot be ignored simply because they are speaking late. If they say that the political appointees were/are idiots, maybe they are correct. They would know.
    I agree. As active duty military officers I would expect nothing less from them than to communicate a continuing message that is positive and attempts to move things forward - at the very least, their troops depend on it. It would be a bit like an assistant NFL coach speaking out in a negatively way publicly during the pre-season or after one regular season game about the head coach. Such a move would likely be detrimental to the season, the team, and/or most certainly the assistant coach's career in the NFL.
    Last edited by moderateinny; 10/14/2007 at 06:57 AM.
  17. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #17  
    No one in the military is indispensible. That is by design.

    Perhaps they were protecting their careers, but that would mean they placed their careers above those of the soldiers they commanded. That is quite a load on one's conscious.
    Last edited by gojeda; 10/14/2007 at 07:05 AM.
  18.    #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    I'll stop here, but I think you see a recurring pattern here.

    These commanders are now private citizens and are, obviously, free to say whatever they want, but perhaps sometimes thinking twice before biting the hand that fed you, so to speak, is the prudent thing to do.
    I think I suggested we compile a list of the commanders first to determine if there even is a majority. Instead you've jumped right into attack mode.

    So even if there is a majority you seem more inclined to impugn each and every one of them rather than grant that Sanchez's comments have credence, as you've suggested you would.
  19. #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I agree. As active duty military officers I would expect nothing less from them than to communicate a continuing message that is positive and attempts to move things forward - at the very least, their troops depend on it. It would be a bit like an assistant NFL coach speaking out in a negatively way publicly during the pre-season or after one regular season game about the head coach. Such a move would likely be detrimental to the season, the team, and/or most certainly the assistant coach's career in the NFL.
    However, since you created this analogy , if the owner of the team had delivered orders to his loyal head coach which were known to deliver less than winning results according to every known principle of the game, and the assistant coach was aware of these orders, does the assistant coach not have the duty, for the sake of his team, and ultimately for the sake of the game at-large, to speak out?
  20. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad View Post
    In their defense, it is not easy to ruin one's career and I don't recall many doing this hara-kiri (speaking figuratively) in earlier wars either.
    During World War II, about a third of submarine commanders had to be relieved or given early retirements (many over fears that the country's torpedo arsenal was ineffective at the time). Significant numbers of corps and division commanders had to be forced out as well.

    In short, the churn rate was evident.

    There are several studies about all this on the Internet.

    One of the realities of the military is that the peacetime military is quite different from that of a wartime military. Officers are promoted for bureaucratic reasons in peacetime. In wartime, officers are promoted based on performance.
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions