 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:15 pm Post subject: Taranto: "Success Is Not an Option--I" |
 |
|
Retired Gen. Sanchez seems bent on sullying his distinguished career with post-retirement carping at his former CIC...not pretty Gen. Sanchez...not pretty at all...
| Quote: | Success Is Not an Option--I
by James Taranto
Nov 26, 2007
Whoops! "As violence declines in Baghdad, the leading Democratic presidential candidates are undertaking a new and challenging balancing act on Iraq," the New York Times reports. Having bet against American success in the hope of benefiting from failure, they are now hedging, "acknowledging that success, trying to shift the focus to the lack of political progress there, and highlighting more domestic concerns like health care and the economy."
The trouble is, many Democratic voters still want America to lose in Iraq. As the Times notes:This is a delicate matter. By saying the effects of the troop escalation have not led to a healthier political environment, the candidates are tacitly acknowledging that the additional troops have, in fact, made a difference on the ground--a viewpoint many Democratic voters might not embrace.
"Our troops are the best in the world; if you increase their numbers they are going to make a difference," Mrs. Clinton said in a statement after her aides were asked about her views on the ebbing violence in Baghdad.
"The fundamental point here is that the purpose of the surge was to create space for political reconciliation and that has not happened, and there is no indication that it is going to happen, or that the Iraqis will meet the political benchmarks," she said. "We need to stop refereeing their civil war and start getting out of it." Mrs. Clinton has never had any objection in principle to the Iraq war, which she voted to authorize five years ago. Yet for reasons of rank political opportunism, she now stands for the proposition that America must not win. Is this the kind of leadership America needs in a commander in chief?
Meanwhile, Reuters reports the Dems have found a military spokesman for their Iraq policy, such as it is:The general who led U.S. forces in Iraq after the invasion . . . spoke out for Democrats on Saturday, backing legislation aimed at withdrawing American troops.
Retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, in the Democratic weekly radio address, acknowledged that Bush's escalation strategy this year had improved security in Iraq. But he said Iraqi political leaders had failed to make "hard choices necessary to bring peace to their country." . . .
"It is well past time to adopt a new approach in Iraq that will improve chances to produce stability in the Middle East," he said. "I urge our political leaders to put aside partisan considerations and unite to lessen the burden our troops and their families have been under for nearly five years." Apparently it didn't occur to Sanchez that the Democratic weekly radio address isn't the best venue to urge people to "put aside partisan considerations."
Reuters notes that Sanchez "commanded the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq from June 2003 until July 2004 as the anti-U.S. insurgency took hold," that he "blamed the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal for wrecking his career," and that last month (as we also noted) he "blamed the Bush administration for a 'catastrophic failure' in leadership of the war."
Whatever the merits of his arguments, Sanchez is far from a disinterested party. He is seeking to avoid blame for the failures in Iraq under his command. Which, come to think of it, makes him quite the fitting spokesman for the Democrats.
Best of the Web Today |
Last edited by Me#1You#10 on Tue Nov 27, 2007 10:35 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
GenrXr
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 05 Aug 2004
Posts: 1720
Location: Houston
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is this vanity at display? Sanchez did not become a Lt. general by being stupid.
I once had a conversation with a Lt. Colonel who was not happy over not making Colonel and he explained how during peace time the pentagon is a brothel. Whores make it there, not warriors.
It is possible Lt. Sanchez is purely a political beast and not a warrior. If this turns out to be the case, he needs to be shamed like the rest of this type.
_________________
"An activist is the person who cleans up the water, not the one claiming its dirty."
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to stand by and do nothing." Edmund Burke (1729-1797), Founder of Conservative Philosophy
Last edited by GenrXr on Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:48 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coldwarvet
Admiral
Joined: 03 Jun 2004
Posts: 1125
Location: Minnetonka, MN
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardo_Sanchez#Abu_Ghraib
I’ve always felt General Sanchez was a lamb disguised in a military uniform.
In an effort to change his legacy from covering his own ass during the Abu Ghraib scandal, he is know sucking up to the same people who once pursecuted him.
_________________
Defender of the honor of those in harms way keeping us out of harms way.
"Peace is our Profession"
Strategic Air Command - Motto
USAF 75-79 Security Police |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shawa
CNO
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A good read on Sanchez radio address at Small Wars Journal
| Quote: | Excerpt:
While we agree that Operation Iraqi Freedom Phase IV (post-combat operations) planning and execution were a fiasco, Sanchez’s statement on his “firsthand account” implies that somehow he was a blameless bystander and not the one entrusted with day-to-day operations during the critical year following regime change in Iraq. Unless there was some backdoor dialogue occurring that we are not privy too, it appears Sanchez did not have a problem with the U.S. strategy at that time.
Moreover, as the senior commander he had the authority to take measures that could have lessened the impact of a failed or non-existent strategy had he so desired. Although critical resources such as sufficient manpower and unity of command / effort with the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) were lacking, had Sanchez recognized the nature of the emerging threat (insurgency) and planned and implemented a theater-wide counterinsurgency campaign with the resources at hand, we may have avoided some of the difficulties later encountered.
This is but one example of what might have been done by Sanchez with some basic situational awareness and a desire to make a difference. More on the situation on the ground at this time by Washington Post reporter Tom Ricks:
The more you looked at it, in certain areas, in different areas, [there were] guys that had certain patterns of success. It tended to be commanders who had the intelligence and the courage to recognize that the U.S. military had not prepared them for the job and who could think independently and critically about the situation.
So up north, Gen. [David] Petraeus with 101st Airborne, out west Gen. [James] Mattis, later in that year in Iraq, Baghdad, Gen. [Peter] Chiarelli. Some colonels also said, "Everything the U.S. military has given me hasn't prepared me for this job." They start operating differently, and I think that's actually when the U.S. military starts doing better.
Gen. Casey goes out to implore Sanchez, and he says, "Let me pull in some counterinsurgency experts." They've kind of been disregarded and ignored up to this point. "Have them tell me what we're doing here." They come in and give him a report that says, "There are nine basic hallmarks of failure in this sort of war, and you guys are squarely meeting eight of them. You're not controlling the border. You're not focusing on the population. You are focusing on large-size operations. You are not treating your prisoners well." These are all lessons, again and again, the military has learned. Why are these being ignored?
In August 2004, for the first time, the United States military formally has a counterinsurgency plan. It's not until August 2004 where Casey actually has a plan and signs it. There was never a plan the whole time that Bremer and Sanchez were there for how the U.S. military was to operate. So really, you need to get Bremer and Sanchez out of there, it seems, to even have a strategy, let alone an effective strategy is to have a strategy.
Cont'd |
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
