Sanchez’s speech
posted at 12:37 pm on October 13, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Drudge has had it red-fonted at the top of the page for the past 15 hours. Here’s the transcript, all-capped to make it that much more painful to read. Other righty bloggers like Powerline have already noted how accounts of the speech are emphasizing his withering attack on the conduct of the war over his equally withering attack on the media’s coverage of it. I don’t mind that — war policy matters more to people than press bias, and his line about court-martialing certain unnamed political leaders for dereliction of duty if they had been servicemen is irresistible — but read the AP account that Drudge links to. It’s not that they focus more on his criticism of the war than on his criticism of the media; it’s that the criticism of the media is omitted entirely. The whole first half of the speech is wished away into the cornfield. No wonder. Sample quote:
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.
But enough of that. The amazing thing about the second half of the speech, where he takes on the war, is how vague, redundant, and unrealistic it is as a prescription for what to do now. A few choice passages:
AMERICA HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO CONTINUE OUR EFFORTS IN IRAQ… 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…
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…
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 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… 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.
Got that? We can’t win without our allies, who are deserting us, but we must continue on to achieve victory, which is impossible because we lack a grand strategy, so we should probably start reducing troop levels and let the Iraqis take over, except that this is “the greatest challenge of our lifetime” and we owe it to our soldiers to win, which is why our leaders must come up with a plan that rises above partisanship, which is never, ever going to happen with the public trending Democratic and 60-65% already demanding withdrawal and an election a year away. It’s like saying, “Victory is within reach — if only the American people were completely different.” Thanks for the helpful advice, General. Like Eric Egland says (and Col. Paul Yingling before him), where were you when this Rx might have been even minimally useful?
Update: Here’s a no-caps version of the speech for easier reading.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
Media bias? What bias?
amerpundit on October 13, 2007 at 12:40 PM
Is he shopping for or already signed to a book deal?
Disingenous at best.
bbz123 on October 13, 2007 at 12:43 PM
I take it he won’t be voting for Bush in 2008.
.
GT on October 13, 2007 at 12:48 PM
[bbz123 on October 13, 2007 at 12:43 PM]
My first impression was that Sanchez was interviewing for a nomination slot, either elected or appointed.
I know that “THANK YOU”. I’ve seen it before on blogs. It’s typed “/RANT”.
Dusty on October 13, 2007 at 12:54 PM
Disgusting. He knows that the enemy will use this footage in their propaganda.
But why now? The surge is working. We’re seeing results in Iraq. So why now? That’s the question. Money? Book deals? Adulation from the left? A Hillary cabinet post? Why now?
Tony737 on October 13, 2007 at 12:55 PM
Do they consider it bias if they don’t report it?
JammieWearingFool on October 13, 2007 at 12:55 PM
Is he campaigning for Joints Chief under Mrs. Clintion?
SouthernGent on October 13, 2007 at 1:02 PM
Perhaps this is a last ditch effort in the Dhemocrat grand strategy of surrender at any and all costs. Our current strategy is working so we MUST abandon it immediately.
Thank you for your service.
Mojave Mark on October 13, 2007 at 1:03 PM
“AMERICA MUST DEMAND A UNIFIED NATIONAL STRATEGY THAT GOES WELL BEYOND PARTISAN POLITICS AND PLACES THE COMMON GOOD ABOVE ALL ELSE.”
Yeah, such as winning the war.
SoulGlo on October 13, 2007 at 1:07 PM
Another General who does crap job and bad mouths others for his performance. Brings to mind Weaslie Clark.
Where was his big mouth when he 1st noticed things were going badly, probably the 1st he noticed is when he was passed over for a promotion. Just another jerk.
Wade on October 13, 2007 at 1:09 PM
Isn’t Sanchez a little late? Now that we know the surge is working and the war is coming to an end, I know, it will still take some time, what exactly is the purpose of this speech?
Capitalist Infidel on October 13, 2007 at 1:12 PM
Why do we only hear this sort of stuff after these generals have moved on to something else? You can’t say that they are muzzled during their time in command and then get released from their chains once they move on. General George Patton was an outstanding general while at the same time a notorious one for his vocal capabilities.
For better or for worse, Patton certainly never kept quiet when he felt that something was wrong with the policy. Sanchez could have said something that would have been in an appropriate way during his command in Iraq. Instead, he chose to wait 2 or 3 years after the fact to say something when.
But I repeat the question: Why now? Why not last year or the year before or next year? Why did he chose to say what he said now?
Weebork on October 13, 2007 at 1:16 PM
Why is he a jerk? I’m not defending him, but isn’t what he said here true: the media presents a wholly biased view that cripples the national perception of the war, partisan bickering at home is crippling the national perception of the war, honest people question the effectiveness and intention of the Maliki government who has been at least rhetorically generous to Iran, and aren’t the troop rotations a major concern to all involved?
I get the same sense as AP’s summation - Victory is within reach — if only the American people were completely different. But I didn’t read that as a will to lose, more of an absence of hope.
Spirit of 1776 on October 13, 2007 at 1:17 PM
Exactly. Sour grapes, not a pretty sight.
Zorro on October 13, 2007 at 1:23 PM
Guess this would be the same Ricardo Sanchez who brought us the Abu Ghraib torture mess and as commander for all troops in Iraq allowed a won war to slide into a prolonged terrorist campaign all the while refusing to even speak with civilian members of the coalition. Yeah, the Bush administration fired his incompetent ass.
Buzzy on October 13, 2007 at 1:26 PM
With guys like him running the show at first I can’t imagine how we got to where we are now… /sarcasm
bj1126 on October 13, 2007 at 1:30 PM
Because one is a General, that doesnt make him very smart. I wish these retired guys would shut the hell up and let us active duty guys worry about it, kind of like the retired talking heads on the news who haven been in for 20 yeas. They know crap. A General officer should know better.
gator70 on October 13, 2007 at 1:34 PM
This all caps is shouting, and unnerving; it also denotes ignorance.
If the ‘good’ general believes that the Glacier is the one bringing about that unity, fohget about it.
What a 3*** ass.
Entelechy on October 13, 2007 at 1:35 PM
Um, yes you can say that because it’s the truth.
baldilocks on October 13, 2007 at 2:05 PM
Make your points, General, but seriously, can you tone down the rhetoric just a tad? That “nightmare” quote is going to be everywhere, and that hurts our efforts.
WisCon on October 13, 2007 at 2:18 PM
Rereading Sanchez’s speech, it clicked that whatever his personal preferences on what to emphasize, he is competent officer and a bright guy. In keeping with that, I’m sure he did some checking as the below (except for the last one, which just might be a typo) are researched and/or he kept the articles.
If so, then they should be googleable and we will know who he was quoting. (Well, maybe not googleable but L-N-able.) No doubt this will be on the blogs in a couple of days.
I wait with baited barbs.
Dusty on October 13, 2007 at 2:23 PM
Baldilocks,
What about Patton?
Weebork on October 13, 2007 at 2:25 PM
Six-year-old Anthony Fremont looks like any other little boy, but looks are deceiving. He is a monster, a mutant with godlike mental powers. Early on, he isolated the small hamlet of Peaksville, Ohio. In fact, the handful of inhabitants do not even know if he destroyed the rest of the world or if it still exists. Anthony has also eliminated electricity, automobiles, and television signals. He controls the weather and what supplies can be found in the grocery store. Anthony creates and destroys as he pleases, and controls when the residents can watch the TV and what they can watch on it.
The adults tiptoe nervously around him, constantly telling him how everything he does is “good”, since displeasing him can get them wished away “to the cornfield“, where they are presumably met by a less-than-happy ending. Finally, at Dan Hollis’ birthday party, Dan, slightly drunk, can no longer stand the strain and confronts the boy, calling him a monster and a murderer; while Anthony’s anger grows, Dan begs the other adults to kill Anthony from behind—”Somebody end this, now!”—but everyone else is too afraid to act. Before he is killed, he is shown, indirectly by his shadow, transformed into a Jack-in-the-box. His widow breaks down, but no matter what happens, the people of Peaksville make sure to think only good thoughts and repeat “That’s a real good thing that Anthony did!” and “It’s a good life.”
MB4 on October 13, 2007 at 2:28 PM
The non-caps version of the transcript is at Milblogs.
baldilocks on October 13, 2007 at 2:29 PM
A nightmare with no end in sight? You’d have thought that we’ve elected Hilary and opened our borders already!
gryphon202 on October 13, 2007 at 2:32 PM
Maybe he read H. R. McMaster’s book “Dereliction of Duty”. In 1997 Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Hugh Shelton ordered all his commanders to read it.
MB4 on October 13, 2007 at 2:40 PM
As a retired G.I. I was inculcated that while in uniform I had no political affiliation and was not allowed to speak our unless the ‘Chain of Command’ reviewed what I was preparing to say.
Further, in public I was not authorized to speak of any current policy or tactics being employed in any operation the military was engaged in. To do so was a punishable offense of the UCMJ.
I have been retired for 15 years and still maintain in tourch with my military counterparts and we do not see that the policies have not changed. Therefore, the General is shopping for a political career after retirement which should be sooner than later.
MSGTAS on October 13, 2007 at 2:44 PM
CSPAN has complete video up including Q&A (starts around thirty minutes into the one hour video)after General Sanchez speech.
At 52:50 NBC’s Courtney Kube asks Sanchez to name the
names of the political figures he holds responsible for the “failure of national political leadership.”
Sanchez’s smug response: “More to follow later…I think you can read into it…more to follow later.”
Oh, yeah. That’s some moral courage on your part, General.
Best part is when moderator of event scolds Sanchez for asking the press to “read into it” after Sanchez has just blasted the press for getting ‘it’ wrong due to reading between the lines.
http://www.c-span.org/ (Military Reporters & Editors Forum with Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, U.S. Central Command (10/12/2007))
ganeshpuri89 on October 13, 2007 at 2:44 PM
L. Paul Bremmer will likely be at the top of the General’s list. The feud between the two was one of the operational problems in Iraq. Bremmer convincing Bush to push aside Zalmay Khalilzad in Iraq, was one of the key milestones in the post-invasion mismanagement. It also epitomizes the inability of Bush to coordinate his State Department with his Defense Department.
dedalus on October 13, 2007 at 3:02 PM
Good call. It already is everywhere–Yahoo’s leading with that as the headline, and I bet they’re just one of many. Sanchez just handed the enemy and the media–but I repeat myself–a club to beat us with. Way to go, numbnuts–talk about being part of the problem and not part of the solution.
ReubenJCogburn on October 13, 2007 at 3:04 PM
Especially when he was a central top-dog while his ‘problem’ was being concocted. Don’t tell me that he just sat there taking orders. If he did, I question his sanity and capabilities. He will turn out to be a product of PC once again having gone awry.
Entelechy on October 13, 2007 at 3:09 PM
Heh!
ganeshpuri89 on October 13, 2007 at 3:18 PM
“Timothy M. Carney went to Baghdad in April 2003 to run Iraq’s Ministry of Industry and Minerals. Unlike many of his compatriots in the Green Zone, the rangy, retired American ambassador wasn’t fazed by chaos. He’d been in Saigon during the Tet Offensive, Phnom Penh as it was falling to the Khmer Rouge and Mogadishu in the throes of Somalia’s civil war.
Once he received his Halliburton-issued Chevrolet Suburban, he disregarded security edicts and drove around Baghdad without a military escort. His mission, as he put it, ‘was to listen to the Iraqis and work with them.’
He left after two months, disgusted and disillusioned. The U.S. occupation administration in Iraq, the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), placed ideology over pragmatism, he believed. His boss, Viceroy L. Paul Bremer, refused to pay for repairs needed to reopen many lootedstate-owned factories, even though they had employed tens of thousands of Iraqis.
‘This is a big mistake,’ Carney thought in May 2003, when Bremer told senior CPA officials that he would soon issue an edict prohibiting many former members of Hussein’s Baath Party from holding government jobs. The one-and-a-half-page decree, which was drafted in the Pentagon office of then Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith, banned anyone who had been in the party’s top four ranks; it also banned hundreds of thousands of rank-and-file members from holding senior management positions in government ministries. Bremer’s stated goal was to cleanse Iraq’s government of the former president’s cronies.
Carney and the other Americans tapped to run Iraq’s ministries knew that the senior managers in almost all government departments were Baathists. Hussein’s government had forced them to join the party, but that didn’t mean they all had blood on their hands or that they were all close associates of the former leader. And without them, it would be much more challenging to get the government running again.
With unemployment at more than 40 percent, Carney also knew that anyone kicked out of a government job wasn’t going to find work elsewhere. They would be unemployed and angry.
In his autobiography, American Soldier, Franks describes a conversation with his subordinates who were upset with Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith; Franks tells them, ‘Here’s the deal, guys. I know OSD - Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Feith - are demanding a lot. But they are not the enemy. Don’t start thinking good guys-bad guys. We’re all on the same side.’ They could see I was serious. ‘I’ll worry about OSD, all of them - including Doug Feith, who’s getting a reputation around here as the dumbest F##cking guy on the planet,’ I continued. ‘Your job is to make me feel warm and fuzzy. Look, we’re all professionals. Let’s earn our pay.’
Franks shows a military man’s ability to get to the heart of the matter. But Feith isn’t dumb. His defenders, in fact, frequently stand up for him by citing his brilliance. But Franks’ lament is a blunter, less eloquent version of what Fallows wrote in the Atlantic of the office of the secretary of Defense, particularly Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Feith: ‘What David Halberstam said of Robert McNamara in The Best and the Brightest is true of those at OSD as well: they were brilliant, and they were fools.’“
MB4 on October 13, 2007 at 3:20 PM
The left associates Sanchez with Abu Ghraib. They won’t pay any attention to him just because he is now blaming Bush. /sarcasm off
Sue on October 13, 2007 at 3:27 PM
The press corps is incapable of self-criticism, which is one reason why it continues to grow more and more dishonest… and obviously so.
Merovign on October 13, 2007 at 3:40 PM
Was this guy passed over by Gen Petraeus?
Here’s an idea. Any WW2 veterans reading this want to come out and have the audacity to claim that we lost WW2?
*sarcasm off*
He will be in Hillary’s staff, as will Sandy Burgler.
El Guapo on October 13, 2007 at 4:26 PM
Passed over and out.
Sanchez got no badges, no stinkin badges.
Kini on October 13, 2007 at 4:52 PM
MB4,
Good post.
I only speak from anecdote at this point. Most people don’t realize, or admit to if they did, the US government in its entirety did not go to war when the Iraq campaign kicked off. Most of the internationally focused agencies/organizations didn’t buy in and were only going to do so if ordered; and when ordered, actions would be executed only in letter-of-the-law frameworks. There was so much maliscious odedience occuring in other government organizations involved, it made you wonder if a coup had not happened. Classic line: “…I am not obligated nor am I inclined…”
Our foreign policy mantra for longer than most people reading this have been alive has been: democracy (defined as West-European style parlimentary democracy; I defy anyone to provide me an example of Jeffersonian Republican democracy that we have installed since Woodrow Wilson, no the Philippines don’t count) and the establishment of Civil Society. The Iraq Campaign didn’t fit that paradigm.
The Iraq Campaign flew in the face of post-DESERT STORM policy: managed conflict executed in coalition. No more large scale unilateral military actions, the need for global civil society is greater than any one nation. We must resolve conflict via diplomacy and international law enforcement (Miloscievic?) at all costs, and if military action is required is must be surgical and executed under scrutiny of “international standards.” (Why do you think Kerry and the rest have called for an increase in SOF? They just want SWAT on steroids)We can never be seen as an occupier or empire, ever.
It was no surprise when we got the STUPID policy of “de-baathification.” When the dilemna of what to do with most folks indentified with Saddam’s Baathist regime arose, how better for non-supportive/recalictrant government desk officers inside the DC/VA belt-way to bring down “cowboy foreign policy?” Paul Bremer was finished before he got started.
I am not going to defend the huge mistakes made by OSD when the Iraq campaign kicked off. However it became apparent that OSD and the “Selected-not-elected-stetson-and-cowboy-boot-wearing imbecile in the oval office” was going to “own this.” Everyone else would have to be dragged into making “something” happen in Iraq. As we see “something” did happen in Iraq.
Its little wonder that Sanchez et al are talking the way they are; outside of the Oval office they were in this Iraq thing alone.
lpierson on October 13, 2007 at 5:25 PM
Kind of makes me glad I personally offended the General once, in Kuwait.
Anybody else catch a strong whiff of Wesley Clark’s perfume in the air?
paragon27x on October 13, 2007 at 5:27 PM
I think the fisking of the mainstream media by Sanchez was on target. I’m not surprised that America’s 5th Column deliberately suppressed Sanchez’s criticism of them AND the Democratic Party. It’s what you’d expect from this bunch of liars and traitors.
Just as I am NOT surprised that the New York Times COMPLETELY IGNORED the posthumous awarding of the Medal of Honor to a “homeboy”, Long Island native Navy Lt. Michael Murphy for his actions in Afghanistan.
Not a word appeared in the Times, though every other major New York paper covered it in depth, as well as other papers elsewhere in America. As the editorial in the New York Post put it:
.
My anger at the left, particularly the 5th Column so-called “mainstream media,” and the Democratic Party which they serve, is very, very great. At their very core, they are disloyal to the point of treason. They have deliberately sabotaged the war effort by mal-reporting and by the constant drumroll of bad news while suppressing the good.
georgej on October 13, 2007 at 5:30 PM
Somebody step on a duck?
Kini on October 13, 2007 at 5:36 PM
Somebody step on a duck?
Kini on October 13, 2007 at 5:36 PM
That is really funny that you should say that…. because that is EXACTLY how I felt when I was informed that the person I had just pooped all over was none other than MG Sanchez.
paragon27x on October 13, 2007 at 5:53 PM
career dissipation light was blinking rapidly, at that point…
paragon27x on October 13, 2007 at 5:58 PM
He does a lousy job and now expects to be listened to?
On what basis?
(Maybe he wrote this last May and doesn’t notice how out-of-sync it now sounds.)
The Last Hurrah of one more whiner.
Undermining the overall effort with vaguely hysterical phrases.
Just fade away, already.
profitsbeard on October 13, 2007 at 6:02 PM
profitsbeard on October 13, 2007 at 6:02 PM
Well said….
I second that.
paragon27x on October 13, 2007 at 6:09 PM
Exactly!
Just because you have the Stars General doesn’t mean you’re without measurable results when it comes to filling out the uniform.
Kini on October 13, 2007 at 6:10 PM
With the MSM behind him, he don’t NEED no stinkin badges!
csdeven on October 13, 2007 at 6:27 PM
Kini on October 13, 2007 at 6:10 PM
I meant that MY career dissipation light was blinking…
I had just dissed a Division Commanding, 2 star General, and had no idea I had done so.
The reaction from my fellow troops ranged from wide eyed horror, to concealed ROFL.
Tell ya what, though…. That SOB, (Sanchez) can give a Sergeant “The Look”.
I guess that I should have gotten a bit of a clue bat, from my Colonel turning white as a ghost…. Oh, well.
paragon27x on October 13, 2007 at 6:32 PM
Then you are the Real Soldier Sir, and I salute you and your brethren alike.
You probably are like many of us that can see BS walking a mile away, you don’t have to stand and listen to it.
I am thankful for your service.
Kini on October 13, 2007 at 6:46 PM
All silliness aside, I am more than a tad disappointed with Ricardo, but not surprised. What a bunch of self-serving, double-talking BS.
What perfume does HA think appropriate for this little prince?
Too bad Col. Dave Hackworth is no longer around to supply an opinion
paragon27x on October 13, 2007 at 6:54 PM
Vietnam in Retrospect: Could We Have Won?
This is like deja vu all over again.
- Yogi Berra
MB4 on October 13, 2007 at 7:16 PM
blah, blah, blah
If I want a coherent speech about what is actually going on, I’ll listen to Patraeus, or anyone else that is actually involved and making a positive difference for this country…. thank you very much.
bridgetown on October 13, 2007 at 7:22 PM
I sure hope that you are not implying that General Sanchez is a Phony Soldier?
MB4 on October 13, 2007 at 7:26 PM
In the 90s, it was real easy in the military to say “Clinton stinks” because the liberals hated the military anyway and the conservatives hated Clinton.
Now when you say “Bush is wrong” well liberals hate the military and GOPers think Bush must be right.
MB4 on October 13, 2007 at 7:30 PM
There is a big split inside the Pentagon. Some support the new commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, who advocates using more U.S. forces to protect Baghdad neighborhoods, while most others back the position of Gen. John P. Abizaid, retiring commander for the Mideast, who favored handing responsibility more quickly to Iraqis.
MB4 on October 13, 2007 at 7:37 PM
Absolutely not! A Phony General, Yes!
How many generals did Lincoln go through till he found a real one.
Kini on October 13, 2007 at 7:52 PM
So General Sanchez is a Phony General, but somehow absolutely not a Phony Soldier? That doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. And Bush is equatable to Abraham Lincoln? That makes even less sense.
Now I believe that I may have truly heard it all.
BTW, is Abizaid a Phony General? Is Fallon a Phony Admiral? Is Gates a Phony SecDef?
MB4 on October 13, 2007 at 8:20 PM
Interesting. Where are the numbers from?
Come on dude. You trying to squeeze an insult out of a compliment meant for another poster. Akin to “when you said she was pretty, you really meant was that I’m ugly” If you want to find an insult, find a real insult. I’m sure there are plenty.
Spirit of 1776 on October 13, 2007 at 8:30 PM
Just throwing my 2 cents in…
While I do not feel that Sanchez was the sharpest knife in the drawer, he WAS chosen by the Army to be leader of a Combat Arms Division. His politics as of late may piss me off, but he has not quite irked me to the Wesley Clark level… YET.
Got a funny feeling he will, though…
paragon27x on October 13, 2007 at 8:42 PM
Give him time….
paragon27x on October 13, 2007 at 8:51 PM
No squeezing was needed at all. It was a pretty clear enough insult to General Sanchez, but just to be sure, always try to give the benifit of the doubt, it was confirmed by comment on October 13, 2007 at 7:52 PM.
If I was a General with about thirty years of distinguished service to America and someone said that I was a Phony General, I would consider that to be a BIG insult or at least a very clear attempt at one. You wouldn’t? Strange if that is the case.
I feel pretty confident that Rush will not be calling Sanchez a Phony Soldier come this Monday.
MB4 on October 13, 2007 at 8:58 PM
Shortly after graduation, Sanchez was commissioned into the Army, becoming a paratrooper platoon leader with the 82nd Airborne Division stationed at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. By 1977, he was transferred to Armor. He received promotions swiftly and was stationed all over the United States, in Korea, Panama and Germany.
In 1991, then-Lieutenant Colonel Sanchez served as a battalion commander during Operation Desert Storm, successfully leading his battalion to Basra without losing any men. Shortly after the Gulf War, Sanchez was promoted to Colonel and given command of the 2nd Brigade of the 1st Infantry Division. Afterwards, he served on the staff of U.S. Southern Command, first as deputy chief of staff then as director of operations.
On July 10, 2001, General Sanchez became commanding general of V Corps’ 1st Armored Division. He held that position for nearly two years before assuming command of the entire corps on June 14, 2003. On this date he also became commander of coalition ground forces in the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq.
*
So all that counts for naught as he dares to criticize Commander Guy and company?
Sad that some feel that way.
MB4 on October 13, 2007 at 9:02 PM
Generally speaking, and I’m just generalizing here, the general point is when is a general allowed to pop off to his, or soon to be her, CnC?
Whist in the glare of newsprint? Not very gallant.
Nonsensical musings MB4 - it’s just my opinion - and opinions are like, well, you know, everyones got one.
As for bating for an insult, I won’t give you the pleasure.
But I will say some of your comments are…., amusing…!
Kini on October 13, 2007 at 9:02 PM
That being your response says a lot more about you than it does about me.
And your slander of General Sanchez (Your - “A Phony General, Yes!”) says a lot more about you than it does about him. A lot more.
Your are very transparent.
MB4 on October 13, 2007 at 9:19 PM
Or did you mean nonsensical musings on your part? If so, then I overreacted.
MB4 on October 13, 2007 at 9:22 PM
I try MB4, I really try.
Thanks for noticing!
Whatta guy!
Kini on October 13, 2007 at 9:23 PM
Mine
Kini on October 13, 2007 at 9:24 PM
Measureread twice,cutrespond once. We all must remember that.MB4 on October 13, 2007 at 9:28 PM
Hey Kini… Thanks for saying so, but I deserve no thanks. I was just an “Ron Reagans’s Army of Europe” guy, etc, from 85-95. Re-upped in early 02 in the Reserves for OIF.
The kids serving today deserve a lot more credit!
God Bless them.
Wish my old arse had the strength and speed to be a worthy NCO, and serve along side them!
paragon27x on October 13, 2007 at 10:14 PM
Lincoln was tough on his generals and had to defeat one of them, McClellen, for reelection. Lincoln went through commanders until he found one who could implement his strategy. I think Sanchez’s criticism is that that, while the administration had an idea of “outcome”, Bush and team didn’t manage the execution or even fully define the strategy.
dedalus on October 13, 2007 at 11:32 PM
I think that is a big part of it. Bush knew the outcome that he wanted, but that’s about it. He never seems to have even considered the “ingredients”, never mind strategy, that were in Iraq to make his American Pie. I wish that I could remember his name, an Israeli military scholar/historian, said at the beginning of all this “nation building” that if one wanted to pick a country to democratize, one could hardly have picked a worse candidate than Iraq.
“May 26, 2007 – President George W. Bush, in a Memorial Day weekend radio address, said the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are aimed at promoting in those countries the freedom people enjoy in the U.S.
Bush, “Our troops are helping them build democracies that respect the rights of their people, uphold the rule of law and fight extremists alongside America in the war on terror.”
I suppose Bush can’t say much of anything else. He’s got us stuck to a tarbaby. Bush must know this, but he’s invested too much in the fantasy that Muslims are just pining away for democracy and freedom, that he can’t do much else but repeat the same old bromides that got us into this Charley Foxtrot.
MB4 on October 13, 2007 at 11:53 PM
MB4 -
Jeezus NO DOUBT….I just wish Bush knew what a total junior piece of crap Clinton was - he was just such a fucking looser, afraid of his own shadow and SOOO concerned with his Hooter scores he’d never take a fricken stand! Blow up our embassy? Go for it, move ahead! An Embassy again? PAR-TA! USS COLE? Dom Perignon anyone?
Seriously,Clinton, Burkle and a hookers tits is foreign policy.
Thanks for reminding me
MB4!
Topsecretk9 on October 14, 2007 at 2:51 AM
MB4!
Is a concern troll.
Topsecretk9 on October 14, 2007 at 2:59 AM
flagrant error #1: ‘GIVEN THE LACK OF A GRAND STRATEGY’ … We have an obvious grand strategy, namely bringing democracy to the Middle East to defeat the root of the terrorist threat. We also have a grand strategy specific to Iraq, building their police and army up.
flagrant error #2: ‘WE CANNOT AFFORD TO CONTINUE THIS STRUGGLE WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF OUR COALITION PARTNERS’ …
We clearly can. I’m not dismissing the great help other countries have provided, but if we had to do it alone at this point we could, because the Iraqi police and military are already built up many times more than all coalition partners combined.
General Sanchez is simply mistaken. Worse, his statements have been taken out of context to attack his fellow service members still fighting the war, thus increasing their risk. He seems to have known that yet said it regardless, which makes his comments not only foolish but reprehensible.
V/r,
LT Jason Nichols
Jason on October 14, 2007 at 4:02 AM
We were always warned about speaking to the press–not because we weren’t allowed to, but because the press would twist, excerpt, misquote, or otherwise butcher anything we said in order to do as much damage as possible to the Army. So if that wasn’t what we wanted to have happen, then we shouldn’t talk to the press. That was sound and excellent advice, and Sanchez would have done better to have followed it. Because the vast majority of the media don’t work for us, they work for the enemy, and they demonstrate that fact every day.
ReubenJCogburn on October 14, 2007 at 4:37 AM
flagrant error #1: ‘GIVEN THE LACK OF A GRAND STRATEGY’ … We have an obvious grand strategy, namely bringing democracy to the Middle East to defeat the root of the terrorist threat. We also have a grand strategy specific to Iraq, building their police and army up.
Bringing what we in the west consider to be democracy to the Islamic Middle East is a delusion.
How long has this training been going on now? 4 years? Basic is two months and AIT is two months. What are they being trained for that is taking so long? Are they being trained to be Astronauts? Surgeons? Oncologists? Aeronautical Engeneers? Ballerinas?)
flagrant error #2: ‘WE CANNOT AFFORD TO CONTINUE THIS STRUGGLE WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF OUR COALITION PARTNERS’ …
We clearly can. I’m not dismissing the great help other countries have provided, but if we had to do it alone at this point we could, because the Iraqi police and military are already built up many times more than all coalition partners combine.
Why then do we have 30,000 more troops there than we did last year?.
General Sanchez is simply mistaken. Worse, his statements have been taken out of context to attack his fellow service members still fighting the war, thus increasing their risk. He seems to have known that yet said it regardless, which makes his comments not only foolish but reprehensible.
Well which is it? “Simply mistaken” or “he seems to have known that(his words would be used to attack his fellow service members still fighting the war)” and “reprehensible”? Please make up your mind. If General Sanchez is a reprehensible fool, and that is basically what you have called him, why is it do you think that he made it to 3 star General and you have only made it to Lieutenant? How did his words, or any interpretation of them that I have heard, constitute an attack on his fellow service members still fighting the war? Seems to me he was criticizing high up civilians like Bush. And just how have his words increased the risk to the troops? This is getting a little old that no one is suppose to criticize Bush or his administration or they are endangering the troops. Bush is the one who has been endangering the troops. To criticize the President and his policies is called freedom and democracy. You know that thing that Bush and apparently you think that we can bring to the Middle east.
V/r,
LT Jason Nichols
Jason on October 14, 2007 at 4:02 AM
BTW, have you ever read McMaster’s, who is a West Point graduate who earned a Silver Star for battlefield prowess during the 1991 Gulf War after his armored cavalry troop stumbled across an Iraqi mechanized brigade in the middle of a sandstorm and destroyed it, book “Dereliction of Duty”? You should read it sometime.
MB4 on October 14, 2007 at 5:16 AM
General Sanchez has shown at least inexcusably poor judgment with his remarks such that I am not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. He should know that his critical remarks would be used by the mainstream media to undermine current efforts by those bearing command responsibility. The tenure of General Sanchez was not particularly successful, and so for him to talk in the way he in now is disloyal to General Petraeus and the well conceived strategy being implemented by Genera Petraeus. Sort of like General Burnside popping off at the mouth in 1864 about the Union’s war efforts in the American Civil War.
Phil Byler on October 14, 2007 at 7:00 AM
It is amazing that some people claim to support the troops, yet only do so if the troops praise Jorge Arbusto or keep their mouths shut. They want to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq but don’t seem to even believe in having it here.
Sad.
MB4 on October 14, 2007 at 7:24 AM
I can certainly understand why they replaced this dud.
rplat on October 14, 2007 at 7:25 AM
Phil Byler on October 14, 2007 at 7:00 AM
General Sanchez has shown at least inexcusably poor judgment with his remarks.
Yep… must agree with you, Phil…
I tried to keep my personal dislike for Ricardo out of it, (mostly…. though my earlier “perfume prince” comment might have shown a tad of bias on my part.) and attempted to be somewhat fair and not totally chuck him under the bus… But…
I found upon re-reading the General’s diatribe that yes… He’s an irresponsible Putz, and a jackass.
paragon27x on October 14, 2007 at 7:49 AM
Under the bus he goes…
paragon27x on October 14, 2007 at 7:55 AM
MB4:
- How long has this training been going on now? 4 years? It’s taking 4 years because establishing a democracy takes time. Many people have said it would be a 5-10 year process, and after 4 years we seem to be on track.
- Why then do we have 30,000 more troops : We have 30K more troops to drive AQI out of Iraq and give the Iraqis space to continue their great work in building a police and military force. Not sure your point.
- Well which is it? It’s both. He’s mistaken, and his words are reprehensible because from the first half of his speech he apparently knew that attacks on our mission put soldiers at risk. Yet he did the exact same thing, calling it a ‘never-ending nightmare’ in a bout of completely unrealistic hysteria.
It’s not opposing democracy to say LTG Sanchez is mistaken, or that false attacks help the radical extremists. Freedom from tyranny doesn’t mean freedom from consequences.
Regards,
Jason
Jason on October 14, 2007 at 8:13 AM
Yep, I think some of you are right. Gen. Sanchez is postureing for a position in a democrap administration, possibly a joint chief seat.
2theright on October 14, 2007 at 10:27 AM
Factions, factions, factions, factions.
Factions in politics; factions in government; factions in the military leadership; factions in the workplace.
The bottom line is everyone believes they know what the best strategy and approach is, and when they don’t get their way the criticism, complaints, and pointing fingers is unleashed.
Of course, this is nothing new under the sun. As some have pointed out, history is filled with examples of this behavior.
“Everybody wants to rule the world…”
eanax on October 14, 2007 at 11:08 AM
This is a lengthy quote but EXTREMELY PERTINENT and SIGNIFICANT to the story of what Gen. Sanchez REALLY said.
.
This is the part of Sanchez’s speech that the MSM, for some reason (cough), chose to ignore. It puts his speech in an entirely different light. This is from Strategy Page:
“Information Warfare-What the General Really Said
Strategy Page
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/articles/20071014.aspx
.
On October 12th, former Iraq commander, Lieutenant General (retired) Ricardo S. Sanchez gave a talk at a Military Reporters and Editors luncheon in Washington D.C. The media promptly reported general Sanchez as being critical of government strategy in running the war.
.
No mention was made of the first 40 percent of the 3,400 word address. This is found below. It’s an interesting omission. But considering what Sanchez said, rather predictable. It’s another example of the media reporting only what they want to see happening, not what is actually happening. The troops constantly complain of that, but the mass media, especially, doesn’t seem to care or, in many cases, even to be aware of what they are doing. General Sanchez does, and was ignored for his efforts.
.
The Unreported Portion of the Talk
.
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 nations 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 preconceived 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 Lieutenant General.”
.
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 aggrandizement 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 strengthen 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 respected 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 service members 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 preconceived 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?”
DavePa on October 14, 2007 at 1:53 PM
Don’t just make the slanderous accusation against someone with thirty years of distinguished service as an American Soldier, that General Sanchez has put soldiers at risk and knowingly to boot, the accusation of which has become such a pitiful overused bromide, show how he has done that, otherwise you just sound like John Murtha with his accusations or Mike Nifong with his.
BTW, You have heard the term “Tip of the Iceberg” haven’t you?
Sure seems to be a number of folks here who hate the troops.
MB4 on October 14, 2007 at 2:45 PM
Let’s see, it’s okay to slander Petraeus and call him a liar, but it’s not okay to question a general who is NO LONGER in the fray?
Horse Hockey.
It’s nice to see MB4 getting his arguments shredded.
JannyMae on October 14, 2007 at 3:36 PM
MB4,
My evidence is that he called Iraq an endless nightmare and said we don’t have an overall strategy, among other things. These statements are false, and he said them to a group he clearly knew, or should have known, would use them to hurt American efforts in Iraq.
Jason
Jason on October 14, 2007 at 3:54 PM
Good points. It is a sad day when someone like Sanchez can have a 3 decade career ignored because he says something the “neocons” don’t like. Whether it is 4 or 40 years of service, if a Vet doesn’t have the right to speak their opinion without having their service questioned we have truly reached a new low and all the “support the troops” rhetoric is just that - rhetoric.
Bradky on October 15, 2007 at 6:17 AM
Bottom line, Sanchez failed in his mission.
Was it do to lack of vision on his part? Or was it do because too many restraints imposed upon him by the politicians?
It seems that regardless of motivation, Sanchez is lashing out at the man that fired him in the only viable avenue he has, military speak.
Just when things are starting to turn around and give us hope for the future of Iran, this man choose to disrupt our progress with his “failer” statement.
I question the timing.
leanright on October 15, 2007 at 6:36 AM
It’s not that we’re questioning or ignoring his entire career…it’s that we’re questioning why Sanchez is throwing away his entire career (post-completion, so entirely without penalty) to do this.
James on October 15, 2007 at 10:52 AM
He spent thirty years obeying the orders and directions of his civilian and military bosses. He did it professionally without consideration of his personal opinions. Now that he is out he is not allowed to speak unless it is a “Rah Rah Ciscoom Bah everything is happy happy joy joy” speech??
He is exercising his freedom of speech which he willingly didn’t fully enjoy while in uniform. And you want him to be penalized for that???
Bradky on October 15, 2007 at 11:34 AM
To find a soldier who will state he was involved in atrocities you have to find either
a. a soldier willing to be tried in a military court for confessed war crimes
b. a man who did not commit or witness such crimes and therefore a loser nut case
The hiring pool for ‘b’ is bigger. Job candidates from ‘b’ are eager willing hard workers. It matters little if they are discredited later as long as the MSM can use them for about 15 minutes. Long enough to put a sound bite on the car radio that will leave traces at election time. Few people in theaters read the credits, but most remember the promos.
To find a General who will state the war effort is a failure you have to find
1. a retired general who wants to say it
Of this group any of the following can be recuited:
a. they are certain it is true and can prove it
b. they feel it is true in their heart
c. they know it is not true
d. they do not care if it is true but have an axe to grind
I cannot classify this General but I do not like him because he is stretching out his evidence to maximize the PR.
Therefore I can understand why is is being cmpared to the ‘phony soldiers’ not because he was not a real officer or big shot, but because he is playing a PR game.
About once every two months the strategists have to implant a new anti-war sound bite on the car radio. The General was right on schedule to pick up the slack when the phony soldiers were unmasked, thanks to the blogs not the MSM
entagor on October 15, 2007 at 11:49 AM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »