At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
Sanchez pointed to what he said was "neglect and incompetence at the National Security Council level" which has put the U.S. military into "an intractable situation" in Iraq.
Quote:
"While the politicians espouse a rhetoric designed to preserve their reputations and their political power, our soldiers die," he said.
The administration, he said, has ignored messages from field commanders that warned repeatedly that "our military alone could not achieve victory" without corresponding help from the State Department.
"Our National leadership ignored the lessons of World War Two 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," he said.
"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, economical and military power," he said.
Quote:
"Too often, our politicians have been distracted and they have chosen loyalty to their political parties above loyalty to the Constitution because of their lust for power," he said.
Congress, he said, has failed its job of oversight.
"Who will demand accountability for the failure of our national political leadership involved in the management of this war," he said. "They have unquestionably been derelict in in the performance of their duty. In my profession, these types of leaders would be immediately relieved or court-martialed."
I heard he wants to try selling a book. Wow, what a shocker then.
When the former head of the CIA stepped down, he criticized Bush, then sold a book for millions.
Now this Sanchez wants to do the same things.
I believe this was a mix of publicity. He knows that insulting Bush will get headlines.
CNN’s Anderson Copper said that shortly after Sanchez RETIRED from the military, he sat down for an interview with Cooper and mentioned NOTHING like he did the other day. So to me, I smell Sanchez just wanting to get publicity to make millions off a book he has in mind.
I am not saying what Sanchez has said has merit or not, I don’t know. But when he retired and says one thing, and now a few months later when he plans to write a book he says another, to me, that makes his credibility go right to the toilet.
Note: Bush had a rubber stamp Republican Congress until the 11-06 election when Republicans were swept out of Congress. The Iraqi fiasco is very much a Bush/Republican Party deal....Republicans ceding all power to the executive branch creating a kind of crypto-fascist government. For all to see, this kind of leadership from these kind of men was a disaster on almost all fronts. Just because we face difficult time does NOT mean we have to abandon the Constitution! All the more to adhere to it!!!
So, as Bush said, those who come after him will be responsible for handling this "nightmare with no end in sight".... we will be tied up in Iraq for many years to come no matter who is the next President and no matter who controls Congress.
Sounds to me that Sanchez rips the biggest at the MSM .The whole 1s half of his statement takes them on. The headline by CNN could just as easily be "Former Iraq Commander Accuses Biased, Unethical, Agenda-driven Press of 'Killing Our Servicemembers Who Are At War'"?
Quote:
Almost invariably, my perception is that the sensationalistic value of these assessments is what provided the edge that you seek for self aggrandizement [sic] 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.
He also has some choice well deserved comments about the political class in Washington ,and that their petty squabbling endangers the troops.
He is correct when he lays it on the Colin Powell State Dept. It was the State Dept that replaced General Garner with Viceroy Bremer and the disaster of his time there .It was Bremer's disbanding the Iraqi Army ,(137,000 Iraqis suddenly rendered unemployed) and his de-Bathification program that created the insurgency. Sanchez at the time was Commnader in the Green Zone. The US military opposed the move.
I find it interesting that the lesson that Sanchez learned from WWII is the need for a diplomatic solution...
Wasn't that Neville Chamberlain's mistake? He was also searching for a military solution... right up until Hitler bent him over and did him the way the monkey did the miller's daughter... from behind. A diplomatic solution was the LAST thing we needed in WWII. And the fact that Sanchez takes that as his lesson from WWII leads me to wonder how the hell he became a general in the first place.
Diplomatic solutions are only applicable AFTER the military creates the environment that makes diplomacy possible. The purpose of the military is to create that environment. This is particularly true in counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency situations. In those situations, the military has to create enough security and quiet to allow diplomacy to become effective. That sort of thing usually takes a minimum of 10 years for any military to achieve, based on similar historical situations (ei: the IRA, the insurgency in Manymar, etc.). We're barely into year 5. Until that level of relative security and quiet can be achieved, THERE CAN BE NO DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION!!!
The fact that Sanchez can talk about diplomatic solutions before such security and quiet has been achieved shows a suprising lack of understanding of counterinsurgency and counterterrorism activities in so high-ranking an officer.
Linear Mode
