Now that my kin d of (ex) soldier

[boutons_]

consortiumnews.com

Ex-Commander Blasts Iraq 'Nightmare'

By Robert Parry
October 12, 2007

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who commanded U.S. forces in Iraq for the first year of the occupation, blamed “incompetence” by President George W. Bush’s national security team for creating a “nightmare” that could last far into the future.

Sanchez, who led coalition forces from June 2003 to June 2004, used an Oct. 12 speech to a conference of Military Reporters and Editors in Arlington, Virginia, to castigate nearly everyone connected to the Iraq War, including the U.S. news media, Congress, the State Department, the White House and the Pentagon.

“There has been a glaring, unfortunate display of incompetence in strategic leadership among our national leaders,” Sanchez said. “They have unquestionably been derelict in the performance of their duty. In my profession, these types of leaders would be immediately relieved or court-martialed.”

Though Sanchez did not criticize Bush by name, he left little doubt that he placed most of the blame on the administration’s top leadership, particularly the National Security Council which is led by the President and which was under the day-to-day direction of Condoleezza Rice until her elevation to Secretary of State in 2005.

Sanchez said that starting in July of 2003, the generals on the ground warned that the war could not be won by military means and required a coordinated strategy that brought to bear the full panoply of American power and influence.

“Any sequential solutions would lead to a prolonged conflict and increased resistance,” Sanchez said about these messages to Washington. “By neglect and incompetence at the National Security Council level, that is the path our political leaders chose and now America and more precisely the American military finds itself in an intractable situation.”

Sanchez didn’t spare his fellow commanders from harsh criticism. Asked why they neglected to insist on more effective pre-invasion planning and “did not come forward to prevent the debacle,” Sanchez answered: “It was an absolute lack of moral courage to stand up and do what was right in terms of planning.”

Yet, while lambasting the Iraq War strategy, Sanchez declined to call Bush’s decision to invade in March 2003 a mistake and argued that the United States has no alternative now but to continue fighting in Iraq even if there is little prospect for success.

“Continued manipulations and adjustments to our military strategy will not achieve victory,” Sanchez said in an apparent reference to Bush’s decision to "surge" U.S. troops this year. “The best we can do with this flawed approach is to stave off defeat.

“The administration, Congress and the entire inter-agency [structure], especially the State Department, must shoulder the responsibility for this catastrophic failure and the American people must hold them accountable. …

( American peole don't care about anything until it hits their wallets, which is why the Repugs are financing the war with debt rather than real money )

“There is no question that America is living a nightmare with no end in sight.”

Also lashing out at what he called “partisan politics,” Sanchez called for congressional “bipartisanship” and continued support for the troops in the field, but the retired general presented no clear-cut plan for how to turn the Iraq War disaster around.

“There is nothing going on today in Washington that would give us hope,” Sanchez said. “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 meantime, our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines will continue to die.”

Sanchez added that the open-ended Iraq conflict has caused – and will continue to inflict – severe damage on the structure of the U.S. Army. “It will take the Army at least a decade to fix the damage that has been done to its full-spectrum readiness,” he said.

( well, no big deal. With a guaranteed $500B/year to play with, the high-maring MIC will fix the Army and make 100s of Bs in profits, just as the Repugs and neo- s intended all along)

Yet, the retired general said, “America has no choice but to continue our efforts in Iraq. A precipitous withdrawal will unquestionably lead to chaos, in my opinion, that would endanger the stability of the greater Middle East.”

Sanchez’s military career ended in 2006 partly as fallout from the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal which erupted in 2004 under his command. In giving the Oct. 12 speech, Sanchez broke nearly a year of silence since he resigned from the Army, but he ducked a question about the Abu Ghraib scandal.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/2007/101207.html

==========

Any dubya suckers wanna try to refute Sanchez?

[Wild Cobra]

Well, if you read the entire transcript, the first half of it is blasting the media. He primarily blasts congress and their partisanship after that. Here is a better reporting assessment of the speech:

Sanchez: U.S. "Living a Nightmare" by Sig Christenson

Link: Sanchez transcript:

LTG (RET) RICARDO S. SANCHEZ transcript

If I wanted to present a slightly different view, a few select quotes:

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 COMPE ION 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.

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.

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.

WHILE THE POLITICIANS ESPOUSE THEIR RHETORIC DESIGNED TO PRESERVE THEIR REPUTATIONS AND THEIR POLITICAL POWER -OUR SOLDIERS DIE!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 CONS UTION 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.

[exstatic]

Well, if you read the entire transcript, the first half of it is blasting the media. He primarily blasts congress and their partisanship after that. Here is a better reporting assessment of the speech:

Sanchez: U.S. "Living a Nightmare" by Sig Christenson

Link: Sanchez transcript:

LTG (RET) RICARDO S. SANCHEZ transcript

If I wanted to present a slightly different view, a few select quotes:

Small wonder that America isn't committed when we were lied to about the whole WMD thing. I think it's unfair to lie to the American people and then excoriate them for not supporting the war that was started under false pretenses.

Don't have a lot of use for Congress or the MSM, but THEY didn't get us into this war, this Administration did, and will be held responsible for it's ultimate outcome, no matter what that is.

[boutons_]

A significant portion of the Army professionals/careerists is finally getting tired of dying for oilco profits?

=============

October 13, 2007

Blunt Talk About Iraq at Army School

By ELISABETH BUMILLER

FORT LEAVENWORTH, Kan. — Here in this Western outpost that serves as the intellectual center of the United States Army, two elite officers were deep in debate at lunch on a recent day over who bore more responsibility for mistakes in Iraq — the former defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld, or the generals who acquiesced to him.

“The secretary of defense is an easy target,” argued one of the officers, Maj. Kareem P. Montague, 34, a Harvard graduate and a commander in the Third Infantry Division that was the first to reach Baghdad in the 2003 invasion. “It’s easy to pick on the political appointee.”

“But he’s the one that’s responsible,” retorted Maj. Michael J. Zinno, 40, a military planner who worked at the headquarters of the Coalitional Provisional Authority, the former American civilian administration in Iraq.

No, Major Montague shot back, it was more complicated: the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the top commanders were part of the decision to send in a small invasion force and not enough troops for the occupation. Only Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, the Army chief of staff who was sidelined after he told Congress that it would take several hundred thousand troops in Iraq, spoke up in public.

“You didn’t hear any of them at the time, other than General Shinseki, screaming, saying that this was untenable,” Major Montague said.

As the war grinds through its fifth year, Fort Leavenworth has become a front line in the military’s tension and soul-searching over Iraq. Here on the bluffs above the Missouri River rising young officers are on a different kind of journey — an outspoken re-examination of their role in Iraq.

Discussions between a New York Times reporter and dozens of young majors in five Leavenworth classrooms over two days — all unusual for their frankness in an Army that has traditionally presented a facade of solidarity to the outside world — showed a divide in opinion. Officers were split over whether Mr. Rumsfeld, the military leaders or both deserved blame for what they said were the major errors in the war: sending in a small invasion force and failing to plan properly for the occupation.

But the consensus was that not even after Vietnam was the Army’s internal criticism as harsh or the second-guessing so painful, and that airing the arguments on the record, as sanctioned by Leavenworth’s senior commanders, was part of a concerted effort to force change.

“You spend your whole career worrying about the safety of soldiers — let’s do the training right so no one gets injured, let’s make sure no one gets killed, and then you deploy and you’re attending memorial services for 19-year-olds,” said Maj. Niave Knell, 37, who worked in Baghdad to set up an Iraqi highway patrol. “And you have to think about what you did.”

On one level, second-guessing is ins utionalized at Leavenworth, home to the Combined Arms Center, a sprawling Army research center that includes the Command and General Staff College for midcareer officers, the School of Advanced Military Studies for the most elite and the Center for Army Lessons Learned, which collects and disseminates battlefield data. (The center publishes a handbook for soldiers with strategies to help keep them alive for their first 100 days in combat, a response to the high percentage who died in their early months in Iraq.)

At Leavenworth, officers study Napoleon’s battle plans and Lt. William Calley’s mistakes in the My Lai massacre in Vietnam. Last year Gen. David H. Petraeus, now the top American commander in Iraq, wrote the Army and Marine Corps’ new Counterinsurgency Field Manual there. The goal at Leavenworth is to adapt the Army to the changing battlefield without repeating the mistakes of the past.

But senior officers say that much of the professional second-guessing has become an emotional exercise for young officers. “Many of them have been affected by people they know who died over there,” said Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, the Leavenworth commander and the former top spokesman for the American military in Iraq. Unlike the 1991 Persian Gulf war and the conflicts in the Balkans and even Somalia, General Caldwell said, “we just never experienced the loss of life like we have here. And when that happens, it becomes very personal. You want to believe that there’s no question your cause is just and that it has the potential to succeed.”

Much of the debate at the school has centered on a scathing article, “A Failure in Generalship,” written last May for Armed Forces Journal by Lt. Col. Paul Yingling, an Iraq veteran and deputy commander of the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment who holds a master’s degree in political science from the University of Chicago. “If the general remains silent while the statesman commits a nation to war with insufficient means, he shares culpability for the results,” Colonel Yingling wrote.

The article has been required class reading at Leavenworth, where young officers debate whether Colonel Yingling was right to question senior commanders who sent junior officers into battle with so few troops.

“Where I was standing on the street corner, at the 14th of July Bridge, yeah, another brigade there would have been great,” said Maj. Jeffrey H. Powell, 37, a company commander who was referring to the bridge in Baghdad he helped secure during the early days of the war.

Major Powell, who was speaking in a class at the School for Advanced Military Studies, has read many of the Iraq books describing the private disagreements over troop levels between Mr. Rumsfeld and the top commanders, who worried that the numbers were too low but went along in the end.

“Sure, I’m a human being, I question the decision-making process,” Major Powell said. Nonetheless, he said, “we don’t get to sit on the top of the turrets of our tanks and complain that nobody planned for this. Our job is to fix it.”

Discussions nonetheless focused on where young officers might draw a “red line,” the point at which they would defy a command from the civilians — the president and the defense secretary — who lead the military.

“We have an obligation that if our civilian leaders give us an order, unless it is illegal, immoral or unethical, then we’re supposed to execute it, and to not do so would be considered insubordinate,” said Major Timothy Jacobsen, another student. “How do you define what is truly illegal, immoral or unethical? At what point do you cross that threshold where this is no longer right, I need to raise my hand or resign or go to the media?”General Caldwell, who was the top military aide from 2002 to 2004 to the deputy defense secretary at the time, Paul Wolfowitz, an architect of the Iraq war, would not talk about the meetings he had with Mr. Wolfowitz about the battle plans at the time. “We did have those discussions, and he would engage me on different things, but I’d feel very uncomfortable talking,” General Caldwell said.

Col. Gregory Fontenot, a Leavenworth instructor, said it was typical of young officers to feel that the senior commanders had not spoken up for their interests, and that he had felt the same way when he was their age. But Colonel Fontenot, who commanded a battalion in the Persian Gulf war and a brigade in Bosnia and has since retired, said he questioned whether Americans really wanted a four-star general to stand up publicly and say no to the president in a nation where civilians control the armed forces.

( this American REALLY wants that )

For the sake of argument, a question from the reporter was posed: If enough four-star generals had done that, would it have stopped the war?

“Yeah, we’d call it a coup d’etat,” Colonel Fontenot said. “Do you want to have a coup d’etat? You kind of have to decide what you want. Do you like the Cons ution, or are you so upset about the Iraq war that you’re willing to dismiss the Cons ution in just this one instance and hopefully things will be O.K.? I don’t think so.”

( a coup d'etat/military mutiny, or 10s of 1000s killed and injured for an oil grab? Is that a tough decision? )

Some of the young officers were unimpressed by retired officers who spoke up against Mr. Rumsfeld in April 2006. The retired generals had little to lose, they argued, and their words would have mattered more had they been on active duty. “Why didn’t you do that while you were still in uniform?” Maj. James Hardaway, 36,asked.

( maybe no balls? maybe protecting their retirement pay? )

On the other hand, Major Hardaway said, General Shinseki had shown there was a great cost, at least under Mr. Rumsfeld. “Evidence shows that when you do do that in uniform, bad things can happen,” he said. “So, it’s sort of a dichotomy of, should I do the right thing, even if I get punished?”

Another major said that young officers were engaged in their own revisionist history, and that many had believed the war could be won with Mr. Rumsfeld’s initial invasion force of about 170,000. “Everybody now claims, oh, I knew we were going to be there for five years and it was going to take 400,000 people,” said Maj. Patrick Proctor, 36. “Nobody wants to be the guy who said, ‘Yeah, I thought we could do it.’ But a lot of us did.”

One question that silenced many of the officers was a simple one: Should the war have been fought?

“I honestly don’t know how I feel about that,” Major Powell said in a telephone conversation last week after the discussions at Leavenworth.

“That’s a big, open question,” General Caldwell said after a long pause.

[boutons_]

Exstatic is right.

It was EXCLUSIVELY the dubya/ head/PNAC/AEI/neo- s who bullied hard and lied pervasively (telling untruths, hiding truths) to invade Iraq.

It is EXCLUSIVELY those same rotten jerkoffs who are responsible for the ongoing quagmire and decrease in US security.

Beyond Shinsheki, gutless military career-padders/pension-protectors were intimidated into silence. Such brave warriors when facing the enemy are chicken s when facing their own ranks. They are disingenous now to say they knew it was ed up but went along anyway, as are the war-loving right-wingers who are now distancing themselves from dubya and head.

[ChumpDumper]

"DICTATORIAL AND SOMEWHAT DENSE",

"NOT A STRATEGIC THOUGHT",

LIAR,

"DOES NOT GET IT" AND

THE MOST INEXPERIENCED LTG.

Sanchez is pretty butthurt, but the truth does hurt. He definitely has a case against the administration and congress, but he certainly shares at least some of the blame for what happened on the ground, as he was inexperienced and thick-headed and in no way a strategic thinker that could manage an occupation. He was the wrong man at the wrong time.

None of this takes away any amount of blame from where it most deservedly lies: George W. Bush.

[Wild Cobra]

Small wonder that America isn't committed when we were lied to about the whole WMD thing.

Thing is, there was no intentional deception about WMD. Saddam did have it, and he didn't account for it. He let us believe he had it to keep other forces against him, fearful. Or at least that is the thought about it if he really did dispose of it.

It still could be somplace hidden to be found.

I think it's unfair to lie to the American people and then excoriate them for not supporting the war that was started under false pretenses.

Sure, if your assumption was true. However, you will never make a good case for that. Especially for some of us vetrans who know better.

Don't have a lot of use for Congress or the MSM, but THEY didn't get us into this war, this Administration did, and will be held responsible for it's ultimate outcome, no matter what that is.

If Saddam only complied, we wouldn't have gone in.

link:

UN Resolution 1441

[exstatic]

Thing is, there was no intentional deception about WMD.

That's one school of thought. There was that whole yellowcake Niger thing that was a big lie, though.

Saddam did have it, and he didn't account for it.

Have what? This admin had everyone in a tizzy about nukes, which he never had.

He let us believe he had it to keep other forces against him, fearful. Or at least that is the thought about it if he really did dispose of it.

"he fooled our intel" is grounds to invade another country?

It still could be somplace hidden to be found.

Riiiiiight.

[Wild Cobra]

That's one school of thought. There was that whole yellowcake Niger thing that was a big lie, though.

Actually, it was Joe Wilson that lied about the event. The CIA determined it was more likely they were trying to obtain more yellowcake, and we did find about 2000 tons of it in Iraq, some of it refined!

Have what? This admin had everyone in a tizzy about nukes, which he never had.

They didn't think he had nukes yet, but a nuclear program.

"he fooled our intel" is grounds to invade another country?


Riiiiiight.

Yes, it is one common thought. Keep in mind, it is impossible to accurately know what someone else is thinking. Many people think that he let us believe he was WMD as a deterrent to keep others from staging a coup. He never thought we would actually attack.

You know who is really the most negligent parties throughout this war? It’s the liberals who continue to give false impressions about it. They embolden the enemy, and because of that, they have the blood of our soldiers on their hands. Sanchez didn’t directly say that, but it is part of his message. I have said that for a few years now. We would have less die if it wasn’t for DC political partisan rhetoric. We might even have a stable nation by now, but no…. those liberals just cannot stop making propaganda. What a mixed message we send to the region.

[mookie2001]

It’s the liberals who continue to give false impressions about it. They embolden the enemy, and because of that, they have the blood of our soldiers on their hands

i strongly disagree

[mookie2001]

if you still believe in the traditional "liberal" "conservative" bull youre an idiot

[exstatic]

ISG has not found evidence to show that Iraq sought uranium from abroad after 1991 or renewed indigenous production of such material—activities that we believe would have cons uted an Iraqi effort to recons ute a nuclear weapons program.

Iraq survey group final report

[Wild Cobra]

Iraq survey group final report

What they could prove, and what was "highly likely" are two different things. I do like how your link shows only 486 tons of yellowcake in the Iraqi inventory, yet we found more than 2,000 tons! Where did that extra 1,500+ tones come from? It wasn't legally declared. He got it from someone!

[George Gervin's Afro]

What they could prove, and what was "highly likely" are two different things. I do like how your link shows only 486 tons of yellowcake in the Iraqi inventory, yet we found more than 2,000 tons! Where did that extra 1,500+ tones come from? It wasn't legally declared. He got it from someone!

well it's obvious that it wasn't niger...

[Wild Cobra]

well it's obvious that it wasn't niger...

LOL... How is it obvious?

He got it from somewhere, it may or may not have been Niger. The CIA concluded after Wilson's trip that it was 'highly likely' Saddam was trying to purchase more from them. One Niger insider even said it was true. Trying to purchase it doesn't even mean it happened anyway. Let's keep those facts start too.

It is the attempt that is in question. Not an actual purchase.

So... Where do you think that extra 1,500+ tons came from?

[exstatic]

What they could prove, and what was "highly likely" are two different things. I do like how your link shows only 486 tons of yellowcake in the Iraqi inventory, yet we found more than 2,000 tons! Where did that extra 1,500+ tones come from? It wasn't legally declared. He got it from someone!

Where's your source for this supposed 2000 tons? I posted mine...

[ChumpDumper]

Where is your report listing 2000 tons?

And why are you discounting the work of the ISG which reported directly to Rumsfeld and included many DIA personnel?

Are you calling them liars?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Where is your report listing 2000 tons?

And why are you discounting the work of the ISG which reported directly to Rumsfeld and included many DIA personnel?

Are you calling them liars?

WC chooses to believe the terrorists...

[mookie2001]

dude his intelligence is so high they created a new scale

[Wild Cobra]

Where's your source for this supposed 2000 tons? I posted mine...

My God. The news on that is so old, I'm not sure where to find it now. The link is buried someplace on my desktop rather than the laptop I'm using now. I'll find it if I remember when I'm using the other computer.

Meanwhale, a more comprehensive look at the WMD situation:

Intelligence on Iraq’s
weapons of mass
destruction

Addendums to the Comprehensive Report

[ChumpDumper]

It's so old no one has actually ever heard of it.

Nice attempt to distract us with 250 pages of Australian reports though.

BTW, there were Australians in the ISG too.

Are you calling them liars?

[ChumpDumper]

So, almost two hours later and no link to the 2000 tons....

....but thanks for the 200-page Australian do ent:

As time passes since the end of hostilities, and despite the work and
findings of the Iraq Survey Group, the gap between expectations and
outcomes is becoming more solid. There was an expectation created
prior to the war that actual weapons of mass destruction would be
found and found in sufficient quan ies to pose a clear and present
danger requiring immediate pre-emptive action. Such action is only
sanctioned under international law where the danger is immediate, so
the immediacy of the threat was crucial to the argument. The
existence of programs alone does not meet that threshold.

It now seems unlikely that Iraq was successful in importing uranium
or that it had imported aluminium tubes in order to build gas
centrifuges for the enrichment of uranium.

Good reading.

[exstatic]

I pulled the amount 2000 tons out of my ass and will now dance and sing and post unrelated links to distract you from calling me on it.

[Wild Cobra Kai]

I'll have Johnny sweep your leg if you ask about the 2000 tons of yellowcake again....

[Wild Cobra]

Ha Ha...

I may have made a mistake. I was unable to find the reference which is probably 3 years old now. It makes me wonder if I did confuse it with something else. It's not that important to me anyway. We all make mistakes at times.