Reply With Quote
Sanchez was really quite a horrible commander, as much the wrong man for the job as Petraeus is the right man. Still, the ultimate responsibility lies higher up the chain of command, and I'm not talking about Rumsfeld.
US can forget about winning in Iraq: top retired general
Published: Sunday June 3, 2007
LinkyThe man who commanded US-led coalition forces during the first year of the Iraq war says the United States can forget about winning the war.
"I think if we do the right things politically and economically with the right Iraqi leadership we could still salvage at least a stalemate, if you will -- not a stalemate but at least stave off defeat," retired Army Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez said in an interview.
Sanchez, in his first interview since he retired last year, is the highest-ranking former military leader yet to suggest the Bush administration has fallen short in Iraq.
"I am absolutely convinced that America has a crisis in leadership at this time," Sanchez told AFP after a recent speech in San Antonio, Texas.
"We've got to do whatever we can to help the next generation of leaders do better than we have done over the past five years, better than what this cohort of political and military leaders have done," adding that he was "referring to our national political leadership in its entirety" - not just President George W. Bush.
Sanchez called the situation in Iraq bleak, which he blamed on "the abysmal performance in the early stages and the transition of sovereignty."
He included himself among those who erred in Iraq's crucial first year after the toppling of the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
Sanchez took command in the summer of 2003 and oversaw the occupation force amid an insurgency that has sparked a low-grade civil war in Iraq.
He was in the middle of some of the most momentous events of the war, among them the dissolution of the Iraqi army and barring millions of Baath Party members from government jobs: two actions seen as triggering the rebellion among Sunni Muslims, who fell from power with Saddam.
Sanchez is also most closely identified with the Abu Ghraib scandal, which occurred on his watch.
Though he was cleared of wrongdoing by an Army probe, Abu Ghraib's images of naked prisoners humiliated by a rogue torture squad cost Sanchez an almost certain fourth star in the Senate, which approves general officer promotions.
Sanchez, 56, declined to talk about Abu Ghraib or other key events of the war, or say who was to blame for what went wrong.
"That's something I am still struggling with and it's not about blame because there's nobody out there that is intentionally trying to screw things up for our country," he said. "They were all working to do the best damn job they can to get things right."
Despite those good intentions, Americans will be forced to "answer the question what is victory, and at this point I'm not sure America really knows what victory is," said Sanchez, who is thinking of writing a tell-all book about his year in Baghdad.
The US ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, reacted on Sunday to Sanchez's comments by insisting: "It's just way premature to be talking in terms of victory or defeat."
"What we're trying to do here is stabilize the security situation, particularly in Baghdad, to allow a political process some time and space to work," he said on Fox News.
He said time was needed for Bush's "surge" strategy, launched in January, of ploughing thousands more troops into Iraq "to make a difference on the streets and then time for this political process to unfold."
Sanchez said a large troop commitment would be needed for years to come but conceded it is "very questionable" whether Americans would support it.
Still, he said, "the coalition cannot afford to precipitously withdraw and leave the Iraqis to their own devices."
Andrew Krepinevich, a former aide to three defense secretaries who heads the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, shared that assessment.
"What you are looking at are three factions who are profoundly mistrustful of one another," he said. "Iraq is a country where those on top have brutally repressed those on the bottom, and that is the way they look at seizing power and maintaining power."
Retired Army General Barry McCaffrey, a ground commander in the 1990-1991 Gulf War, said he's trying to remain optimistic but thinks domestic support for the war will evaporate within 36 months.
"I personally don't think it's over yet," said McCaffrey, who recently toured Iraq. He said he thinks General David Petraeus, the coalition commander in Iraq, and Crocker can stave off a wider civil war.
"The question is, can the ambassador and Petraeus open reconciliation talks among Iraqis, and (Secretary of State) Condi Rice keep the regional powers from meddling any more in Iraq? The jury's out," he said.
WTF does "winning" in Iraq mean anymore? Who are we 'winning against? I'd consider it a victory if we get every soldier back home safe.
Sanchez was really quite a horrible commander, as much the wrong man for the job as Petraeus is the right man. Still, the ultimate responsibility lies higher up the chain of command, and I'm not talking about Rumsfeld.
Wow. That appears to be some rather negative talk. I wonder what the full context is within the interview before those responses. Context is important.
If he really is talking like it appears, why isn't he saying it's his fault? Something else. I wonder if he made general under president Clinton...
I wonder which President put him in charge of Iraq....
'why isn't he saying it's his fault"
Why aren't you placing the blame where it belongs? ... with the murderous -in-chief and his civilian planners and administrators like Rummy, Bremer, etc.
The US military has been dealt a losing hand by their civilian masters. They're making a valiant effort, but Iraq has been lost because of the civilians, not because of the military.
Touché...
However president Bush was still new as president when this started happening. I think Sanchez did become a general during president Clinton. I Sanchez didn't find dates for his promotions, but he was a general in July 2001 when he became the commander of V Corps' 1st Armored Division. He was promoted to full bird shortly after Desert Storm.
Why did I bring this up? It has to do with integrity and honor, and I simply found it more likely a Clinton appointee would have such a view over a Bush appointee.
"such a view"
Many retired generals have gone on record against the war. Even last-chance/Mr. Surge Petraeus said in the last couple months that the Iraq war is not winnable militarily, only diplomatically.
You are indicting a general as anti-dubya's-war primarily because he advanced under Clinton? The Army is that politicized? Seems to me the anti-Iraq-war sentiment among the general's, even before the war, has been pretty widespread. The loyalty in the Army/Marines is probably more to their military colleagues and their units rather than to any sense of mission in this dubya's bull , going-nowhere-fast war. If you're pro-dubya blindness wasn't so severe, you would have seen by now that Sanchez is hardly pioneering a new observation about dubya's lost, bogus war.
The president appoints division commanders?
Bush was not new as president when he invaded Iraq. That doesn't fly at all.
I have seen little in the way of integrity or honor from anyone trying to cover his ass for the fiasco in Iraq.
I don't know how the process works, but the president has a say in making decisions for flag officer promotions. There is some kind of an interview process to make general that doesn't occur with other officers. This is where a president can decide who to promote as new general, admiral, etc. Most promotions just stand on record with little insight to a persons political beliefs. He may have been another Bush hater, but we don't really know. I'm not trying to imply he is, just that we don't know.
He was a new president when the whole planning after 911 started. President Bush had to learn fact and put people in place for this trusting the upper military people he didn't really know, and rely on their judgement.
I don't know that any of these people need their asses covered except for the constant negative bombardment of the media and liberals. If Sanchez is trying to cover his ass, then sham on him. However, in dong some reading, I am starting to believe we really need to read all his words to place them in context.
There is little anyway we can ascertain from the quotes in the article. I stopped looking for the full quotes. I would like to see those quotes in their full context. I did find the complete sentences of some of the quotes from another link.
What do the Sanchez quotes really mean? I have seen too often out of context quotes arranged to appear as meaning something else. The stand-alone Sanchez quotes:
OK, what did he say after that last comma? Could he have been referring to not having a government in Iraq as democratic as we wanted, or that part of the win is that Iraq stay united, and that it may split to three countries?
Now the remarks after the comma, I found at Paul Burka's blob:
I haven't found am article that says what his belief of a victory is, Some people consider defeat if you don't achieve all of your objectives. My thought is:I think if we do the right things politically and economically with the right Iraqi leadership we could still salvage at least a stalemate, if you will ? not a stalemate but at least stave off defeat. It's also kind of important for us to answer the question, 'What is victory?', and at this point I'm not sure America really knows what victory is.
Victory = stable government and violence decreasing.
Stalemate = government, but constant internal strife, or a country as bad as it was under Saddam.
Loss = total chaos by the time we pull out.
Yes we do, but who created the crisis? We have democrats undermining the president at every step of the way. That could be what he considers the crisis. America is not united enough for this war. Now the remarks after the comma, I found at Paul Burka's blob:
Sorry to nitpick, but I don't like it when statements are broken down. This too is a form that can alter their meaning. I see too often reports of only the bad things occurring over there when there are even more positive things happening and going unreported.I am absolutely convinced that America has a crisis in leadership at this time and we've got to do whatever we can to help the next generation of leaders do better than we have done over the past five years, better than what this cohort of political and military leaders have done.
All we can do is hope the traitorous democrats don't shake the will of us so much that we pull out before we stabilize Iraq.
Bush created it because he and his cabinet didn't allow or prepare for an insurgency, the largest among many terrible mistakes.Yes we do, but who created the crisis? We have democrats undermining the president at every step of the way.
Bush did appoint Powell and his credentials are hard to challenge. He was clearly removed for his disagreements to the reasons for going to war in Iraq, which is no surprise considering he said "much of the evidence was misleading and some of it was simply made up. It's too bad he didn't have the balls to stop this snowball from turning into an avalanche.
Why is there so much denial to the mistakes of this president? Every prediction from the predictors has been wrong.
I don't understand why Bush's apologists are taking this new tack that he was an idiot greenhorn when he came into office who was wholly unprepared for a crisis or a war.
Do they realize they are saying this?
Bush surrounded himself with pretty well-qualified people. Only problem was he threw in with the neocons after 9/11 because he thought their agenda most closely resembled the kind of Teddy Roosevelt stick-swinging Bush found attractive.
They didn't say that.
It's amazing! You have to give them credit. They never run out of excuses to avoid the truth.
If he was a greenhorn then, then nothing has changed, except wasted lives, money, and our countries reputation. He's bankrupting our country just like he did those oil gigs in his checkered youth.
"The buck stops somewhere else. Always."
The buck stops at the American citizens door. I read a little
article this morning and it kinda said what is true. Bush may be
a SOB but he is OUR SOB. Like it or not. Either you are an
American or not. Bush went to Congress twice and they voted
to do the deed, you can like it or not.
You cant take yesterday.
You're right, Ray. We can't take yesterday.
We have to look at the wolf that's eating us today.
The only people who getting eaten are YOU. And you are
eating the nation from within, like cancer. I wont be here
much longer, but hopefully you will. And you will have to live
with your anger and look at yourself in the mirror and live with
the consequences of your hate for your country and President.
I don't like it.I read a little
article this morning and it kinda said what is true. Bush may be
a SOB but he is OUR SOB. Like it or not. Either you are an
American or not. Bush went to Congress twice and they voted
to do the deed, you can like it or not.
I can hold Bush responsible for his mess. He took the largest outpouring of international goodwill and cooperation in the history of this nation and wiped his ass with it. Sure congress abdicated their responsibility, but Bush did the deed.You cant take yesterday.
Republicans will never admit that Bush ever made one mistake in his handling of Afghanistan or Iraq, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Once they get over their denial, they might be able to move on. For now they are stuck in May 2003.
That's your problem , Ray. You still think this is the 40's, against the same enemies.
Newsflash: The world is looking at us like we're Hitler. You get it yet?
I don't know about all Republicans. I am not one, I am a
Conservative. But I have to problem with what he has done
in both countries. My problem is with people like you, that
cant see past the end of your nose.
But not unusual for you Chump.
As for the Mission Accomplished. It was for the carrier, dumbass.
See, I said they'd never run out of excuses.
I'm assuming you meant to say "no" problem.I don't know about all Republicans. I am not one, I am a
Conservative. But I have to problem with what he has done
in both countries.
And that is precisely your problem.Iraq and Afghanistan are past the end of my nose.My problem is with people like you, that
cant see past the end of your nose.Way to miss the point. But thanks for illustrating that trait once more.As for the Mission Accomplished. It was for the carrier, dumbass.
Bush is an ignorant puppet. I blame the neocon leaders at all parts of the government. I don't give Bush a free pass by any means, but I don't hold him as accountable for the same reasons that we use to ban the execution of re ed people.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
