Gen. Sanchez: Bush administration war policy a "dereliction of duty"

Retired General Ricardo Sanchez, former commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, has denounced the Bush administration's post-invasion actions as "gross incompetence and dereliction of duty".

Time magazine is running an excerpt of Sanchez's forthcoming book, Wiser in Battle: A Soldier's Story.

It's a fairly spectacular assertion, and something many of us have suspected about the days of chaos following the defeat of the Hussein regime. Indeed, once upon a time we were told that the failure to quell the rioting after we took Baghdad was intended to protect our troops from harm. That excuse never flew well, though, because it would mean that the war itself wasn't worth harm to our troops. After all, the maintenance of law and order by an occupying force is one of the obligations we agreed to when we signed onto the Geneva conventions.

And, yet, while such a story might seem sensationalist—the kind of thing that would certainly help sell the book—there comes a point when we have to wonder if maybe, just maybe, these powerful indictments of the administration and its war policy might be true.
____________________

Notes:

Sanchez, Ricardo S. "How Much Did Rumsfeld Know?" Time. May 1, 2008. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1736831,00.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wow. You found a military commander who hate's Bush. So you latch on to ONE (or even a few) who say what you previously agree with, but ignore the rest who say the opposite?

Wonder how many I can find that would gush about how great Bush is?

Thus: quoting ex-military commanders really means very little in the scheme of things. They are politically affiliated and generally side with the party to which they belong, or, in leaving their career act out of political aspirations and/or distaste for how they were passed up for promotion and/or ushered out of the service for their own shortcommings. I mean, would it honestly shift your paradigm any if I posted that Gen. Schwarzkopf (probably one of the only living military geniuses in the US, and arguably the best military commander since WWII) says that Bush is doing the right thing? Would it make a difference if I came up with a slew of Generals and Admirals who would pretty much mimmic those words?

No. It wouldn't. And it shouldn't.

~String

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Can anyone who's in love with George, please tell me what the really great idea is about instituting a decades-long conflict (the noise he's making now is that the US is there for the long haul - whatever it takes to clean up the mess) in the Middle East?

Why does a war mean greater security for the American people (the only humans on the planet)? I can't seem to see what the rationality is with this argument...?

Not that rationality appears to be one of the cards in whatever hand he's holding.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Do better or don't bother

What, do you mean the retired generals paid by the Pentagon to sell the drama?

So I happen to find it significant that the general who was on the ground to experience the effects of this policy denounces it. And you don't. So I happen to think it significant that the general whose job it was to carry out the policy thinks it was an inexcusable disaster. And you don't.

Tell me, String, is this about supporting Bush, jingoism in general, or your determined hatred of all things liberal?

And go ahead and post Schwarzkopf's opinion if you want. The only reason I can think of that you wouldn't is that you're not confident that the context is applicable. Trying to blame other people is just a convenient, albeit transparent excuse.

 

Sanchez is an expert on clusterfucks, having created so many of his own. I'm sure a bunch of people will buy his book, but he isn't saying anything that other generals who aren't regarded as fuckups by the community (Batiste, Zinni, et al.) haven't been saying for years.

 

Does anyone need any more evidence that Iraq was an act of colossal stupidity? The payback to remind Americans will be around for a long time to come.

 

Apparently, yes.

And many people will simply remind themselves that those consequences continue to justify the decision to go in.

 

As a staunch opponent of the whole Iraq business, I would never post anything that even remotely defends the Bush administration's fool-hearty efforts in distracting the American public by opening a second front. American soldiers have been spent. The cost of the "war" has been totally exasperated because of his administration's desire to privatize it. The current efforts in the Middle East should totally be abandoned and American troops should be brought home as soon as possible.

Though, I don't ever miss an opportunity to point out that you selectively chose liberal opinions because they espouse your singular beliefs. There's nothing wrong with spending attention on those who agree with us, but if it's the only tune you listen to, then there's something wrong.

The text is applicable if I want to defend the whole Iraq business... which I would never do.

The point of my post was NOT to defend Bush (I mean, who can these days?) but to point out your blatant partisanship and total inability to see anything that doesn't tow the liberal party line. Anybody can cough up a flag officer to support their ideas. Big deal.

~String

 

It's okay, String, don't cry.

Ah, stroking your fantasy. Figures.

In other words, make an accusation but refuse to support it. Certainly not a surprise there, eh?

I think you're losing your grip, String. I mean, think about it: you would never defend Bush's Iraq business, but you would complain that I criticize Bush because, what, it's me?

As a general note, String, it doesn't make sense to assert that one owes anything to a wrong opinion in order to not appear too unfairly biased against something that is, well, wrong.

Seriously, if I condemn murder, are you going to get upset at me because I'm not giving it a fair shake?

Don't blame me, String, if the common ground I can find with conservatives is outside the boundaries of your comprehension. That's your own damn problem.

"A flag officer"? So, being the one who was on the ground attempting to execute the policies is, in your opinion, no different a perspective than "probably one of the only living military geniuses in the US, and arguably the best military commander since WWII°", who was both retired and removed from the situation?

See, here's the thing: This isn't about whether or not a retired officer would support the concept of the war in Iraq. In other words, this isn't about Bush's "Iraq business" in general. Bring me a flag officer, please, who will say that the United States' refusal to secure the theater after toppling Saddam made good tactical or strategic sense.

Or, perhaps, bring me a flag officer who disputes the facts Sanchez asserts. However, one thing I think you'll have trouble producing is one who does not dispute that the United States made choices to not secure the theater, to not maintain law and order, who will say it was a good thing—strategically, tactically, ethically, or morally—to do so.
____________________

Notes:

° probably one of the only living military geniuses in the US, and arguably the best military commander since WWII — This particular "military genius", Schwarzkopf, is the same one who made a serious error—allowing the Hussein regime to fly military helicopters—that would later result in the deaths of up to a half-million Shi'a in Iraq. Sounds genius to me, but only if your intent was to inflict massive damage against Shi'ite Muslims. And I'm not convinced Schwarzkopf is that kind of person.

 

Tiassa:

Tiassa's method of operation:

Anyone who agrees with Tiassa = Honest.

Anyone who disagrees with Tiassa = Dishonest, paid by the government, brainwashed, bla bla bla.

 

Bringing you up to speed

Apparently you missed it, which wouldn't surprise me since the Pentagon's response to the revelation of their propaganda program has been better than the media's.

One correction I do owe is that it is does not appear the Pentagon remunerated these "analysts" directly. Rather, their financial incentive was to remain on the A-list of networks who would pay them for analysis. Analysts departing too severely from the talking points risked losing their "information" pipleine, and thus their prestige in the marketplace.

On the one hand, it's a huge, repugnant mess. To the other, I'm not sure who, really, is surprised.

I accept that it's easier to hide behind hatred than face up to unpleasant truths, but at some point you have to accept that defense lobbyists and corporate board members with military experience hand-picked by the Pentagon to spread the White House gospel of war are remarkable examples of conflicts of interest.

The Pentagon has allegedly terminated the program. Daylight is often a powerful disinfectant.
____________________

Notes:

Barstow, David. "Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand". New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html

 

Tiassa,

You're free to bitch about whatever.

Bitching doesn't make you a playa, let alone a decider.

If you want the authority to decide something, you also have to want to own the responsibility for the consequences of your decisions/judgments.

Since your whole schtick is you bellowing that it is not you who is responsible (it's not your fault, by God), you can make no claim to authoritative ownership of the matter.

You're bitching is what it is: bitching you don't possess the authority to decide -- because you're risk-averse, performance anxious, and possess a small skill-set of tools up to the accomplishment.

The caravan has already passed you. Barking still is a waste of your energy.

 

Or alternately, at least if you're from a rich important family you get the authority handed to you - no skill set needed (you don't even have to know how to read), without ever wanting (or thinking about): "to own the responsibility for the consequences of your decisions/judgments."

The bitch needs to own up, and stop bitching about it.

 

An alternate is a reasonable facsimile.

Your owning is just an alternate bitchin'.

Authority importantly rich to your family, no doubt.

 

Indeed. I'm the one cherry picking politicos who agree with my worldview.

What's my accusation? You're a political extremist who accepts nothing but that which supports his worldview. I made few accusations about the Bush admin except that it's single overriding characteristic is failure on the international front.

It has nothing to do with your opinion (which, in this case, I happen to agree with), it's your total rejection of anything to the right of you by decrying it as vile and dishonest, while seeming to fool yourself into believing that liberalism is wholesome and just.

No. I mean, I wouldn't call anything that I ever feel about you as "upset", now you're just flattering yourself. I would describe it as being more perplexed that you can be so naive. Then again, I could be the naive one. Guess we'll never know for sure.

A flag officer is anybody with a star on his/her lapel. By definition (and international law) a flag officer is officially a political position and is accountable to all sorts of things that lower officers aren't. By US law, a flag officer (admiral or general) doesn't really exist until it is bestowed upon the bearer by congress. In other words, since all the five-star flag officers are all now dead ("fleet admiral", "general of the army" and "general of the air force" appointed during WWII and died in the 1950's and 60's) the position no longer legally exists, until created by Congress for a specific person. Congressmen frequently play political games ("is he/she from my state?" "is he/she from my party?") with whom they approve for such positions. Thus, my being perplexed that you think it so interesting that "an officer on the ground" denounced Bush. They are supposed to be apolitical, but in truth they are political positions, and are approved by Congress for very partisan reasons. Congress has a "gentleman's" agreement that there needs to be a political balance in the Pentagon. So, it is of little surprise that there is a Bush-hating retired general who was on the ground. There are hundreds of flag officers deployed and there is no way of keeping all the anti-Bush / anti-war officers from serving, then quitting, and telling the public how horrible the administration is.

Again, I'm have no problem with the opinion of yours, only that you provide a sound-bite as if it were some revelation. You might has well have provided a sound-bite from Obama or Pelosi, talking about how horrible Bush is. They mean nothing beyond their political import and little truth is actually provided.

Yes, if you want to take experts into consideration, seeing as how Schwartzkopf was a private contractor on the ground in Iraq and has been a civilian adviser during the entire affair. No, in that they are all political positions and are not to be trusted because it's all about politics.

Why would I? Any of them would admit that mistakes were made. It's the assertion that there was "dereliction of duty" by a political appointee that smacks of politics.

~String

 

Bush has adequately succeeded on the American front.

That Bush may not have adequately serviced, er...served, the international front in some subjectively successful means is a secondary issue of a decidedly non-overriding character.

 

Now that pretty much qualifies as a moronic statement.
"Adequate" and "success" being two different concepts notwithstanding - is a multi-trillion dollar war, a shredded healthcare system, and lack of funding for important research among other "successes", sufficient or adequate in America these days?

How many road bridges are falling apart over there again? Just for example.

 

Where the hell was he when he was in command ? He was there when half of the stupid privatisations and Bremer's Law's were implemented.

Why isn't Paul Bremer behind Bars for gross incompetence ? Or fired ?

 

(Insert title here)

If you say so. We'll have to take your word on that, since you won't provide anything better than a "because I say so" argument.

String: I mean, would it honestly shift your paradigm any if I posted that Gen. Schwarzkopf (probably one of the only living military geniuses in the US, and arguably the best military commander since WWII) says that Bush is doing the right thing? Would it make a difference if I came up with a slew of Generals and Admirals who would pretty much mimmic those words?

No. It wouldn't. And it shouldn't.

Tiassa: And go ahead and post Schwarzkopf's opinion if you want. The only reason I can think of that you wouldn't is that you're not confident that the context is applicable. Trying to blame other people is just a convenient, albeit transparent excuse.

String: The text is applicable if I want to defend the whole Iraq business... which I would never do.​

There are a couple of reasons why Schwarzkopf's opinion might not affect my outlook in this instance. First, I don't think his outlook on "the whole Iraq business" is necessarily relevant to the issue Sanchez raised. And then there's the fact that I've taken a calculated ambivalence about Sanchez's assertions. It's spectacular enough to help push the book, and while it doesn't quite exonerate him°—and while there is a question of what such an exoneration would apply to—there is about it a sense of self-justification: He essentially claims he was betrayed by the Bush administration.

And you're the one whose personal grudge leads you to predictable accusations like that. You're the one who wants to complain about my political extremism without making any effort to demonstrate it. As far as I can tell, your definition of extremist is anyone who disagrees with you on a regular basis.

And, by the way, if it shouldn't change my opinion ...?

Never mind.

That's a limitation of your perspective. On the one hand, there are times when I agree with people to the right of me. To the other, the vile and dishonest have long had a prominent and effective voice in society. It is not my fault if you wish to sympathize with con artists.

If you didn't have a history of missing the point in order to pretend outrage, I wouldn't find you so vile and dishonest.

I suppose I could simply presume you stupid. Would you be offended, then, if I just didn't bother trying to answer your arguments on the grounds that you're not smart enough to understand?

I pursue a concept you are either unwilling or unable to recognize. You are offended because I believe in something that you despise. Yet you are either unable or unwilling to acknowledge the implications of the fact that we clearly define that something differently. If you demonstrated an understanding of what I'm actually saying instead of denouncing your own construction of my outlook, I wouldn't find your outrage so vile or your perspective so dishonest.

As far as I'm concerned, we could probably find middle ground except for the fact that you just don't want to.

And I believe you. Especially after that freakin' tantrum you threw a couple weeks ago.

Fine with me.

I wasn't asking for a definition. I was questioning your comparison.

"As if it were some revelation"? See, here again, you're letting your passions dictate your outlook.

It's a fairly spectacular assertion, and something many of us have suspected about the days of chaos following the defeat of the Hussein regime.​

Like I said before, it's something many of us have long suspected.

It was a revelation for Sanchez, apparently. Maybe I should be more surprised. After all, I'm not a military person, and yet I figured there was no way anyone could actually plan the war without thinking about the so-called "Phase IV". I just figured Bush and Rumsfeld never bothered with that plan. Seems I was wrong. The effect is the same, of course. I haven't decided about the moral implications yet.

Interesting. Too bad you don't want to discuss the detail of Schwarzkopf's opinion, then.

"Mistakes were made". Did you happen to catch the This American Life episode last month about cryonics? Episode #354, "Mistakes Were Made"? Did you catch the Prologue, when Ira read Rep. Davis' apology letter to Obama? Did you listen to the discussion about the pro forma (non-) apology? Mistakes were made.

Yeah, obviously it was a mistake to execute the war without "Phase IV" planning. But was this a "simple" mistake, like, "Whoops, we accidentally forgot to follow through on our plan"? I mean, seriously, Ted Bundy could say, "Mistakes were made", and, technically, be accurate. Josef Fritzl, undoubtedly, made mistakes. But neither he nor Bundy made "simple" mistakes.

Simple mistakes can have profound consequences. Did you leave the iron on? It's not so much a problem these days, with automatic shut-off. But one of my friends gave up most of his drug use after he put on water for tea and then passed out. Imagine his roommate's surprise to come home and find a teapot melted to the gas range. That could have been bad. Talk about mistakes? Somehow, someone got the idea to use a flowerpot for an ashtray. A plastic flowerpot. Frankly, I think it started during the rainy season. But, in the end, one night I failed to put a cigarette out completely and ended up melting the thing to the deck. Which was wood. Simple mistakes can burn down houses, or apartment buildings. They can certainly kill people.

Even drunk driving can qualify as a simple mistake.

But is it really a mark of an extremist to wonder how someone—an entire presidential administration, at that—could somehow, what, forget to account for what happens after we take Baghdad?

I understand that it was a mistake to not maintain law and order in Baghdad. We were told at one point that our soldiers' safety was the concern. And, you know, I do sympathize, but they're soldiers, in a war. Fulfilling the obligations we've agreed to (e.g. Geneva Conventions) at risk of personal safety is, unfortunately, part of their job. How many people in the administration made a simple mistake by somehow failing to realize this? The President? Maybe. It's possible. The Secretary of Defense? Well, understanding that obligation would seem to fall within his purview. Joint Chiefs? How many people at the Pentagon should have cleared their throats? Commander of forces in the theater (Gen. Franks)? Did they all make a "simple" mistake?

As to the general question Sanchez raises: If the administration had, from war planners, some manner of "Phase IV" planning, how did they come to not use it? Was it a bad plan? Would that not suggest the need for a better plan? How does it work out that the thing to do should be to ignore the plan and not come up with anything else?

What kind of mistakes are we talking about here?

At what point do those mistakes amount to something more?
_____________________

Notes:

° while it doesn't quite exonerate him — See Challenger78's question: "Where the hell was he when he was in command?" The answer appears to be that he and Bremer simply did not get along very well. Wikipedia quotes Thomas Ricks, "It was very clear they hated each other. They lived in the same palace and didn't talk to each other."

Works Cited:

Glass, Ira. "Mistakes Were Made". This American Life #354. Chicago Public Radio. April 18, 2008. http://thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1239

Wikipedia. "Ricardo Sanchez". Updated May 4, 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardo_Sanchez

 

Okay.

~String