US Gen. Sanchez Denounces Iraq Strategy

[FSTargetDrone]

Surprised it hasn't been posted yet. Anyway, here's a brief story:

Sanchez condemns Iraq strategy

By Tim Shipman in Washington

Last Updated: 4:24pm BST 13/10/2007

America's former commander in Iraq has issued a damning indictment of the war, branding President Bush’s government “incompetent” and “negligent” for presiding over “a nightmare with no end in sight”.

Lt-Gen. Ricardo Sanchez denounced the Bush administration’s “catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan” and said: “There has been a glaring and unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders.”

He denounced the current surge strategy as just another “desperate attempt” to put the situation to rights, by a government “that has not accepted the political and economic realities of this war”.

General Sanchez, who was the US commander in Baghdad for a year after the 2003 invasion is the most senior officer to make a public criticism of the war.

He told a gathering of military reporters near Washington that US diplomats as well as politicians and generals were to blame, saying civilian officials have been “derelict in their duties” and guilty of a “lust for power”

During his time in Baghdad, Gen. Sanchez clashed with Paul Bremer, the civilian administrator blamed for disbanding the Iraqi Army and fuelling the insurgency.

In sharp words for President Bush, he said: “From a catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan to the administration’s latest surge strategy, this administration has failed to employ and synchronise its political, economic and military power.National leadership continues to believe that victory can be achieved by military power alone.”

He also accused the Bush administration of failing to “communicate effectively the reality to the American people” of the situation in Iraq.

Gen. Sanchez retired last year after being replaced in Iraq in 2004 for presiding over the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal — though he was cleared of any wrongdoing in that affair. He now works as a Pentagon consultant training generals.

He has been accused of failing to take steps in the early post-war phase to combat the growing insurgency.

A White House spokeswoman refused to comment on the allegations but said: “We appreciate his service to the country.”

Don't you love the non-response from the White House? I mean, what can they say? Maybe bring up his connection to the Abu Ghraib nightmare, but.. no... They wouldn't!

[Thanas]

How nice of him to speak out NOW.

Is he running for the General Obvious award of the year?

[VT-16]

It's so nice to know that all the former commanders are making their voices heard once they no longer have any authority.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Trouble happens when the administration stocked the entire General Staff with syncopants where they pandered their syncopancy.

Doesn't help that Rummy fired just about any general that argued with him.

[Nephtys]

It's so nice to know that all the former commanders are making their voices heard once they no longer have any authority.

Isn't it true that military officers are supposed to not denounce their leadership until they're either retired or that stuff is no longer their responsibility? You can't really expect otherwise.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It's so nice to know that all the former commanders are making their voices heard once they no longer have any authority. :roll:

Isn't it true that military officers are supposed to not denounce their leadership until they're either retired or that stuff is no longer their responsibility? You can't really expect otherwise.

You're correct, and it goes both ways. There was this one active-duty officer I remembered, voraciously conservative, who nonetheless never made a single comment about Bill Clinton until the moment Bush took the oath of office, and then promptly posted this twelve-page diatribe listing his every complaint about the Clinton years on a message board I was on.

Quite simply, as long as he was active duty or reserve, he can't criticize his commander and chief like that. He's presumably retired now after some sort of stateside posting for the past couple of years and can actually now speak his own mind.

[Big Phil]

It's so nice to know that all the former commanders are making their voices heard once they no longer have any authority.

Do you really want military officers denouncing or telling off their civilian commanders? You realize where that leads, don't you?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

It's so nice to know that all the former commanders are making their voices heard once they no longer have any authority.

Do you really want military officers denouncing or telling off their civilian commanders? You realize where that leads, don't you?

Even if it is a bad decision?

[Nephtys]

It's so nice to know that all the former commanders are making their voices heard once they no longer have any authority.

Do you really want military officers denouncing or telling off their civilian commanders? You realize where that leads, don't you?

Even if it is a bad decision?

It's called Mutiny. So yeah, you don't want that happening. Civilians control the military, and that's how it HAS to be. Even with stupid as hell civilian leadership.

[Thanas]

When you are a General, you are not supposed to commit mutiny. What you are supposed to do is to fight tooth, claw and nail for the benefit of your nation. If you do believe the President is handling the war ineptly and with criminal incompetence, you do the only thing you can do that has an impact - you resign.

Every General within his right mind knew that the war was a disaster right from the start. But instead of resigning, that guy went along with it and is now critizising the CiC after he has been replaced.

In short, he is suffering from the Manstein syndrome.

[CmdrWilkens]

Certainly they should of course resign instantly and not do their level best to save as many troops as they can within the limits of the mission defined for them.

Resiging is a nice dramatic statement of distrust in the position of the ciilian leadership but it is also far from the best solution to a bad situation. From any senior officer's perspective they can either 1) Quit and dump the mess on their subordinates because they don't like the situation. This may send out a message and certianly would help them sleep better IF they were actually the kind of people who coudl wash their hands and say "I didn't lead the troops so it isn't my fault" or 2) Stay and fight for every bit of benifit you can get for your troops, lobby receptive members of congress for more aid and do you best to make the best tactical decision you can since the strategic result is already lost.

Comparing the modern American generalship's loss of trust and public displays of distaste for the Bush administration Manstein-eque is an insult to them. They were not serving some genocidal dictator crushing the world, they were pursuing American foreign policy as called for by overwhelming majorities in the House, Senate, public opinion and with the full weight of the executive. Each and every US citizen who did not cry out for the war to be avoided is every bit as guilty as these generals and I include myself in that sentiment.

[Thanas]

Certainly they should of course resign instantly and not do their level best to save as many troops as they can within the limits of the mission defined for them.

Nope. They should resign when it becomes clear the leadership is scrapping the prewar plans, going to war unprepared and not having any plan at all, which is pretty much the definiton of impeeding clusterfuck, e.g. no amount of patchwork is going to fix the underlying problems.

2) Stay and fight for every bit of benifit you can get for your troops, lobby receptive members of congress for more aid and do you best to make the best tactical decision you can since the strategic result is already lost.

How is this supposed to be better if the administration is not listening at all? How is this supposed to effect public support at all?

Comparing the modern American generalship's loss of trust and public displays of distaste for the Bush administration Manstein-eque is an insult to them. They were not serving some genocidal dictator crushing the world, they were pursuing American foreign policy as called for by overwhelming majorities in the House, Senate, public opinion and with the full weight of the executive.

I apologize, I assumed you were familiar with Manstein. To elaborate: I am referring to Manstein's handling of the war in Russia in regards to the strategic situation (e.g. he knew there was no chance of victory and that Hitler was screwing him), yet still fulfilling his job to the best extent possible. After the war Manstein wrote a book, where he critizised Hitler with words he never dared to speak while Hitler was alive (in fact he had never critizised Hitler). I am not referring to the conduct of the war in general, but to a general going along with a plan when he knew it could only end in disaster. Manstein, a brilliant strategist but with no guts to resign or stand up to the CiC in a meaningful way, seems to be the best example for that.

Each and every US citizen who did not cry out for the war to be avoided is every bit as guilty as these generals and I include myself in that sentiment.

Again, no. As a general, they have information way better than the general public. He was the Commander of all coalition forces in Iraq, for gods sake.

Or are you really claiming that the average american had any inclination that Rummy was scrapping the prewar plan, that the Army was going to war with a third of the troops needed? A general, and especially this general, has way better information. Furthermore, he is supposedly trained to understand it. He is an expert. Standards for experts are always higher than the average american.

[K. A. Pital]

They were not serving some genocidal dictator crushing the world, they were pursuing American foreign policy as called for by overwhelming majorities in the House, Senate, public opinion and with the full weight of the executive.

They wilfully waged a war of agression against a sovereign nation just because American administration's political interest demanded it. Just because of that. If you're willing to draw lines between the Reich's agression and American agression, the difference is in brutality - "minus the genocide goal". America is not a "genocidal" agressor, but an agressor nonetheless.

Serving the American "public opinion", if that opinion is fostered and influenced by lies from warmongers and imperialists, is just the same as serving the warmongers and imperialists directly. In what way is Bush's administration foreign policy different from a common imperialist? I fail to see.

[Sidewinder]

In short, he is suffering from the Manstein syndrome.

What's the Manstein Syndrome?

[Sidewinder]

Never mind.

[Metatwaddle]

Trouble happens when the administration stocked the entire General Staff with syncopants where they pandered their syncopancy.

So your argument is that the Iraq war was bungled by...jazz musicians?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Trouble happens when the administration stocked the entire General Staff with syncopants where they pandered their syncopancy.

So your argument is that the Iraq war was bungled by...jazz musicians?

For some ridiculous reason, perhaps it is a slang, this word does not exist tin the dictionary. Regardless, I recall it means to be a spineless moron who merely obeys his master like a dog and licks his boots.

[KlavoHunter]

I apologize, I assumed you were familiar with Manstein. To elaborate: I am referring to Manstein's handling of the war in Russia in regards to the strategic situation (e.g. he knew there was no chance of victory and that Hitler was screwing him), yet still fulfilling his job to the best extent possible. After the war Manstein wrote a book, where he critizised Hitler with words he never dared to speak while Hitler was alive (in fact he had never critizised Hitler). I am not referring to the conduct of the war in general, but to a general going along with a plan when he knew it could only end in disaster. Manstein, a brilliant strategist but with no guts to resign or stand up to the CiC in a meaningful way, seems to be the best example for that.

Probably because Manstein would become familiar with a bullet in the back of his head if he were to resign and speak out against Hitler?

[PainRack]

[
For some ridiculous reason, perhaps it is a slang, this word does not exist tin the dictionary. Regardless, I recall it means to be a spineless moron who merely obeys his master like a dog and licks his boots.

You mispelled the word.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

[
For some ridiculous reason, perhaps it is a slang, this word does not exist tin the dictionary. Regardless, I recall it means to be a spineless moron who merely obeys his master like a dog and licks his boots.

You mispelled the word.

Apparently yes, it's "sycophants".

[Glocksman]

If anyone's interested, in 1967 the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff were going to resign as a body to protest Johnson's and McNamara's handling of Vietnam.
In the end, CJCS Earle Wheeler changed his mind and convinced the others to do so because he feared endangering the principle of civilian control of the military.

[K. A. Pital]

Probably because Manstein would become familiar with a bullet in the back of his head if he were to resign and speak out against Hitler?

Actually some of Hitler's commanders conflicted with him and resigned. Most notably Beck, and others, too.

[Siege]

If anyone's interested, in 1967 the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff were going to resign as a body to protest Johnson's and McNamara's handling of Vietnam.
In the end, CJCS Earle Wheeler changed his mind and convinced the others to do so because he feared endangering the principle of civilian control of the military.

Purely out of interest, how would resigning en masse endanger the principle of civilian control of the military?

[ray245]

If anyone's interested, in 1967 the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff were going to resign as a body to protest Johnson's and McNamara's handling of Vietnam.
In the end, CJCS Earle Wheeler changed his mind and convinced the others to do so because he feared endangering the principle of civilian control of the military.

Purely out of interest, how would resigning en masse endanger the principle of civilian control of the military?

The civilian decides to get more idiots in the top command? Idiots that may make the military look even worst?

[Knife]

The civilian decides to get more idiots in the top command? Idiots that may make the military look even worst?

Which could spark off resentment in the ranks at said civilians at assigning them stupid people to lead them, which means the next set of top leaders to get promoted go in with a mistrust and/or straight up confrontational attitude to the civilian leadership.