The White House insisted that progress was being made in Iraq after a former top US commander there assailed its strategy and lamented that the war was “a nightmare with no end in sight.”
Retired Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez delivered a scathing assessment of the management of the war as he denounced US political leaders as “incompetent,” “inept” and “derelict in the performance of their duty.”
Sounds like me. Sounds like most everyone in the United States – finally.
“Continued manipulations and adjustments to our military strategy will not achieve victory,” he said. “The best we can do with this flawed approach is stave off defeat.”
“The administration, Congress and the entire inter-agency, especially the Department of State, must shoulder the responsibility for this catastrophic failure and the American people must hold them accountable,” he added.
Seems to me we threw out some of the creeps who went along with this disaster, last election. To end Bush’s War.
The goal in 2008 is to throw out the rest of them.
#10, chcknhwk03
#9 – What truth? He made an assertion without offering any convincing evidence to support his position.
As someone who was there, in a command position, with access to information mere mortals didn’t / don’t have, I think his opinion counts as expert. He doesn’t need to support his assertions. That doesn’t mean he is right or can’t be disputed. It means his opinion carries weight as core evidence.
#21,
As far as his historical input, he fails to point out lessons that can be learned and applied to current COIN strategy.
Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick !!! He gave a speech to some correspondents and editors, not West Point.
For the “truth” anything less than a 200 page book will do little good.
So wait for his book to come out. Be the first in your platoon to buy a copy.
#27,
Well answered by MM in #28.
#29,
I’m curious to know what you base your opinion on …
see #28.
*
Chcknhwk, you once claimed to be a student. Your posts suggest something along the lines of a High School sophomore. If this is what students are learning in college today then we are doomed. Unless, of course, you attend Oral Roberts, Liberty, Bob Jones, or some other wack job institution of higher stupidity.
AMERICA HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO CONTINUE OUR EFFORTS IN IRAQ.
PARTISAN POLITICS HAVE HINDERED THIS WAR EFFORT AND AMERICA SHOULD NOT ACCEPT THIS.
“ACTION WITHOUT VISION IS A NIGHTMARE.” THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT AMERICA IS LIVING A NIGHTMARE WITH NO END IN SIGHT.
SINCE 2003, 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.
This from the commander who’s leadership brought about the insurgency on HIS watch.
That’s the pot calling the kettle black.
I think another example of how politicians are failing the military would be Nancy Pelosi pushing a resolution about the Armenian genocide in Turkey. So the people who complain that George Bush didn’t understand the reality of the different factions in Iraq, they are now looking to make Turkey angry at us.
>>This from the commander who’s leadership brought about the insurgency on HIS watch.
>>That’s the pot calling the kettle black.
That talking point is the hight of cynicism but it’s all over the right wing media now:
Sanchez has no credibility because he implemented THEIR policy!
Bush let it be known that any military person who stepped out of line would be fired and professionally ruined.
If active military spoke out, they were labeled traitors by the right wing media. If anyone associated administration spoke the truth, they risked having their wife attacked!
Your talking point against Sanchez is just more of that pattern.
He was a hero as long as he walked lock-step with the Bushies and then smeared when he tells the truth about that.
Here’ s the bottom line for me: what Sanchez says fits the known facts and is totally consistent with everything else we’re hearing about Iraq
(Except in the Right Wing media where Iraq is GOING GREAT and always has been. Victory is just six months away!)
#32 – I watched the speech today on C-SPAN and you could definitely see how he still carries a deep resentment of the press for how they characterized his service, especially the personal attacks.
#34 – That’s great.
#38 – Who is attacking his credibility? He pointed about past incidents that were truly mistakes. The greatest debate about his statements is that there is no end in sight, especially because he did not substantiate that comment with any meaningful explanation. Besides when it comes to making future predictions, often whoever presents the stronger case will win the majority of the favor. If it comes down to Sanchez or David Kilcullen (http://tinyurl.com/2z8o4p) I’ll take the latter because he lays out the methodology of how to win a COIN battle, which is 180 degrees from what Sanchez implemented (granted he, and the rest of the U.S. government/military was not prepared for).
Going great? I’d be hard pressed to find someone who thought that. Showing measurable progress? Absolutely. Here’s a Washington Post article (http://tinyurl.com/ypq3su) that ends with: “Nevertheless, it’s looking more and more as though those in and outside of Congress who last month were assailing Gen. Petraeus’s credibility and insisting that there was no letup in Iraq’s bloodshed were — to put it simply — wrong.”
#11
> Overseas militry intervention that is bankrupting our
> country should not be undertaken without overwhelming
> support and not maintained without a majority support.
That’s a fascination attitude. Prior to December 1941, the country was adamantly opposed to entering the war against Germany or even helping the British. Roosevelt, to his credit, helped the British anyway. According to your attitude, if the Japanese had not attacked, we should (as opposed to “would have”) not have never entered into World War II. In January of 1943, Roosevelt called for unconditional surrender by the Axis powers which was highly criticized in the newspapers for having a closed door to a negotiated settlement. In December 1944, after the German counterattack in the Ardennes, the Democratic National Committee chairman declared that the war could not be won and a member of the House, a former Marine, urged our troops to come home. Lincoln did not achieve popular support for the war until 1863 when the Union finally started winning battles and in fact was highly criticized through much of the war. According to you, he should have simply given up when the popular support turned against the war.
Sanchez spent a good deal of his speech lambasting the press corp for reporting with an agenda and reporting important strategic information which hurts the US efforts. An example is the NY Times reporting that the US was monitoring radiation levels around Mosques. He also stated that the crux of the problems with Iraq have to do with both sides of the aisle spending more time playing politics and arguing with each other than working together to devising *and support* for a common strategy to *win* the war.
What that means is that with the current crop of Presidential candidates, both Democrat and Republican, nothing is going to change. As it stands now, the Democrats are posed to nominate a candidate hated by her opponents (even by many in her own party) in Hilary that will do absolutely nothing to appease the hatred and bickering between the two parties.
#12
You mean that 2008 will be the beginning of the end.
I repeat again, according to Gen Sanchez,”America has no choice but to continue our efforts in Iraq.”
#40, Thomas,
I don’t know where you got your history lessons from, but they are obviously wrong. Perhaps the Republican School of Revisionist History?
While there was much support for Britain from America, there probably wasn’t enough to declare war. There was a substantial portion of America that supported the Nazis, but they were more vocal than numerous. While there were many reasons for the anti Axis opinion, the most important were because of WWI just a generation earlier; British stock, language, and culture sympathy; and the recognition of the Axis as aggressors.
It was because the American government recognized the Axis as aggressors, Roosevelt refused to sell anything that might be used for munitions, including Helium, exotic metals, and scrap metals. America was not in the war before Pearl Harbor, but openly supported Britain to the degree that Germany had little problem declaring war on America. Japan believed the munition material embargo was an aggressive act and that led up to Pearl Harbor.
I am unaware of anyone in government suggesting the war couldn’t be won during the Battle of the Bulge. At that time the USSR was approaching the German border from the east and American units were already in Germany on the western front. German air power was almost non-existent at that point and the German army was filled with untrained kids and old men. These facts were widely known and published in newspaper. I would be interested in knowing who these two people are and if you have any cites to go along with the allegations.
Lincoln had strong support for the war from the start. Interest started to wain after several defeats and the mounting casualties. Resistance further stiffened with the implementation of the draft. The majority of the North supported Lincoln all through the war however.
#41
RE: WWII
Confusion, you are proof that history is no longer taught in schools. Perhaps you should consider reading actual history instead of the nonsense you think you know.
Between 1939 and 1941, support for Britain in the war was mixed as evidenced by the passing of additional Neutrality Acts by Congress. During this period, Britain (and Roosevelt) expended a great deal of effort “selling” the war to the US in favor of Britain but even as late as early 1941 there was little support for the US actually entering the war. There was some support for aiding Britain and France with supplies and materials but that was it. This is evidenced by the fierce fight over the passage of the Lend-lease Act of 1941. However, once that act was passed, Roosevelt used it to effectively begin supplying the British and French.
> Roosevelt refused to sell anything that
> might be used for munitions, including Helium,
> exotic metals, and scrap metals.
Nonsense. Under the Lend-Lease act, Roosevelt sent machine guns, artillery and anything else short of men, aircraft and capital ships to the British and French. The Lend-Lease Act marked the start of the US “openly” supporting supporting Allied powers. Prior that it was all clandestine support by Roosevelt.
You are using hindsight and knowledge of how the war concluded to assess how people felt in 1944. After the attack in the Ardennes, many felt that the war in Germany was going to drag on forever and that there was no progress in taking out the “real” enemy that actually attacked the US which was Japan. You seem to forget that the people were tired of a war by then. In addition, Richard Frank in Downfall makes it clear that even the US military leaders felt that if the war with Germany dragged on any longer than early 1945, they’d have suspend any thoughts of a Japanese invasion for perhaps another year and it was unclear whether the American public would stand for that.
Regarding the quotes, I’ll have to dig up the exact quotes which will be a challenge since it will be buried in hard copy somewhere in my library. If I remember correctly, in both cases the argument was for pulling out of Germany, initiating a massive demobilization and sending the remainder to the South Pacific and/or negotiating peace with the Japanese to end the war. As I mentioned above, the feeling was that the war in Germany was going to last forever, let the Europeans and Russians finish it and let’s go finish off the Japanese. This was not an uncommon sentiment. In hindsight, of course we know that the Ardennes was a last gasp, but in 1944 it wholly unclear that was the case.
#41
RE: Civil War
Regarding the Civil War, it is true that there was plenty of support for the war in the North at the outset when the press claimed that it would be over in 90 days. However, even still there was opposition to the war from Southern and State’s Rights sympathizers. After the war turned ugly after Bull Run (read: once it started), support did waver. As you mentioned, with the draft, opposition increased to the point of a riot in 1863 in New York. JWB was not the only person and certainly not alone amongst Northerners who thought that Lincoln had overstepped his power. There was quite a bit of traction to the idea of making peace with the South and splitting the country.
I would say that WWII enjoyed the most support and even that had opposition. So, to claim that we should never fight wars unless a majority supports it lunacy. It simply brings to light yet another reason why (direct) democracies are bad: they sway which ever way the wind (or media) blows.
#40 “He also stated that the crux of the problems with Iraq have to do with both sides of the aisle spending more time playing politics and arguing with each other than working together to devising *and support* for a common strategy to *win* the war.”
he is shocked, SHOCKED to discover politics going on in Washington DC.
the problem is that the large # of Democrats who initially supported the war no longer believe that the Administration has any credibility left, and thus simply CANNOT be counted on as a partner in formulating any policy with regards to the war.
lets just set aside the Downing Street stuff and focus on the conduct of the war for a second, shall we?
for 3 years, the WH issued proclamations that “steady progress” was being made and denying that additional troops were needed. remember “freedom is messy” and “a few dead-enders”? then, after the 06 election, suddenly it was decided that things were NOT going well and additional troops WERE needed, without any admission that the preceding policy had been a failure. the Bush WH is simply not a partner that can be dealt with on Iraq, as far as the Democrats are concerned.
for the Administration’s part, the Bushies have a monomania about refusing to give an inch to the Democratic Congress, whose opinion reflects an overwhelming public desire for an end date for US participation in the Iraqi Civil War. he would rather cut off funding for the troops than acknowledge Congress’ prerogative to condition funding upon an end to the war.
there is simply no cooperation that can be had. the Bushies think this war was worth fighting and can still be won. the Democrats (and a majority of the US public) think the war was a ghastly mistake and should be ended in a reasonable time frame, whether or not “victory” (whatever that means) is accomplished.
#43, Thomas,
I notice your change in tone between #40 and #43.
#40,
Prior to December 1941, the country was adamantly opposed to entering the war against Germany or even helping the British.
#43,
Between 1939 and 1941, support for Britain in the war was mixed …
There was some support for aiding Britain and France with supplies and materials …
Wrong again. There was a lot of support, just not enough to become involved.
> Roosevelt refused to sell anything that
> might be used for munitions, including Helium,
> exotic metals, and scrap metals.
Nonsense. Under the Lend-Lease act, Roosevelt sent machine guns, artillery and anything else short of men, aircraft and capital ships to the British and French. The Lend-Lease Act marked the start of the US “openly” supporting supporting Allied powers. Prior that it was all clandestine support by Roosevelt.
Uumm, you might want to go back and reread what I wrote. It was the Axis that were embargoed, not the British. Actually, Roosevelt “lent” Britain 50 destroyers to help with anti-submarine defense. The thinking was Britain could do the fighting for America. Also contracts were signed for aircraft production although they didn’t come on stream until after the US entered the war.
#43,
You are using hindsight and knowledge of how the war concluded to assess how people felt in 1944
So let me see, when you said in #40
According to you, [Lincoln] should have simply given up when the popular support turned against the war.
you weren’t really assessing how people felt.
#43,
the argument was for pulling out of Germany, initiating a massive demobilization and sending the remainder to the South Pacific and/or negotiating peace with the Japanese to end the war
That was never an option. From the start it was agreed that the Allies would primarily focus on Europe and Japan would be a secondary theater. The only agreement was that Australia and New Zealand would be protected from invasion. There was never any discussion about a separate peace with Japan until after Germany had surrendered.
#43
In hindsight, of course we know that the Ardennes was a last gasp, but in 1944 it wholly unclear that was the case.
Again, you don’t know your history. The US was well used to heavy casualties and there was very little censorship of hard battles. You forget Utah Beach, Anzio, Hentgen Forest, Guam, and Iwo Jima. Knowing there was a hard battle would do little to sway public opinion at that stage. The American mood was one of ultimate victory, not defeatism.
#44, Thomas,
There was quite a bit of traction to the idea of making peace with the South and splitting the country.
That might have been the goal of the South, but the overwhelming consensus in the North was to free the slaves and bring the South back into the Union.
I would say that WWII enjoyed the most support and even that had opposition. So, to claim that we should never fight wars unless a majority supports it lunacy.
Again you are out to lunch. There was no opposition to America’s joining WWII. Most wars America has been involved in had majority civilian support. The exceptions were the War of 1812 and Viet Nam. Coincidentally, both ended with less than favorable outcomes. When there is a clear goal, America has persevered.
#46
No, my tone did not change. You simply did not read. There is a BIG difference between support through money or supplies and support through FIGHTING. I have already provided evidence that there was a LOT of resistance going to war even as late as early 1941. Roosevelt got a LOT of heat for the Lend-Lease Act. Many Congressman felt that it was tantamount to entering the war (which they were right).
RE: Your response about Roosevelt and the Lend-Lease.
In the way I read it the first time, it appeared that you were switching topics from Axis aggressors to Roosevelt. However, if that is not the case, then it would mean we agree.
RE: #43 and Civil War
Yes, I was assessing how people felt. You are reading history through rose-colored glasses and with hindsight. You appear to think it obvious that everyone or even a vast majority wanted to free the slaves and approved of the war. That is simply not even close to true. There was plenty of opposition to the Civil War in the North (and the South) especially as it dragged on and the losses piled up. Furthermore, claiming that there was *overwhelming* support for the freeing of slaves is also revisionist history. “Freeing” meant very different things to different people which is why Lincoln got so much heat for the Emancipation Proclamation.
RE: #43 And pulling out
> That was never an option. From
> the start it was agreed that the
> Allies would primarily focus on
> Europe and Japan would be a secondary theater
Partially true. Yes it was true that at the outset the Allies agreed that Europe got priority. However, a partial demobilization was already planned after the fall of Germany in part because they knew that moving people from one war zone to another would not be popular with the soldiers.
“the collapse of Germany would impose partial demobilization and a growing impatience … throughout the United States.”
– George Marshall, 1943
In addition, there were many in the public that want to broker a peace treaty with Japan instead of demanding unconditional surrender as Roosevelt required. When Roosevelt died, that idea got more traction.
RE: #43 Ardennes
Frankly, it is clear that you do not know your history. You are again reading history from hindsight. The public did not know we had Ultra. The public did not know the extent of the German attack. Something like 17% of all US casualties in WWII occurred from late 1944 into 1945 and mostly in the Pacific (For the record Iwo Jima occurred in 1945). So no, the US was not used to heavy casualties . Further, the extent of the casualties was not the issue. The issue was how much longer would the war last. The Ardennes took Allied military commanders completely by surprise and required them to rethink their estimations for the end of the war. It was looking like the war in Europe might last another year or two instead of six months.
#47
> That might have been the goal of the South, but the
> overwhelming consensus in the North was to free the slaves
> and bring the South back into the Union.
You are simply wrong. There was no overwhelming consensus which is why it was an Executive Order instead of a Legislative one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_proclamation
“The Emancipation Proclamation was widely attacked at the time as freeing only the slaves over which the Union had no power, but in practice, it committed the Union to ending slavery, which was controversial in the North”
> There was no opposition to America’s joining WWII.
If you mean “no opposition to American joining WWII *after Pearl Harbor*, sure. But if you mean prior to December 1941, then it is you that is out to lunch. What about the Neutrality Acts in 1936, 1937 and 1939? How did they pass? How do you explain the two months Congress spent debating the Lend Lease Act? There is a gallup poll from December 1940 in which 40% of the respondants did not approve of giving aid to Britain if it meant going to war.
“I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again; your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.”
– Roosevelt in the 1940 Presidential campaign
#45
> he is shocked, SHOCKED to discover
> politics going on in Washington DC.
He was shocked to find people playing politics in DC at the expense of soldiers in the field. That is a cruel reality to handle.
> the problem is that the large # of
> Democrats who initially supported the war
> no longer believe that the Administration
> has any credibility left, and thus simply
> CANNOT be counted on as a partner in
> formulating any policy with regards to the war.
Agreed. But given what the Democrats have said, it is hard to believe that *they* can be trusted with formulating any cohesive vision for ending the war. Do you honestly believe that Hilary is well equipped to devise and implement a reasonable solution? For that matter, do you honestly believe the Republicans candidates such as Giuliani are?
RE: Iraq
Victory means leaving Iraq with a government that has sufficient power to police terrorists in its own country, maintain order and is not totalitarian.
If we leave now, Iraq will almost assuredly collapse and probably be split up by the Kurds and Iranians. That would make matters worse than they are now and put us at more risk. Thus, setting a date for the end of the war is not the right solution. However, devising a set of parameters or goals that would indicate victory is reasonable.
The reason there is no cooperation is that the only solution the Democrats appear to provide is to get out and that solution is simply not reasonable at this juncture. If the Democrats offered a solution other than leaving, I must have missed it.
As it relates to WWII, I will say this. It is clear that as eccentric as MacArthur was, he was clearly brilliant when it came to handling the Japanese after the war and his brilliance grows with each problematic engagement in which we get ensnared.
>>If we leave now, Iraq will almost assuredly collapse and probably
>>be split up by the Kurds and Iranians.
Perhaps the Iraqi parliament should have though of that while they were taking the summer off.
#48, Thomas,
You are reading history … with hindsight.
Yes, that is how history is interpreted. ALL the evidence is examined, filtered, and analyzed. After it happened. That is how it qualifies as history.
You appear to think it obvious that everyone or even a vast majority wanted to free the slaves and approved of the war. That is simply not even close to true.
Sorry, but slavery is the whole reason for the Civil War. The retention of slavery was couched in the terms of States Rights. The Abolition and anti-slavery forces had been growing since the early 1830s. The South knew it was only a matter of time before there was enough popular sentiment to Constitutionally abolish slavery. The Dred Scott case (1857) galvanized the North and the election of Lincoln galvanized the South. The rest is history.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
Slavery was at the root of economic, moral and political differences[26] that led to control issues, states’ rights and secession.
citing Kenneth M. Stampp, America in 1857: A Nation on the Brink (Oxford University Press, 1990), pages 110-113
“As the fifties wore on, an exhaustive, exacerbating and essentially futile conflict over slavery raged to the exclusion of nearly all other topics.”[55]
citing Allan Nevin, Fruits of Manifest Destiny, 1847-1852, page 163
I could go on and on, but the fact remain you don’t know what you are talking about. I haven’t read Stampp, but I did go through several of Nevin’s tombs during College.
> Yes, that is how history is interpreted.
> ALL the evidence is examined, filtered, and analyzed.
We can analyze and examine evidence using modern techniques and use hindsight to see whether for instance gambles paid off or were mistakes. However, you cannot possibly understand motivations if you interpret history through modern attitudes particularly if the discussion is about public opinion and opposition to political ideas at the time.
I never said that slavery was not a primary reason for the Civil War. I said there was no overwhelming consensus to “free” the slaves which is completely different. That there was fierce opposition to the Emancipation Proclamation is clear evidence. “Free” meant very different things to different people at that time. This is a prime example where the interpretation of events changes dramatically when viewed from the perspective of the people at the time. Illinois for example passed a resolution opposing the Emancipation Proclamation.
If “everyone” wanted the slaves free, why was a law not passed in Congress prior to the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 instead of requiring an Executive Order? The “vocal minority” as you have so used in the past, to free the slaves were the abolitionists but they represented the extreme viewpoint with respect to “freedom”. As is common, the viewpoints on “freeing” the slaves ran a gamut of opinions.
Mr. Fusion, if slavery was the reason for the Civil War, then why did the South secede? The federal government couldn’t have outlawed slavery, plus the South had enough power in the Senate to block anything. Not only that, but 15 slave states is enough to block a Constitutional Amendment today. By seceding, the South took the only course that forces them to give up slavery.
Democratic Congressman James Clyburn said that an American victory in Iraq “would be a real big problem for us” in the 2008 elections.
By the way, if the media is so corporate and not left-wing, then why did they spin this story as one of Sanchez saying Iraq is a nightmare with no end in sight, when he in fact said that America should stay in Iraq?