RE: Sanchez Backs Bringing Troops Home

Although I respect Gen. Sanchez's service, and respect him also as a man, in this case I must respectfully disagree.

America is now on its third Iraq strategy, the first two having failed utterly:

• Neocon-Reaganite: small government, free markets and prayer ... failed utterly.
• Surge A: Top-down direct intervention ... failed utterly.
• Surge B: Bottom-up direct intervention ... is working.

Our son tells us that "Surge B" is working, in Anbar and elsewhere.

If our forces continue to "learn and adapt" more rapidly than the enemy, we will achieve America's main goal in Iraq and Afghanistan: honorable victory, and a safe return home for our soldiers.

However, this victory will not be easy, quick, simple, or cheap.

Furthermore, this victory will not be achieved by the too-simple ideologies of the politicians. America must continue to reject both the Neocon-Reaganite ideology of the right-wing, and the top-down direct intervention ideology of the left-wing.

The ideologies of the right and left both promise to be easy, quick, simple, and cheap, but in practice, they have both failed utterly to deliver on these promises.

Because there is no easy path, to war-winning, or to nation-building.

That's my 2¢. Semper Fi! And Happy Thanksgiving!

First, screw it up, second, be pissed off as your career doesn't develop very well because of the first, third, blame someone and buy you this way an entry ticket for the opposite political party, fourth, step ahead into politics. Congrats & welcome in the weird world of politics.
Oh, missed the mission of securing Iraq ? That was the real mission ? Ooops.

I will remark also, that Gen. Sanchez may have lost confidence, in the ability of our political leaders, to build bipartisan support, to bear the costs and sacrifices of the war.

In a recent interview, Col. H. R. McMaster expressed a similar concern -- that the military (the Marines especially!) have found a winning strategy, but the civilian leaders have *not* built strong bipartisan support, to bear the costs of it:

quote:

I think that the key element that has been missing is again that the nature of the conflict was evolving faster than we were adjusting to the evolved nature of that conflict.

I think that was very much apparent to journalists, to politicians, to the American people generally, and to any keen observer of the conflict. It was clear to them that the [original] strategy was no longer addressing effectively the fundamental causes of instability.

I think now we are pursuing a strategy that does address those fundamental causes of instability. The question remains whether or not we're going to be able to succeed, will the strategy prove adequate to this very complex and daunting and difficult task?

I believe that certainly it does have a very strong chance of succeeding if we possess the will to see it through.

A Thanksgiving Semper Fi! goes to everyone with "the will to see it through"!

quote:

Originally posted by NikeAjax: First, screw it up, second, be pissed off as your career doesn't develop very well because of the first, third, blame someone and buy you this way an entry ticket for the opposite political party, fourth, step ahead into politics. Congrats & welcome in the weird world of politics. Oh, missed the mission of securing Iraq ? That was the real mission ? Ooops.

Geez, classic swift-boating. No facts, just quick-reaction abuse and slander.

This despicable practice is IMHO the main reason the war has gone so badly.

It destroys all possibility of debate, compromise, and "learning and adapting."

one wonders why he was asked to retire! It seems he was in charge during the Abu Gharib detainee's but as usual only the lower ranks were prosecuted. The second time he speaks out but only after relieved of command. Where was he then?

"He was in command when the abuse of prisoners occurred most notably at Abu Ghraib prison. Some have been highly critical of the U.S. military's failure to hold generals accountable, putting the blame for abuses at Abu Ghraib and other detention centers only on a few individuals of the lowest rank".



Sanchez profile

usmc_family,
my post described Mr. Sanchez likely motivations, and it contains facts. You only have to open your eyes... He does the same like writing a book, and then blame the President for something to get attention.

I'd like it much better, if generals would be good generals, and if they don't, simply get another job. But don't try to be a politician, if you've failed in military.

Dems are desperate, so this guy fits very well, they will as well close the one or the other eye about the Abu Ghraib thing. But that's politics, as nasty it can be.

If you don't feel it despicable that a pissed off ex-general opposes the same thing he once was supposed to work for, for the goal of making it into politics, then I wonder how you feel so bad about my post ?

quote:

Originally posted by usmc_family:

quote:

Originally posted by NikeAjax: First, screw it up, second, be pissed off as your career doesn't develop very well because of the first, third, blame someone and buy you this way an entry ticket for the opposite political party, fourth, step ahead into politics. Congrats & welcome in the weird world of politics. Oh, missed the mission of securing Iraq ? That was the real mission ? Ooops.

Geez, classic swift-boating. No facts, just quick-reaction abuse and slander.

This despicable practice is IMHO the main reason the war has gone so badly.

It destroys all possibility of debate, compromise, and "learning and adapting."

quote:

Originally posted by ss_287: ... one wonders why he was asked to retire! ...

That's not what my family wonders about. We wonder about why *both* parties are afraid to discuss what General Sanchez has to say (transcript here, video here):

quote:

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 a 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 in Washington that would give us hope.

Maybe General Sanchez is right ... what do folks think?

Because if Gen. Sanchez is correct, in recognizing that "the politics of war have been characterized by partisanship" and that "without bipartisan cooperation we are doomed to fail" and also that "there is nothing going on in Washington that would give us hope" ... then isn't Gen. Sanchez is right to call for immediate withdrawal ... purely as a military decision?

Note: the numerous posts on this forum that consist wholly of "slogan-shouting", "cheer-leading", "swift-boating", and "blame-gaming" are IMHO worse than useless.

Gen. Sanchz is IMHO 100% right that such posts "perpetuate the corrosive partisan politics that is destroying our country and killing our servicemen who are at war."

It's not what he said, but how he said it. Sourgrapes, I'm afraid. If he left the service immediately after rescuing 125 Iraqi children from a burning building and lauded both governments, we'd applaud him and give him another medal. But he did leave with things undone. Probably not to his credit but the restrictions put on him and our military at the time is the responsibility and does return to the leadership both here and there. The only thing I'll strongly disagree while agreeing with the principle. (Now that's a political statement) Congress dictating policy to a military operations. It should never happen, now or in the seventies, or anytime. I agree with pulling troops eventually, the sooner the better, just not the method the anti-war crowd has decided to follow.

quote:

Originally posted by rayevinsonsr: It's not what he said, but how he said it.

With respect, as far as our troops are concerned, it's what he said.

Call me old fashioned, but since when did the moral and patriotic duty of a soldier to stand behind a standing president end at retirement? Any fool with military time and a nominally educated world view sees that modern Democrats are no friends to men and women in uniform. Beyond the rhetorical use of "precious blood of our sons and daughters," Democrats, as a rule, have little regard for the welfare of soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. Any soldier, retire or not, who spouts the exact words of the Democratic party platform is turning their back on their comrades. I'm all for campaigning for the unique Democrat who remains clear headed -- Joe Lieberman, for example -- but headline grabbing statements echoing left leaning policies is just plain self-serving. My salute to the general is with three of my fingers folded.

quote:

Originally posted by NikeAjax: If you don't feel it despicable that a pissed off ex-general opposes the same thing he once was supposed to work for, for the goal of making it into politics, then I wonder how you feel so bad about my post

You must really hate President Eisenhower. And approve the way General Marshall was swift-boated.

quote:

Originally posted by DeltaZulu: Any soldier, retire or not, who spouts the exact words of the Democratic party platform is turning their back on their comrades.

I suggest you watch the whole video, including the questions-and-answers:

quote:

My purpose is not about politics. It's not about Rick Sanchez. It's about that young man back there (points) that you saw up here earlier, in your panel.

It's about the over eight hundred Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines, that I lost in battle.

When I came back, out of that theater, I went back and looked at the pictures, and read the bios, and the background information, of every single one, of my subordinates, that died in combat.

THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT.

And our nation has to fix it.

Because otherwise, as I stated in my comments, if we continue, with the political rhetoric, and the partisanship, our soldiers will continue to die.

And that's unacceptable to me, as a warrior that's lead them in combat.

That's what this is about.

You can ignore these words, DeltaZulu, if you like ... but our family ... any family with members serving ... cannot ignore them. Semper Fi!

Don't understand your point. I do not hate. Also I do not hate Mr. Sanchez, what gives you that opinion ? I do question that Mr. Sanchez is right, his motives why, what and how he does it.
The only resemblance to President Eisenhower is the former military career, anything else is different, how it ended and the complete circumstances. Please do not insult President Eisenhower with any comparisons to Mr. Sanchez. President Eisenhower was a leader, Mr. Sanchez is a tool.

quote:

Originally posted by usmc_family:

quote:

Originally posted by NikeAjax: If you don't feel it despicable that a pissed off ex-general opposes the same thing he once was supposed to work for, for the goal of making it into politics, then I wonder how you feel so bad about my post

You must really hate President Eisenhower. And approve the way General Marshall was swift-boated.

quote:

Originally posted by NikeAjax: .. Please do not insult President Eisenhower with any comparisons to Mr. Sanchez. President Eisenhower was a leader, Mr. Sanchez is a tool. ...

Your stance sounds like pure partisan politics to me. The kind of partisan politics, that is destroying America's ability, to win this war.

You will recall that I began this thread, by respectfully disagreeing, with General Sanchez' belief that we can no longer win this war.

But partisan posts like yours, NikeAjax, make me worry that Gen. Sanchez is right.

Gen. Sanchez made many good points. Abusing Gen. Sanchez as a "tool" does not make those points go away.

While I tended to agree with Gen Sanchez's comments in October, I, like USMC_Family, disagree with his current statement. Unlike USMC_Family, I don't totally discount NikeAjax's comment. It will be interesting to see if Sanchez throws his hat into the political ring. He is, if I recall correctly, the most senior Hispanic Army officer in our nation's history and has now taken a position that seems to me to be somewhat contradictory to his October comments when he stated:

quote:

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. AS THE MILITARY COMMANDERS ON THE GROUND HAVE STATED SINCE THE SUMMER OF 2003, THE U.S. MILITARY ALONE CANNOT 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 CONSTITUTION 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.

quote:

Originally posted by usmc_family:

quote:

Originally posted by NikeAjax: If you don't feel it despicable that a pissed off ex-general opposes the same thing he once was supposed to work for, for the goal of making it into politics, then I wonder how you feel so bad about my post

You must really hate President Eisenhower. And approve the way General Marshall was swift-boated.

Interesting comments on General Marshall. Of course we're aquainted with his negative view of the Israel State in 1948, so the General didn't always agree with the "boss" in the oval office. Prior to 1952 he also stated that "I hope he (Ike) makes a better President than he did a General". Being superior to Eisenhower through their military careers he didn't always consider him on top of the situation. In McCullough's book Truman stated the General was his most faithful even when his advice was not followed. In one episode transpired Truman thought the General was going to resign, Marshall took it as a insult that he thought he would ever forsake his duties. We need more Marshall's.

That is a fine post, Jade_Gate.

My own understanding is this:

• Gen. Sanchez concludes that only a bipartisan consensus can win the war.
• Upon returning to Washington, he finds neither party working toward that consensus.
• Gen. Sanchez concludes that our divided government cannot win the war.
• He therefore advocates withdrawal.

From this point of view, Gen. Sanchez's position is a purely military assessment, of a disastrously incompetent war-effort, for which *both* parties share equal blame.

It is therefore wrong to "swift-boat" Gen. Sanchez. We should soberly ask, is he right?

quote:

Originally posted by usmc_family:

quote:

Originally posted by NikeAjax: First, screw it up, second, be pissed off as your career doesn't develop very well because of the first, third, blame someone and buy you this way an entry ticket for the opposite political party, fourth, step ahead into politics. Congrats & welcome in the weird world of politics. Oh, missed the mission of securing Iraq ? That was the real mission ? Ooops.

Geez, classic swift-boating. No facts, just quick-reaction abuse and slander.

This despicable practice is IMHO the main reason the war has gone so badly.

It destroys all possibility of debate, compromise, and "learning and adapting."

As usual I can appreciate both sides of this argument.Facts not withstanding.I do think the good General should, at the least, shuddup.

usmc_family,
please correct me, if I'm wrong, but as far I remember your posts, I would count you to the circle of persons potentially making the US loose. And don't count me in in that circle.

Did you read and understand my words ?
"...if generals would be good generals, and if they don't, simply get another job..."
I believe President Eisenhower could be considered also from your POV as good general. Judge yourself about Mr. Sanchez.

In fact it makes a huge difference, if a general has proved his capabilities, served well and also because of that was entrusted with the authority of being President, in contrary to somebody under which watch a mess happened, which led indirectly to his leave. This latter person, not in charge of any troops, then gives a message to be against the war and joins the opposite party. Considering his former job, he'd better done to simply shut up.

How do you think Presidents Eisenhowers career would have developed, if at WWII he would have been accused lack of leadership and then he would have joined an anti-war movement ?
C'mon, open your eyes, you're the one, who's blind.

Mr. Sanchez may have made good points, but why there is always a guy after who's telling, what's done wrong ? Why these guys can't tell it before ? And he made himself a tool, as soon he made himself available to this political circus.

I acknowledged your opening words, I see you're an admirer of Mr. Sanchez, and that's why it might make little sense to discuss this with you. You're far too emotional.

quote:

Originally posted by usmc_family:

quote:

Originally posted by NikeAjax: .. Please do not insult President Eisenhower with any comparisons to Mr. Sanchez. President Eisenhower was a leader, Mr. Sanchez is a tool. ...

Your stance sounds like pure partisan politics to me. The kind of partisan politics, that is destroying America's ability, to win this war.

You will recall that I began this thread, by respectfully disagreeing, with General Sanchez' belief that we can no longer win this war.

But partisan posts like yours, NikeAjax, make me worry that Gen. Sanchez is right.

Gen. Sanchez made many good points. Abusing Gen. Sanchez as a "tool" does not make those points go away.

You know your history, Rayevinsonsr.

A fine book on this era is Ed Cray's General of the Army: George C. Marshall, Soldier and Statesman (a biography that was on the 1995-2000 USMC Commandant's Professional Reading List).

Now, you might think that winning WWII, *and* winning the Nobel Peace Prize, would be enough to preserve a General from swift-boating. But you would be wrong.

Joseph McCarthy attacked Gen. Marshall as a traitor on the floor of the Senate. As described on p. 722 of Cray's biography:

quote:

McCarthy heaped error upon error, all cloaked in pseudo-academic research and seemingly definitive documentation. It was a sham. The research was, at best, tendentious and incomplete, the documentation vague, and the quotations frequently edited to change their original meaning.

Sound familiar? It should. You can bet there's going to be plenty of similar "swift-boating" in the present-day elections.

How did Eisenhower (then the presidential candidate) react to the swift-boating of his former commander, and close personal friend? Sad to say, Eisenhower stood by silently ... because he had to have McCarthy's support, to win the Republican nomination.

Marshall forgave Eisenhower, saying "Eisenhower was forced into a compromise, that's all it was. There is no more independence in politics, than there is in jail."

This whole episode is full of lessons, for every American.