When It Comes To Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez, Consider The Source

Ken McCracken • October 14, 2007

Scathing criticism of the war effort in Iraq from retired Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez making headlines all over the place right now.
But it’s worth noting that there are some things to remember about this story though that the media – delighting in the opportunity to get in some digs at the Bush administration from someone as accomplished as Lt. General Sanchez – isn’t going to tell you.
First, remember that Lt. General Sanchez is now retired, and that his career pretty much ended with the Abu Ghraib scandal. Sanchez feels he was scapegoated for that, so he has an ax to grind.
Meaning he’s not exactly the most objective source of analysis for the Bush administration’s performance on Iraq. But you’ll notice this tid-bit of information isn’t brought up very prominently in the articles about his latest comments.
Second, why is it that we only hear from retired military commanders who are critical of the Bush administration and/or the war in Iraq? The military has 876 general officers. Counting retired general officers, that number has to be in the thousands. Keep in mindthe what we, the non-military public, typically think of as a “General” is the four-star variety. There are only 35 of them currently, eleven in the army specifically. Lt. General Sanchez was one of 126 “generals” in the military while he served.
So why do we never hear from those retired Generals? I have a feeling that, were they polled, most of them would probably (being the professionals they are) hold different opinions about what should have been done in Iraq, and what should be done now, but that almost none of them would hold a view as pessimistic and cantankerous as Lt. General Sanchez.
Third, Lt. General Sanchez has been widely criticized for having failed to recognize the growing insurgency in Iraq and for failing to put together a unified military effort, something that really wasn’t accomplished until General Casey took over in Iraq. Those that have come after Lt. Gen. Sanchez’s tenure in Iraq have accomplished a lot more than he did, and his professional ego is no doubt smarting from it.
The bottom line is this: Lt. General Sanchez is, for the Bush administration, the equivalent of a spurned ex-employee. His criticism of his former employer may or may not be valid, but before we buy into his arguments we should consider the source.

Tags: Military, Politics, War On Terror

http://Array robert108

Carrick: So, it turns out that it is the MSM that is being Swiftboated here, in that their heavily biased and inaccurate report of what he said is being refuted by the truth.
robert108

P: Just keep on spouting the nonsense your handlers feed you.
Puzzlefeet

Rob writes:

I hard think that bringing factual context to the issue is a “swiftboating.”

What you wrote is your opinion Rob, not fact. You said he is bitter, he didn’t say it. You said he was the equivalent of a spurned employee, again, your opinion. You have not shown any facts to prove he is a spurned employee, much less anything else. Simply your assumptions. He stands up for the military throughout his speech and the progress and quality of the military.

That you find your opinion to be factual and call me pedantic for pointing out a glaring error in your post which was the point of your response is typical as usual for the righties here. And the snarkiness at the end fits with the rest of your diatribe, Rob.
Puzzlefeet

Rob writes:

Are you suggesting that I’m trying to impugn Lt. Gen. Sanchez’s record? Are you going to use, as evidence, the part where I called the General “accomplished?”

That part about not impugning him or his being “accomplished” most have gotten lot in between the parts where you called him “the equivalent of a spurned disgruntled ex-employee” or “cantankerous” or “pessimistic” or “his professional ego is no doubt smarting from it” or that “so he has an ax to grind.”

Yeah, Rob, you’re definitely not impugning him.

Rob writes:

Or do the parts of what he said not fitting with your preconceived notions get ignored?

Right back atcha, Rob.
coffee260

Puzzlefeet–

Do you want to know why only 13% of American’s trust the media? Keep reading.

As the General said in his speech, the media are a bunch of unethical, agenda driven, uncaring about the truth if it doesn’t fit their agenda, deceivers of the American people and responsible for the deaths of our servicemen and woman.

And that’s just what I’m taking from memory. There’s a lot more were that came from. Now I bet you don’t like that part of his speech. Do you?

Thank god for “swiftboating.”
carrick

Rob, check out 2H9′s post, or the one over on Captain’s Quarters.

As usual, the media is spinning what he says. He is very critical of the Administration in a number of respects, but I don’t think any of that criticism is unfair (blunt, but honest).

One of the main points of his commentary was actually on media bias and distortion of news. Funny that they distort this in their characteristic way.

Another is how partisanship has prevented an effective strategy. I could give a link to the transcript of his speech, I won’t though because it’s pretty unreadable since it’s in all caps, and not well punctuated transcription….
carrick

Puzzelfeet thinks that reporting on what the General actually said instead of media accounts of it is “swiftboating”. Pretty hilarious.

She right of course, if she means “reveal the truth hidden behind the media agenda”.
robert108

Just another disgruntled former General attempting to exploit his service to our country to support the Dems by lying about his own lack of accomplishments, like Kerry and all the other “soldiers” who wish to contribute to the destruction of the war against terrorism. Just another “useful idiot” for the neocommunists to use.
robert108

Must have gotten your talking points bright and early this morning.

Actually, unlike lefties, I don’t use any “talking points”; I read the entire transcript, and then read up on the General’s history. It was easy to see what was really going on. No organization of veterans was necessary to get the truth, in this case.
I realize you are required to spread the leftie lies, P.
Puzzlefeet

rob writes:

Well, the part where he said we’ve made no progress, for one thing.

Obviously you didn’t read his comments because you are wrong.
This is what he wrote:

Our commanders will continue to make progress(emphasis mine) and provide time for the development of a grand strategy. That will be wasted effort as we have seen repeatedly since 2003. In the meantime our soliders sailors airmen and marines will continue to die. Since the start of this war America’s leadership has known that our military alone ccould not achieve victory in Iraq.

Starting in July 2003,the message repeatedly communicated to Washington by military commanders on the ground was that the military alone could never achieve “victory” in Iraq. Our soliders, sailors airmen and marines were destined to endure decades of fighting and killing people without the focused,synchronized application of all elements of national power. This was a necessary condition to stabilze Iraq. Any sequential solutions would lead to a prolonged conflict and increased resistance.

The fact that you claim to not be denigrating the general by using a single word “accomplished” in your diatribe and then go on and spend six full paragraphs impugning his integrity is indeed swiftboating and frosting him. That you deny it is typical.
Puzzlefeet

Thank god you’re here, R108, to give the rest of us a lesson on “what’s really going on.” Suffice it to say that BAS has gotten such a hold on you that you can’t even admit your disease.
Puzzlefeet

Ah,as I predicted the “swiftboating” and “frosting” of Sanchez has begun. Right on cue,Rob.
robert108

As long as you are smart enough to realize that “Swiftboating” means to reveal the truth about the speaker, you are right.
Puzzlefeet

Ah, again,the seriously BAS-afflicted R108 never ceases to amaze.
Puzzlefeet

What about Sanchez’s assessment of the war is wrong?
carrick

Robert108:

Carrick: So, it turns out that it is the MSM that is being Swiftboated here, in that their heavily biased and inaccurate report of what he said is being refuted by the truth.

That’s completely correct!

It obviously is just wrong to either use their own words against them, or to include part of the omitted text that they intentionally left out as inconsistent with their narrative.
Puzzlefeet

Coffee260, assuming arguendo you are right. Now the rest of his comments, hmmm…..

Oh R108, is seriously suffering from BAS, it never fails when general or other ranking official says something bad about the war and its leaders, you can always count on R108 to lead the frosting and swiftboating of said person. along with Rob, R108, right on cue. Must have gotten your talking points bright and early this morning.
carrick

Puzzlefeet:

You said he is bitter, he didn’t say it. You said he was the equivalent of a spurned employee, again, your opinion.

If you actually read his speech, it will be very clear that he was bitter over a number of things. Mostly towards his unfair treatment by the press. Possibly over not being listened to more in the lead-up to the war, and also feeling like he was a “fall guy”.

I suppose you will also stand behind him on this, which was also in his speech?

America has no choice but to continue our efforts in Iraq. A precipitous withdrawal will unquestionably lead to chaos that would endanger the stability of the greater Middle East. If this occurs it would have significant adverse effects on the international community. Coalition and American force presence will be required at some level for the foreseeable future. Given the lack of a grand strategy we must move rapidly to minimize that force presence and allow the Iraqis maximum ability to exercise their soveriegnty in achieving a solution.

[Reformatting due to the Captain]
carrick

Rob:

I found my self disagreeing with some of the General’s comments, but I didn’t find any of them to be unfair. My only point was to note that Lt. Gen. Sanchez isn’t exactly objective in all of this either.

Well I didn’t agree entirely either. I’ve brought up the issue in the past about “what ifs.” All we can say is if we were to have increased our resource allocation at the start, that we would have avoided the problems we are having now.

That isn’t the same thing as saying it wouldn’t have made things worse in another way. For example, it’s completely conceivable that we might have had wide Arab support for the insurgency, and the insurgency might then have avoided some of the bigger mistakes they’ve made that has alienated them with the general population.

I also agree that Sanchez is bit bitter over his treatment by the press regarding Abu Gharab. He says as much in his speech. So technically he’s a “bitter ex-employee” but I don’t think particularly bitter towards George Bush. I really think he’s just calling things the way he sees them. Given the failure that his war policies were, you can take that for what it’s worth though.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Well, the part where he said we’ve made no progress, for one thing.

But back to your critique of my post, Puzzled, I’d still like to see you point out what parts were factually inaccurate.

What’s that? You can’t?

Yeah, thought so.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Did I say something in my post that is inaccurate, Puzzled? If so, can you point it out please?

Are you suggesting that I’m trying to impugn Lt. Gen. Sanchez’s record? Are you going to use, as evidence, the part where I called the General “accomplished?”

Did you even read the post, or are you just going to go with your initial knee-jerk reaction? Did you read the parts of Sanchez’s speech that accused the media of killing soldiers and acting as enemy propagandists? Or do the parts of what he said not fitting with your preconceived notions get ignored?
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

How did I impugn is integrity? He is bitter over a perceived scapegoating after Abu Ghraib. He has been criticized by his peers for failing to recognize the insurgency and develop a unified military response to it. And he is just one voice among, literally, thousands of generals both retired and active.

These are the points I made. I hard think that bringing factual context to the issue is a “swiftboating.” Not that you’re capable of admitting you’re wrong.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Thanks Carrick.

I found my self disagreeing with some of the General’s comments, but I didn’t find any of them to be unfair. My only point was to note that Lt. Gen. Sanchez isn’t exactly objective in all of this either.

He’s still pretty bitter about Abu Ghraib, and the criticism over the lack of progress in Iraq he’s gotten since his command was taken over.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

I will apologize, though, for implying that the general said there is no progress in Iraq. He said there is “no end in site.” Pretty much the same thing in my mind, but for the sake of placating Puzzled’s pedantry I prostrate myself before you all and beg your forgiveness.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Possibly over not being listened to more in the lead-up to the war, and also feeling like he was a “fall guy”.

The “fall guy” feeling is what led me to say that he’s bitter with President Bush. I got the feeling that he felt the Bush administration hung him out to dry.

But that’s just my take.

SayAnythingBlog.com

When It Comes To Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez, Consider The Source

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments