Captain Ed is right, Lt. Gen. Sanchez delivered a blistering broadside that covered more than just executive branch Republicans. Congress and the press, whose rocky relationship with Lt. Gen. Sanchez clearly left a bitter taste in his mouth, also get their share of abuse. Read the entire speech here.
When you’re done, browse the extensive list of retired generals who have already put their opinions on record (via).
***Update***
Useful context from Iraq vet John Bruhns.
***Update 2***
Vis email, video of the Sanchez speech.
Peter Johnson
Tony Snow summed this kind of after-the-fact bellyachinig pretty well I think:
Tim F.
Yup, pretty much every senior official starts writing that memoir the day they arrive on the job. And indeed I put far more weight on the opinions of people who accurately warned what would happen ahead of time. Unfortunately, those all happen to be leftist heroes widely derided at the time by neocons and their war-supporting allies. Shinseki comes to mind.
whippoorwill
Courtesy of Flopping Aces.
Let the Swift Boating begin
capelza
So Sanchez is a “phony soldier’?
My cat is less fickle than these two-timing wingnuts.
Elvis Elvisberg
Right, that’s how we won the occupation. Woooo! We win!!1! SUCK IT ISLAM-O-DHIMMI-CRATS!!1!1!eleven!!
OK, now that that’s done, let’s start to withdraw, and get everyone out by, say, December 2008.
craigie
Yes, and those who do not learn from history, are doomed etc…
RSA
Most commentators are satisfied to explain away Monday morning political quarterbacking as being due to bitterness, desire for glory, or the need to boost book sales. It takes a special person to say that after-the-fact criticism is unwarranted because everything is peachy.
searp
I personally know several generals that are of the opinion that this war is a disaster. The public sentiments expressed by these generals are, and have been for years, just the tip of the iceberg within the military.
The real question is when is the right time to speak out and/or resign? What duty is owed the country? Is it better to “work for change” inside? That was pretty clearly a self-serving option with Rumsfeld and Bush in charge, but one that a lot of senior leaders exercised. Is this a dereliction of duty? It is a lot to ask of someone who has to fight a war to also have to make these sorts of decisions.
However, if Ricardo Sanchez actually feels the way he feels, then my judgment would be he owed the country something more than waiting around to see if he could get his 4th star before retiring and speaking out. Better late than never, but delay kills in this situation, literally.
searp
On Iraq is wonderful: I have been there twice this year. It is a hellhole, and no amount of statistical bullshit changes that.
Those that think it is so wonderful ought to go relieve one of our combat soldiers for a month at, say, FOB Kalsu. I’d be interested in their opinions after they return.
CT Voter
The real question is when is the right time to speak out and/or resign? What duty is owed the country?
Our country hasn’t had any leader willing to set an example by putting the country first, before personal ambition. It’s not surprising that the military is the same.
While I’m glad retired generals have been speaking out, it’s too little, too late, at this point. We need an active military leader to stand up and point out that the Emperor doesn’t have any clothes, and hasn’t had any, for years.
Ivan Renko
Only one small problem with that– even though wwe want someone to hold this accursed administration accountable, doesn’t this constitute insubordination at least– and mutiny at worst?
Renko
Tim F.
Yes. Military commanders either follow orders or they face the men blindfolded. Those who won’t do the job resign.
Incertus (Brian)
I’ll give Ed this much–he didn’t bust out the whole “liberal media” trope in his piece. This is certainly a case of an institution ignoring criticism of itself, as opposed to an ideology doing it.
RSA
I think that for many (if not most) modern politicians, personal ambition and what they think is good for the country go hand in hand. It’s hard to see Giuliani’s campaign in any other light, and Romney even said it explicitly (in connection with his sons). I don’t know military culture, but my understanding is that people take the lead of their superiors both in commands and in philosophy. It could be that high-ranking military people saw what happened with Shinseki and are pushing back (even if not enough) in other ways. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, for example, making statements about Iraq.
RSA
Oops, I meant to say Iran, but also on the surge in Iraq.
leefranke
Actually I think if Congress called them in and started questioning them, they could get away with it.
If not, they would probably be court-martialed.
whippoorwill
Inceryus says
I don’t agree incertus. What I heard Ed trying to do is establish a false equivalence of responsibility for Iraq between dems, the media, and repubs. This will be the meme they will try pound home into the publics mind for the 2008 election. And we shouldn’t let them get by with it.
Incertus (Brian)
What I heard Ed trying to do is establish a false equivalence of responsibility for Iraq between dems, the media, and repubs. This will be the meme they will try pound home into the publics mind for the 2008 election. And we shouldn’t let them get by with it.
I didn’t see the equivalence you’re talking about, though I didn’t read it all that carefully. But while there isn’t an equivalence between those three groups, there is no doubt that all three groups share responsibility for the Iraq debacle–the Democrats as a party have the least part of that group, since what resistance there was to the war sprung almost wholly from there and left of there. And the media doesn’t get enough criticism for their cheerleading of and providing cover and support for the war as they deserve, no matter if we’re talking about the places that idiots like to refer to as the “liberal media” or the MSM, or even if we throw openly dishonest propaganda organs like Fox News and the rest of the Murdoch empire into the mix. They deserve a much bigger kick in the head than they’ve gotten.
CT Voter
Actually I think if Congress called them in and started questioning them, they could get away with it.
Yes. And while General Petraeus did manage to candidly admit that he didn’t know whether the war was making America safer when questioned last month, he seems, to me, to personify the strategy of putting personal ambition before what’s best for the country. And, as a reminder:
From February 2003. Yes, Shinseki paid a price. We need someone else to pay a price.
I think Captain Ed is right on the money with the comments about how traditional mediai is completely omitting any discussion of Sanchez’ blistering critique of said media.
The Other Steve
Wait wait!
Condleeza Rice declares Unitary Executive is bad for Democracy
caustics
Spinning this as being all about media bias isn’t cool either. Sanchez’s bashing of press coverage isn’t particularly novel or newsworthy at this point. The same tiresome, continuous panty twisting over “teh MSM” can be found on any right wing venue at any hour on any day. It will always serve as a convenient smoke screen.
That being said, my only question to a newly righteous ex-Bushite would be – are you willing to name names and testify under oath before the American people? If not, you can shove your righteous book deal advance up your ass.
Elvis Elvisberg
Wait a second, have you read what Sanchez actually said?
It doesn’t make any sense.
His first complaint is that he was called names in the media– unfortunate, if true– and that “MY EXPERIENCE IS NOT UNIQUE AND WE CAN FIND OTHER EXAMPLES SUCH AS THE TREATMENT OF SECRETARY BROWN DURING KATRINA.”
Whoa. That’s the best example you have? Brown was criticized because he presided incompetently over a disaster. Was Sanchez going to compare himself to Jeffrey Dahmer or Benedict Arnold or Nero, but decided to water it down?
Sanchez also points out that stories are chosen for their sensationalistic impact rather than their importance– which is true, as anyone who’s seen wall-to-wall coverage of a car chase or a missing white woman knows.
But in Iraq, we’re talking about attacks where dozes of people die. This sounds an awful lot like the “the media doesn’t report that we painted a school!” argument that was popular three years ago. I might be misunderstanding which stories he’s talking about, but that’s only because he cites no specifics.
He writes, “OTHER MAJOR CHALLENGES ARE YOUR WILLINGNESS TO BE MANIPULATED BY “HIGH LEVEL OFFICIALS” WHO LEAK STORIES AND BY LAWYERS WHO USE HYPERBOLE TO STRENGHTEN THEIR ARGUMENTS.”
Is he talking about Scooter Libby and John Yoo, here? Or what?
“OVER THE COURSE OF THIS WAR TACTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT EVENTS HAVE BECOME STRATEGIC DEFEATS FOR AMERICA BECAUSE OF THE TREMENDOUS POWER AND IMPACT OF THE MEDIA AND BY EXTENSION YOU THE JOURNALIST. IN MANY CASES THE MEDIA HAS UNJUSTLY DESTROYED THE INDIVIDUAL REPUTATIONS AND CAREERS OF THOSE INVOLVED.”
Again, what is he talking about? Lyndie England?
“THE DEATH KNELL OF YOUR ETHICS HAS BEEN ENABLED BY YOUR PARENT ORGANIZATIONS WHO HAVE CHOSEN TO ALIGN THEMSELVES WITH POLITICAL AGENDAS. WHAT IS CLEAR TO ME IS THAT YOU ARE PERPETUATING THE CORROSIVE PARTISAN POLITICS THAT IS DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY AND KILLING OUR SERVICEMEMBERS WHO ARE AT WAR.”
OK, we need some substantiation and some specifics here. Is he saying that GE is part of the military industrial complex? Or that, by reporting when things don’t go well, the media is making soldiers and generals cry and emboldening the terrorists? Or what?
And given that both parties have gone along with this occupation, and refuse to really do anything about it, I don’t think that “corrosive partisan politics” is really the biggest problem we’re facing.
“FOR SOME OF YOU, JUST LIKE SOME OF OUR POLITICIANS, THE TRUTH IS OF LITTLE TO NO VALUE IF IT DOES NOT FIT YOUR OWN PRECONCIEVED NOTIONS, BIASES AND AGENDAS.”
Which agendas? Which notions? Which stories reflect these biases?
“IT IS ASTOUNDING TO ME WHEN I HEAR THE VEHEMENT DISAGREEMENT WITH THE MILITARY’S FORAYS INTO INFORMATION OPERATIONS THAT SEEK TO DISSEMINATE THE TRUTH AND INFORM THE IRAQI PEOPLE IN ORDER TO COUNTER OUR ENEMY’S BLATANT PROPAGANDA.”
There, that’s something specific. Almost. Is he upset that programs such as this one are disclosed? That they are criticized? What?
Given the lack of specifics, it seems to me that he’s upset at the criticism he received, when he knew in his heart that he was really trying. I could be wrong, though. If he opts to substantiate anything he said, we can actually have the discussion he seems to think is necessary.
CT Voter
Spinning this as being all about media bias isn’t cool either.
I agree. But traditional media has quite a series of sins to answer for. And that needs to be pointed out, repeatedly, so that the authors of the crappy reporting and even worse punditry don’t get let off the hook.
And I also agree with what Sanchez should do with his book deal, too.
Incertus (Brian)
The same tiresome, continuous panty twisting over “teh MSM” can be found on any right wing venue at any hour on any day. It will always serve as a convenient smoke screen.
The difference here is that Captain Ed didn’t seem to be saying that this was a traditional case of media bias, i.e. it wasn’t a case of the “MSM” trying to derail a particular right-wing point of view. It’s more a case of ass-covering–Sanchez tore them a new one and they didn’t want anyone to know about it, so they didn’t cover it, and he’s right.
whippoorwill
Incertus
The only responsibility dems have for the war are those who gave Bush a blank check to wage it. And basically trusting that he [Bush} would let the inspectors complete their mission. That’s not a minor screwup for those who voted yes. But from the 2003 start of the war until Jan 2007 dems had absolutely no power to influence the conduct of the war, which we now know was totally fucked up. Ed and Sanchez are trying to say that dems had an equal effect on the mis-management of the war because they “said” negative things about Bush and all manner of related issues. The same goes for the media who, like you said, were cheer leaders for Bush to invade Iraq, but since then have criticized the actual fighting of the war. My point is after the 2002 election until Jan 2007 dems have no blame for screwing up the strategy and tactics leading to the mess we’re in now. Repubs are going to try and change that in the public mind and Capt. Ed’s post is trying to do just that. Sorry incertus, but I get worked up on this topic. No more blogging for me till Monday.
RSA
I think it’s worthwhile to consider why Sanchez thinks the media have done a bad job on Iraq. He says this:
I don’t really know which events and which people he’s talking about. Could he be talking about things like Abu Ghraib, or the Blackwater shootings, or comparable problematic situations? If so, then he’s reading from a different page than I am. The biggest problem with the news media, I think, is in failing to do due diligence in the run-up to the Iraq war, and afterwards. Not a failure to report good news out of Iraq by embedded reporters (which I suspect Sanchez and Captain Ed are thinking about). Sure, it’s self-serving of the media not to report Sanchez’s criticism of them, but on the other hand it’s not entirely obvious to me what he’s criticizing them for, and whether those specific criticisms are justified.
CT Voter
It’s more a case of ass-covering—Sanchez tore them a new one and they didn’t want anyone to know about it, so they didn’t cover it, and he’s right.
Exactly what I was trying to express. I am a total nonfan of Captain Ed, and, if anything, think that traditional media is traditionally biased to repeat rightwing talking points, but he’s right to point out that no one covering the Sanchez speech is mentioning so much as a syllable about his criticism of the media. If Sanchez is so wildly and paranoidly off base on that, why not point it out, NY Times?
rawshark
Captain is giving you reasons to be dismissive of the article without dissing Sanchez. He’s making the story about the media instead of the criticism of the Bush administration. The jackalope is related to the issue but its still a jackalope.
searp
Sanchez, Franks, somebody should have resigned their commission and told the truth to the public. There, it is simple. Both would have their pensions, both would eventually receive the gratitude of the public for their courage, and both would rest easy in their own minds knowing they did the right thing. At least one of their peers did that, the guy (Eaton?) who was up for a 3rd star and walked away.
I suspect many of these folks know they let down the country and are projecting. It wasn’t the press that damaged the country. Sanchez correctly diagnosed the real problem: incompetent leadership.
Davebo
Shorter Sanchez
The man was incompetent, which makes his crocodile tears over heckuva job Brownie even more hilarious.
While much of what he says is right, this is just an attempt to revise history. And his reputation.
And Captian Ed’s complain that the media is hiding this story to cover their ass is laughable as well.
Cinderella Ferret
I just wonder if the Washington press corps will return to the peak of its awesome, but normally dormant potential–much as it did during the Watergate period. The Washington press corps is more interested in access to naked power than its is in the unvarnished truth. Whoa! Is that Representative Z wearing his mother’s panties? Let’s interrupt this report on White House war criminals to bring you an important update on the Rep Z saga.
The Washington political game is Decadent and Depraved.
CT Voter
Or updates on Britney/Anna/Hannah Montana/lapel pins/frequency of laughter in candidates/prisoners dancing to Michael Jackson/the “hypocrisy” of wealth political candidates trying to do something about poverty/how a political party should have thoroughly investigated the background of a 12 year old boy/mothers who buy assault weapons for their children/blond cute women who are missing….
If you look at CNN.com, you’d be forgiven if you thought the war was over…
Hell, coverage of Representative Z is starting to look pretty fine!
Bruce Moomaw
Upon actually reading the speech, it now looks to me as though it consists of:
(1) Whining about the criticism he got for Abu Ghraib.
(2) Calling for a draft, without ever quite having the nerve to explicitly use the word. (“AMERICA’S ABILITY TO SUSTAIN A FORCE LEVEL OF 150,000(+) IS NONEXISTENT WITHOUT DRASTIC MEASURES THAT HAVE BEEN POLITICALLY UNACCEPTABLE TO DATE.”) Now, THAT’S courage.
(3) Urging both US political parties to come together to construct a new international coalition of allies massively militarily involved in Iraq — in some totally unspecified way, possibly by waving a Hogwarts wand.
(4) Saying that if we DON’T get both a draft and that magical new international alliance, we had better bail out fast. (“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.”)
caustics
You see ass covering. I see a concise emphasis on the noteworthy aspect of the story – a former general previously in charge of the theater of operation saying something that two weeks ago would have been dismissed as MoveOn.org sponsored propaganda. A “phony soldier” if you will.
And if wingers are so obsessed with the pervasive threat of mainstream media outlets, why don’t they just netroot together in syndicates and buy them all out? After all, they are the “winners” with all the money and the moral high ground.
jake
And any good leader
understands when a tactic doesn’t work he adapts and changeswould sooner bite his own feet off than make up shit so he can get his war on, so when I say good leader I don’t mean Boosh.Fixed.
I guess “fits and starts” is easier to type than “After a full bore fuck up that lasted 4EVA he found a toady who wasn’t to blindingly incompetent and by the way I’m blithely declaring the Iraq war history even though it ain’t over.”
Jesus (NTZYM) on what planet will we find “fits and starts” applied to a period of several years?
Ninerdave
Oh come on ToS, you’re smarter than that! Those guys are pinko commies. That doesn’t apply to the freedom loving Bush admin!
Downpuppy
Both your links went to the same place – the full speech is at http://www.militaryreporters.org/sanchez_101207.html.
It is an ill wind that blows no good. All the dumping on the press has no specifics that would give it any usefulness. Then, about the war & his attempt to ignore his own massive bag of failure:
ACHIEVING UNITY OF EFFORT IN IRAQ HAS BEEN ELUSIVE TO DATE PRIMARILY BECAUSE THERE IS NO ENTITY THAT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DIRECT ACTION BY OUR INTERAGENCY.
Umm – isn’t that the job of Commander Guy?
Then there’s a ton of utter crap about the need for bipartisanship – Holy Shit, Broderman!
TenguPhule
Sanchez is trying to wipe his own ass clean of the troubles he helped make.
Fuck him sideways with a broken bottle.
And Fuck Bush and company when they do the same.
The buck never stops in this GOP admin, it keeps on running away.
Marc
Someone should start archiving all the praise given to Petraeus from right-wing sources. They’ll turn on him soon enough.
Ivan Renko
Allah be praised, the intertubes never forget.
What the intertubes don’t do, all of Wingnutistan will do– they’ll forget the guy even wears an American uniform.
Renko
jcricket
And continuing my unbroken record of posting salient 1984 quotes whenever possible:
Lord help us if the wingnuts ever get control of the Intertubes (or anything like it).
LITBMueller
Sorry, John, but the Captain has got it WAY wrong. For instance, he neglects to mention this incredibly stinging line:
If something like that had appeared in Daily Kos, the Cap’n would be calling the author a conspiracy theorist. Sanchez is not blaming “teh left” for Iraq. He is blaming the same incestuous relationship between big business, media, and politicians that many on the left (and within the media) have been decrying for decades now!
And, Sanchez is NOT saying the media is responsible “for a large part of the problems he sees in Iraq,” as the Cap’n would have it. He’s saying the media’s faults are endangering our own democracy:
and
More leftist drivel!! heh heh. And THEN Sanchez goes on to criticize the current war effort.
Sanchez is basically saying “you assholes have it all wrong – this is why, and this is where we really are.”
Rock on, Sanchez…