Lt. Gen. Sanchez: "No end in sight" in Iraq
Ex-general: 'No end in sight' in Iraq
By STEVEN KOMAROW, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 19 minutes ago
ARLINGTON, Va. - The U.S. mission in Iraq is a "nightmare with no end in sight" because of political misjudgments after the fall of Saddam Hussein that continue today, a former chief of U.S.-led forces said Friday.
ADVERTISEMENT
Retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who commanded coalition troops for a year beginning June 2003, cast a wide net of blame for both political and military shortcomings in Iraq that helped open the way for the insurgency - such as disbanding the Saddam-era military and failing to cement ties with tribal leaders and quickly establish civilian government after Saddam was toppled.
He called current strategies - including the deployment of 30,000 additional forces earlier this year - a "desperate attempt" to make up for years of misguided policies in Iraq.
"There is no question that America is living a nightmare with no end in sight," Sanchez told a group of journalists covering military affairs.
Sanchez avoided singling out at any specific official. But he did criticize the State Department, the National Security Council, Congress and the senior military leadership during what appeared to be a broad indictment of White House policies and a lack of leadership to oppose them.
Such assessments - even by former Pentagon brass - are not new, but they have added resonance as debates over war strategy dominate the presidential campaign.
The Bush administration didn't directly address Sanchez's critical views.
"We appreciate his service to the country," said White House spokesman Trey Bohn. He added that as U.S. commander in Iraq Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker have said: "There is more work to be done, but progress is being made in Iraq and that's what we're focused on now."
Sanchez retired from the Army last year, two years after he completing a tumultuous year as commander of all U.S. forces in Iraq. As he stepped down, he called his career a casualty of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.
He was never charged with anything but he was not promoted in the aftermath of the prisoner abuse reports. He was criticized by some for not doing more to avoid mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners.
Sanchez told the gathering that he thought he had made mistakes and said he didn't always fully appreciate the secondary affects of actions the military took.
He did deny reports that he and then-Iraqi administrator L. Paul Bremer were not on speaking terms. He said they spoke every day.
The retired soldier stressed that it became clear during his command that the mission was severely handicapped because the State Department and other agencies were not adequately contributing to a mission that could not be won by military force alone.
When asked when he saw that the mission was going awry, he responded: "About the 15th of June 2003" - the day he took command.
"There is nothing going on today in Washington that would give us hope" that things are going to change, he said.
Sanchez went on to offer a pessimistic view on the current U.S. strategy against extremists will make lasting gains, but said a full-scale withdrawal also was not an option.
"The American military finds itself in an intractable situation ... America has no choice but to continue our efforts in Iraq," said Sanchez, who works as a consultant training U.S. generals.
* Email Story
* IM
By STEVEN KOMAROW, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 19 minutes ago
ARLINGTON, Va. - The U.S. mission in Iraq is a "nightmare with no end in sight" because of political misjudgments after the fall of Saddam Hussein that continue today, a former chief of U.S.-led forces said Friday.
ADVERTISEMENT
Retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who commanded coalition troops for a year beginning June 2003, cast a wide net of blame for both political and military shortcomings in Iraq that helped open the way for the insurgency - such as disbanding the Saddam-era military and failing to cement ties with tribal leaders and quickly establish civilian government after Saddam was toppled.
He called current strategies - including the deployment of 30,000 additional forces earlier this year - a "desperate attempt" to make up for years of misguided policies in Iraq.
"There is no question that America is living a nightmare with no end in sight," Sanchez told a group of journalists covering military affairs.
Sanchez avoided singling out at any specific official. But he did criticize the State Department, the National Security Council, Congress and the senior military leadership during what appeared to be a broad indictment of White House policies and a lack of leadership to oppose them.
Such assessments - even by former Pentagon brass - are not new, but they have added resonance as debates over war strategy dominate the presidential campaign.
The Bush administration didn't directly address Sanchez's critical views.
"We appreciate his service to the country," said White House spokesman Trey Bohn. He added that as U.S. commander in Iraq Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker have said: "There is more work to be done, but progress is being made in Iraq and that's what we're focused on now."
Sanchez retired from the Army last year, two years after he completing a tumultuous year as commander of all U.S. forces in Iraq. As he stepped down, he called his career a casualty of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.
He was never charged with anything but he was not promoted in the aftermath of the prisoner abuse reports. He was criticized by some for not doing more to avoid mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners.
Sanchez told the gathering that he thought he had made mistakes and said he didn't always fully appreciate the secondary affects of actions the military took.
He did deny reports that he and then-Iraqi administrator L. Paul Bremer were not on speaking terms. He said they spoke every day.
The retired soldier stressed that it became clear during his command that the mission was severely handicapped because the State Department and other agencies were not adequately contributing to a mission that could not be won by military force alone.
When asked when he saw that the mission was going awry, he responded: "About the 15th of June 2003" - the day he took command.
"There is nothing going on today in Washington that would give us hope" that things are going to change, he said.
Sanchez went on to offer a pessimistic view on the current U.S. strategy against extremists will make lasting gains, but said a full-scale withdrawal also was not an option.
"The American military finds itself in an intractable situation ... America has no choice but to continue our efforts in Iraq," said Sanchez, who works as a consultant training U.S. generals.
* Email Story
* IM
0
-
I'm still waiting for the govt. to come up with an exit strategy for Germany, Japan, Korea, the Phillipines. . . 0 -
quote:Originally posted by nemesisenforcer
I'm still waiting for the govt. to come up with an exit strategy for Germany, Japan, Korea, the Phillipines. . .
Brilliant observation!0 -
quote:Originally posted by nemesisenforcer
I'm still waiting for the govt. to come up with an exit strategy for Germany, Japan, Korea, the Phillipines. . .
There's no end in sight...
Rumor has it we still have bases in some of the confederate rebel states too.0 -
nemesis,
Don't hold your breath.
Hundreds of bases overseas mean "influence" and "relevance"... which is nothing more than political double-speak for "empire" and "profit."
Too many elites make too much money off of our engorged military and interventionist policies to ever let those bases go.0 -
"He called current strategies - including the deployment of 30,000 additional forces earlier this year - a "desperate attempt" to make up for years of misguided policies in Iraq."
Thank you, General. That is just what I was thinking about "the surge."0 -
quote:Originally posted by ElMuertoMonkey
Hundreds of bases overseas mean "influence" and "relevance"... which is nothing more than political double-speak for "empire" and "profit."
Too many elites make too much money off of our engorged military and interventionist policies to ever let those bases go.
This is just more Nazi-Commie propaganda. Making the world safe for democracy and the growing popularity of NASCAR takes U.S. military installations in other countries. End of story. Besides, what would all the hookers in those countries who don't marry GI's do if we suddenly left? And I still weep when I see that photo of an orphan Iraqi boy offering a falafel to a Marine. If that doesn't say "Thanks!" in any language, I don't know what does.0 -
This bozo ex-General I mad because he got fired over the mess at Abu-Grave. He has absolutely no credibility. 
0 -
When a General kisses the President's butt, like Petraeus did, he is revered on this forum.
The minute a General strays from the company line, he is a "bozo" with "no credibility."0 -
quote:Originally posted by Old Fool
This bozo ex-General I mad because he got fired over the mess at Abu-Grave. He has absolutely no credibility.
Now you're talking. And it's always some bozo ex-muckie muck with egg on his face who makes Nazi-Commie comments like this. But who's kidding who? What I want to know is how an illegal became a general in the first place. Prolly got appointed to West Point by some Democrap congressman and got his stars from Clinton. Prolly don't watch NASCAR or own a Chevy pickup either. 'Nuff said.0 -
There are those for whom Empire building is vitally important.
Unale to find any relevence in their personal lives, having their country reach frantically world-wide for power and influence gives meaning to their existance.
Constitutions, History, morals and ethics are meaningless words to those kinds of people.0 -
We never should have been over there in the first place. All this was is to make "daddy" proud and control the oil. They don't want democracy and it can't be forced on to them either; all they want is to kill each other and that is fine by me just bring everyone home. The only way for democracy to work is if the people do it themselves and Iraqis' are worthless. 0 -
I have not wavered in my advocacy of Imperial America.
We pay the price, but don't get the benefits.
Doug0 -
quote:
Originally posted by Old Fool
This bozo ex-General I mad because he got fired over the mess at Abu-Grave. He has absolutely no credibility.
Now you're talking. And it's always some bozo ex-muckie muck with egg on his face who makes Nazi-Commie comments like this. But who's kidding who? What I want to know is how an illegal became a general in the first place. Prolly got appointed to West Point by some Democrap congressman and got his stars from Clinton. Prolly don't watch NASCAR or own a Chevy pickup either. 'Nuff said.
And he's a liberal who's a gun-grabber who works at Wal-Mart on non-union labor. And he doesn't like the 1911a1!0 -
It all boils down to one thing.
The General has a book coming out in 2 weeks.
Nuff said.0 -
I reckon none of those staunch bushbots ever wrote a book.
Not smart enough, I guess.0 -
So all my little leftist leaning GB posters think we should just walk away? Hey, that's a well thought out 'exit' strategy! If so, this is the place to be, as you'll be fighting a battle in your backyards within 2 years. problem is, we'll have to fight by the rules, and they wont...(like what goes on there now)
think. everytime a disgruntled ex employee wants to make a wave, they go to the media, blab off and become democrat heros. these 'insurgents' don't need a Tokyo Rose, spreading propoganda, cause they have congress, and the media, and select members of forums just like this one, DOING IT FOR THEM!
No other war in history had a 'timeframe' attatched. It was over when someone won or lost. Great Idea...tell them when we are leaving, they lay low, we leave, they have their way.
I also love how when they mention the last deployment, they blacken it with 'so called' troop surge. Hey dummies in the media, and the rest: the folks living and dying on the ground reccommened it!
Treasonous offenses in my eyes:
running off at the mouth after leaving military service, criticizing policy, unless you were on the ground with a weapon in your hand
giving the enemy hope, even the smallest shred, by asking for an exact date for withdrawl.
Pinning retarded conditions and pet projects to troop funding legislation.
Spending more time practicing partisan witch hunts rather than putting 100% effort into legislating solutions.
Having 'candidates' and 'congressmen' taking it upon themselves to junket to Iran and Syria, when we have no normalized, recognized relations with those countries.
YUP, IT'S DEFEAT AT ALL COSTS WITH SOME PEOPLE.0 -
Anyone who thought it would quickly and easily in Iraq has never studied the history of overthrowing governments. Every time (with one exception) a government is toppled, either by revolution or by external force, there has been a protracted period of violence and political unrest. Happened in Germany 1945-55, France 1789-1840s and every other nation where the leadership was toppled.
Only America escaped the violence and chaos and that's because George Washington secured power and handed it over to the elected representatives avoiding any power struggles.
The day we invaded Iraq I predicted it would take at least 10 years. I hope that history decides it was worth it.0 -
rcrxmike_2,
How do you figure we'll be fighting a battle in our own backyards within 2 years? Did the VC pursue us to Anywhere, USA after the fall of Saigon? Did the Chinese occupy large swathes of Middle America after the Korean War? If they did, I missed that particular broadcast.
No, if we walk away, we will not be fighting anyone in our own backyards - unless you distrust returning vets so much that you believe we'll be fighting them (and I'm pretty sure you don't mean that).
What will happen is Iran will engage in a de facto occupation of Iraq south of Kurdistan, Turkey will invade northern Iraq down to Kirkuk, the Sunnis and Shi'ites will still be killing each other, and as Saxon Pig noted, about ten years of problems will ensue. Oil prices will shoot through the roof (well, more so than they already have), but the key change will be no more Americans will be getting killed for it.
Life didn't end for us when communism swept Asia and Eastern Europe, life didn't end for us when the British held Canada, and life didn't end for us when we left Vietnam. Every struggle is always painted as a do-or-die conflict between us and ultimate evil, but it rarely is.
If we leave, things will change and we'll deal with it. I'm not advocating that we do leave (far from it, I think we should simply change the way we operate there), only that if we do, very little will change for us other than the price of gas and how much Blackwater earns every fiscal quarter.0 -
today on page 19 of the LA Time was the article....Civilian Deaths in Iraq at 18 Month Low
With all due respect to Sanchez and his profit motives, America is winning in Iraq and that country is getting significantly better. History will prove his statements to be premature and likely based on bitterness and profit motive.0 -
quote:Originally posted by allen griggs
Lt. Gen. Sanchez: "No end in sight" in Iraq
What else would you expect a life long democrat who hates Bush, screwed up and then got busted to say. If anyone doesn't think there is an agenda to his comments, they are not very smart.
You don't see much about what his fellow Generals said about him or his comments, because that doesn't fit the liberal media agenda.[}:)]0 -
today on page 19 of the LA Time was the article....Civilian Deaths in Iraq at 18 Month Low
With all due respect to Sanchez and his profit motives, America is winning in Iraq and that country is getting significantly better. History will prove his statements to be premature and likely based on bitterness and profit motive.
And there's a very good chance that the militas know they have this thing won, and that they're waiting for the 2008 elections and for America to pull out. They know there's going to be a whale of a fight for land and oil afterwards, and it makes no sense to waste ammo and lives before that. I imagine they'll keep up just enough pressure to kill 3 or 4 soldiers a day and to assure that America pulls out. Keep in mind that the foe they are fighting is no longer the US military; it's the US voters, and a majority of voters no longer see this thing as capable of being won.
I sure hope all of that is wrong. I fear that it isn't.0 -
"So all my little leftist leaning GB posters think we should just walk away?"
Y'all who support this war gain comfort from describing those who oppose it as "leftists."
Let's see, I favor immediate closing of the border, and deportation of all illegals. I strongly favor the second amendment. I want an immediate end to affirmative action. I voted for George Bush.
I know it is comforting to lump all war opponents together as "leftists," but it is a simplistic tactic, and it is not true.0 -
"You should never get involved in a counter-insurgency unless you have an exit strategy." Let me think, who said that? Oh, it was Texas Governor George Bush (criticizing Bill Clinton).
And, then there's always, "Fighting a counter-insurgency is 20% military & 80% non-military." That's from the Army's counter-insurgency manual, written under Gen Petreus. Where's our non-military stand now? 79%? The contractors who were rebuilding Iraq pulled out 2 1/2 years ago.
Neal0 -
quote:Originally posted by ElMuertoMonkey
rcrxmike_2,
How do you figure we'll be fighting a battle in our own backyards within 2 years? Did the VC pursue us to Anywhere, USA after the fall of Saigon? Did the Chinese occupy large swathes of Middle America after the Korean War? If they did, I missed that particular broadcast.
No, if we walk away, we will not be fighting anyone in our own backyards - unless you distrust returning vets so much that you believe we'll be fighting them (and I'm pretty sure you don't mean that).
What will happen is Iran will engage in a de facto occupation of Iraq south of Kurdistan, Turkey will invade northern Iraq down to Kirkuk, the Sunnis and Shi'ites will still be killing each other, and as Saxon Pig noted, about ten years of problems will ensue. Oil prices will shoot through the roof (well, more so than they already have), but the key change will be no more Americans will be getting killed for it.
Life didn't end for us when communism swept Asia and Eastern Europe, life didn't end for us when the British held Canada, and life didn't end for us when we left Vietnam. Every struggle is always painted as a do-or-die conflict between us and ultimate evil, but it rarely is.
If we leave, things will change and we'll deal with it. I'm not advocating that we do leave (far from it, I think we should simply change the way we operate there), only that if we do, very little will change for us other than the price of gas and how much Blackwater earns every fiscal quarter.
How do I figure? You have Iran attempting to annihilate Isreal and or going nuclear. You have al Quieda doing more damage than Shiites or sunni's. did any communists or Nazi's fly a couple of planes into America? no. yes I know it's not 'the same' al Quieda, (that one always slays me!) but the motivation is the same. we walk out of there, and you will have the best example of terrorist safe haven that you can imagine. As for 'blackwater', the problem is, they fight in response mode...IE: stop or I will shoot you means just that.
Big bunch of crap. Win period, or things will get a lot worse....0 -
Would someone, anyone, plz tell me when we are going to leave IRAQ, if no one can, then I guess there is "no end in sight" My personal opinion is we will be there for at least 10 more years and will probably have some type of military presence there forever.....But that was the real plan anyways. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by allen griggs
"So all my little leftist leaning GB posters think we should just walk away?"
Y'all who support this war gain comfort from describing those who oppose it as "leftists."
Let's see, I favor immediate closing of the border, and deportation of all illegals. I strongly favor the second amendment. I want an immediate end to affirmative action. I voted for George Bush.
I know it is comforting to lump all war opponents together as "leftists," but it is a simplistic tactic, and it is not true.
Have you checked out Duncan Hunter? He stands exactly where you do on the issues you offered.0 -
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by Old Fool
This bozo ex-General I mad because he got fired over the mess at Abu-Grave. He has absolutely no credibility.
Now you're talking. And it's always some bozo ex-muckie muck with egg on his face who makes Nazi-Commie comments like this. But who's kidding who? What I want to know is how an illegal became a general in the first place. Prolly got appointed to West Point by some Democrap congressman and got his stars from Clinton. Prolly don't watch NASCAR or own a Chevy pickup either. 'Nuff said.
Frankly, the greatest threat posed by the Nazi-Commie movement is their plan to combine Adolph Hitler's birthday (20 April) and May Day (01 May) into a single holiday. This would short change American workers and we must to everything in our power to maintain those two seperate holidays for our working class heros.0 -
With only half the Army we need in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm not surprised to hear that comment.
If armed Iraquis caught in the field were compelled to wear uniforms and register with their faction or be hanged immediately upon capture it might change the anonymity and effectivity of the insurgency.0 -
quote:Originally posted by reloader44mag
Would someone, anyone, plz tell me when we are going to leave IRAQ, if no one can, then I guess there is "no end in sight" My personal opinion is we will be there for at least 10 more years and will probably have some type of military presence there forever.....But that was the real plan anyways.
we'll leave iraq at the same time we leave kosovo with the troops sent by clinton who were supposed to be home before christmas.
but in the short term i expect some american troops will be leaving iraq in early 2008.0 -
quote:Originally posted by ElMuertoMonkey
nemesis,
Don't hold your breath.
Hundreds of bases overseas mean "influence" and "relevance"... which is nothing more than political double-speak for "empire" and "profit."
Too many elites make too much money off of our engorged military and interventionist policies to ever let those bases go.
Sure thing. Tell me, do you have the latest edition of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion?[}:)][}:)][;)][;)]0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
32 comments