Posted on 11/24/2007 6:11:38 PM PST by Aristotelian
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The general who led U.S. forces in Iraq after the invasion launched by Republican President George W. Bush spoke out for Democrats on Saturday, backing legislation aimed at withdrawing American troops.
Retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, in the Democratic weekly radio address, acknowledged that Bush's escalation strategy this year had improved security in Iraq. But he said Iraqi political leaders had failed to make "hard choices necessary to bring peace to their country."
"There is no evidence that the Iraqis will choose to do so in the near future or that we have an ability to force that result," said Sanchez, an increasingly vocal critic of what he called Bush administration policy failures in Iraq.
He endorsed the latest attempt by Democrats in the House of Representatives to use Iraq-war funding legislation to push for a reduction of U.S. troops. . . .
But Sanchez urged a rapid cut in the U.S. military presence by shifting the troops' main mission away from combat, and he said the House measure "makes the proper preparation" for a troop reduction.
"It is well past time to adopt a new approach in Iraq that will improve chances to produce stability in the Middle East," he said. "I urge our political leaders to put aside partisan considerations and unite to lessen the burden our troops and their families have been under for nearly five years." ...
Sanchez commanded the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq from June 2003 until July 2004 as the anti-U.S. insurgency took hold. He retired in 2006 and blamed the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal for wrecking his career.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Petreaus had corrected it.
Sanchez is a failure. I am glad he retired.
Gosh, since leftists claim we’ve killed a million innocent Iraqis, I’d love to ask him how he sleeps at night knowing he’s “responsible”.
When is his BOOK coming out?
Jet Jaguar wrote:
“Sanchez was responsible for a lot the problems we had.
Petreaus had corrected it.
Sanchez is a failure. I am glad he retired.”
Wasn’t he in charge during the Abu Ghraib fiasco? More importantly, what makes him an expert on the current situation in Iraq? Is he still getting daily briefings from the commanders in the field? I think not.
The MSM is only making him a big deal because he’s opposed to the administration. If he was speaking in favor of the war, you wouldn’t hear a peep about him.
True.
he said Iraqi political leaders had failed to make "hard choices necessary to bring peace to their country."
Don't you just love these generals that know all about politics, and these politicians that know all about war.
You really have to wonder if their true talents haven't been wasted.
I’m glad he retired. I’d be happier if he had been fired first.
Well, DUH!
Well said...The MSM has been covering every word he's said since he spoke out against the Iraq policy. Sour grapes, IMO.
He should have been fired. Anyone more concerned about their troops not wearing seatbelts in a combat zone than actually defeating the enemy should have been shipped home the first minute he berated an officer in front of his soldiers for not wearing his seatbelt.
Well, things certainly got better after he "retired". I guess he is looking for a sympathetic crowd. Or maybe just a pathetic crowd.
Sanchez was a CLintonista liberal affirmative action promotion who accomplished nothing in Iraq, retired below his inflated self-image due to Abu Ghraib, and now has a big axe to grind. He is of the Weasely Clark school of sucking up to Demagogues at the expense of the military. Can anyone imagine he would be getting any MSM attention if he leaned conservative and was calling for Congress and the MSM to stop weakening the war effort?? If a retired general were speaking out in staunch support of General Petraeus and the great progress in Iraq it would be ignored by the MSM, of course.
Bump to your post.
“I know that these new combat units have good leaders and troops,” says a senior sergeant who has been in Iraq for 10 months. “But the higher-ups are pushing them to be passive and not take the fight to the enemy. The rest of the bad news is what we call the ‘Colonel West Syndrome.’ For example, the other night when we were conducting a raid, a target was standing behind a steel door as our guys breached it, and the door smacked him in the face and messed up his head. When we turned him into the detention center, the MPs there accused us of abusing this clown, kicking off an investigation that got pretty ugly.”
“Gen. Sanchez tore up my very-squared-away battalion commander for not wearing his Hummer seat belt,” says another sergeant who’s now finishing up a tour with a parachute brigade — the famed 173rd Airborne — that made a hairy night-combat jump into Bashur at the beginning of the war and has been in the thick of it ever since.
“Hello? Where has this general been?” asked the sergeant. “The terrorists over here have a bad habit of shooting at us — we have to be able to unass our vehicles in a hurry.”
From your link.
UNREAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“Gen. Sanchez tore up my very-squared-away battalion commander for not wearing his Hummer seat belt,” says another sergeant who’s now finishing up a tour with a parachute brigade — the famed 173rd Airborne — that made a hairy night-combat jump into Bashur at the beginning of the war and has been in the thick of it ever since.
“Hello? Where has this general been?” asked the sergeant. “The terrorists over here have a bad habit of shooting at us — we have to be able to unass our vehicles in a hurry.”
No question that battling guerrillas requires an exceptionally disciplined force and that parade-ground regs don’t extend longevity on a guerrilla battlefield. The brass need to get down and talk to their fine noncoms quick smart. The sergeants know how to keep up the initiative — while keeping U.S. casualties down.
What defense department?
BallyBill wrote: “I guess he is looking for a sympathetic crowd. Or maybe just a pathetic crowd.”
He certainly found the latter—Democrats.
What’s interesting about these Reuters articles is, the juicy parts claimed in the headlines are never in quotes. We get the “he said” stuff from the writer but no relevant quotes. Plenty of quotes here but all the relevant stuff is “he said” without actual quotes. Propaganda 101.
If it were to succeed after he was removed it would put the blame for the failure up to that point on him for all of history.
And why should anyone listen to the man responsible for Abu Ghraib, which did more damage to the cause and our international standing than anything else that happened during the war to date?
Exactly. Sanchez fumbled the ball, and now he’s pointing fingers. What a cockroach.
When he says the Iraqi legislature has proven unwilling and unable to make the necessary hard choices, I am sure he must be comparing them to the highly capable, competent and productive democratic Congress here in the United States.
snicker snicker
“If General McClellan does not want to use the army, I would like to borrow it for a time.”
—Abraham Lincoln
If a retired general were speaking out in staunch support of General Petraeus and the great progress in Iraq it would be ignored by the MSM, of course.
Speaking of that subject. Has the MSM been trotting out any quotes from Gen. Tommy Franks lately?
Chirp, chirp.
Cause and effect.
A true McClellan.
He’s part of the reason we were losing, that’s why Democrats like him :-)
Ha! Sanchez again. He was another big Bush mistake, but at least Bush did rectify his mistake fairly quickly.
The Abu Ghraib scandle was created by the RATs and the MSM. If the Abu Ghraib thing was what torpedoed this guy career, then why is he sucking up to the RATs? That's the part I don't understand.
He endorsed the latest attempt by Democrats in the House of Representatives to use Iraq-war funding legislation
Lack of loyalty to the American Troops, even Rep. Walz(Mn, D), retired Command Sergeant Major, 1-125th Field Artillery Battalion got wise about being loyal once,
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10634318
June 1, 2007
Walz went ahead last week and voted for the supplemental war funding. At events back in Walz’s district during the Memorial Day break, many of Walz’s constituents agreed with his votes.
I'm sure. And his failure to support the Commander-in-Chief's policies was not a factor.
When I knew “Major” Sanchez here in Panama (we both worked out of DCSIM), he wanted to leave the military, go back to Texas, and go into politics. I never asked him what side he was on. For one thing, I didn’t think it was proper. I don’t know why. Now I know what side he’s on. For some reason, it does not surprise me. It had nothing to do with what he said or did. It was just a gut feeling.
“Hello? Where has this general been?” asked the sergeant. “The terrorists over here have a bad habit of shooting at us — we have to be able to unass our vehicles in a hurry.”
It seems that the General was far away from the realities of the battlefield.
General Sanchez once again mirrors George B. McClelland. During the Battle of Malvern Hill, when the Union Army was fighting for its life with its back against the James River, McClelland was on the gunboat USS Galena which, at one point during the fighting, was 10 miles down river.
Wearing a seatbelt was the only one who survived Princess Diana’s car crash. He was their security guard. And...He was the one who was NOT suppose to wear a seatbelt so he could get out of the car quickly. He was no dummy. As the car was speeding out of control, he locked in.
I see the General’s point. If a military vehicle were to crash or rollover, how many would survive without their seat belts? He probably saved many lives.
I’m on his side.
He always worried about his troops.
WHAT kind of Commander tells the ENEMY what their TIMETABLE is??? IDIOT!
Seatbelts aren’t the issue, the issue is that General Sanchez didn’t get the job done and now he’s trying to see to it that General Patraeus has a harder time getting the job done, just like every other left wing loon in this country. His MO is exactly the same, destructive criticism laced with Bush derangment syndrome.
While he "was worried about his troops", he was also out of touch with the changing realities of the battlefield under his command.
What might be of benefit in Place A, Situation 3 might be a real danger in Place D, Situation 2.
In this particualr war, with the tactics of this particular enemy, the troops that were actually in the fighting, day in and day out, and not "in the rear with the gear", have discovered by deadly trial and error that the danger of death by roll-over or after a 60 MPH crash was far less than the danger of death by small arms fire or burning to death after an IED has hit your vehicle because you spent 4 extra seconds fumbling with your seatbelt before you could "de-ass" your vehicle.
Regardles of that point, you DO NOT publicly criticize an officer or an NCO in front of the troops that must trust that officer or NCO with their lives when he leads them into battle.
I appreciate your comments.
Thank you.
(Can’t type much more. I just cut a finger cooking and there is blood all over the place. My keyboard is becoming flooded with blood. No joke.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.