Ex-General: Iraq a 'Nightmare' for US

George Bush probably couldn't play dead in a western.But,that doesn't mean he is always wrong.With all the mistakes, if the mess in Iraq can be turned around and a few years from now you have a functioning democracy there,it will benefit the world.

If the ones who only see the negative side of things were left in charge we would still be living in caves.
 
Isn't it odd that the Left in general and the MSM in particular have only been quoting half of Gen. Sanchez's speech?

What about the largest part of the speech where he fingers the MSM as being, in effect, a 5th column for the enemy, and whose greatest concerns are headlines and their politically biased narrative at the expense of the truth? This point is the REAL message that was being conveyed by his speech.

What about that part of the speech where he points out that the anti-war Left, including those in Congress, have greatly hampered the accomplishment of the mission? He condemns them in no uncertain terms.

Not saying that the current administration is blameless, because it isn't. But it is in no way any sort of vote of approval for the opposition. In fact, it is a condemnation of such.

The hypocrisy of the MSM report on this is, IMHO, just plain breathtaking.

Read the whole thing here, from the original transcript of the speech.
 
Thanks for the link, gb_in_ga. Who knew that there could be so much more to a speech than the short excerpts a journalist took out in order to try and make their point? ;)

In seriousness, though, sounded like a good speech. Grossly mischaracterized by the article in the OP. Though what was quoted is in there, and the speech is not sunshine and rainbows. Sounds like General Sanchez decided to take a big bucket of gray and pour it all over the false dichotomy of black and what that so many people try to fit the world into...I say good for him.
 
Roundtable debates energy issues

[...]

“Of course it’s about oil, we can’t really deny that,” Abizaid said of the Iraq campaign early on in the talk.

“We’ve treated the Arab world as a collection of big gas stations,” the retired general said. “Our message to them is: Guys, keep your pumps open, prices low, be nice to the Israelis and you can do whatever you want out back. Osama and 9/11 is the distilled essence that represents everything going on out back.”

Abizaid said the current strategy was failing because American armed forces are not adequately supported by civilian branches of government. A much more heavily involved Department of State, Agriculture, CIA and DEA are needed to help stabilize regions in the Middle East, he said.

“I’d rather have more members of the State Department on the field than soldiers on the field,” Abizaid said.

Although the general acknowledged that America is “not making the progress we need to be making” in Iraq, he argued in his final remarks against a military pullout.
Click to expand...

This must be a liberal conspiracy. Oil has nothing to do with our foreign policy now and it never did have anything to do with it. We only care about spreading democracy. :rolleyes:

functioning democracy there,it will benefit the world
Click to expand...

How would that benefit the world? It might benefit the people of Iraq or Iran but it definitely won't help the US. The majority of Iraqis are Shia and they want an Islamic revolution in Iraq.

people who want whats best for the country
Click to expand...

Could you please explain why this war is good for our country? How does it make us safer?
 
How would that benefit the world? It might benefit the people of Iraq or Iran but it definitely won't help the US. The majority of Iraqis are Shia and they want an Islamic revolution in Iraq.
Click to expand...

Where do you get that idea.Are you Iraqi?Do you live there?

There are plenty of Christians that want a Christian revolution in the U.S. Doesn't mean it is going to happen.

The sky is falling!!! The sky is falling!!! Nothing good will ever happen.Ever.
 
Where do you get that idea.Are you Iraqi?Do you live there?
Click to expand...

The "Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq"... that's the party that has the most seats in the Iraq's Council of Representatives. This is the party they picked when they were given democracy.
 
Interesting how all these retired generals chose to keep quiet until after they were out of the military to speak out
Click to expand...

Pitz96: Not all kept quiet. General Erik Shinsheki, the Army Chief of Staff prior to the Iraq invasion repeatedly complained that you'd need 200,000 plus troops to secure the country. Rumsfeld castrated him by announcing his successor a year prior to his departure. He stated the following as well at his retirement ceremony (that Rumsfeld skipped): "Beware of the 12 division solution for the 10 division army."

Essentially, when it came to invading Iraq, any contrary opinion was squashed and a proper example was made of Shinseki of what would happen to officers who spoke up. I believe that the war became a fiasco when Rumsfeld decided to only listen to officers who agreed with Bush policy and disregard any dissention by officers who may have legitimate points of view.

Regardless of whether the war was constitutional or legitimate, there were major mistakes made that have cost the lives of American servicemen and the time to listen to the Generals is in the planning (when civilians are setting policy). Once you've listened to them, execution should be entirely left to the military with minimal oversight. Anything less is criminal.
 
Pitz96: Not all kept quiet. General Erik Shinsheki, the Army Chief of Staff prior to the Iraq invasion repeatedly complained that you'd need 200,000 plus troops to secure the country.
Click to expand...

Actually, it was "several hundred thousand." Which, it turns out, was accurate. Unsurprising, considering that our own counterinsurgency doctrine (which has even been updated as recently as 2006) suggests a force of no less than 535,000 would be needed to secure Iraq. Note that this figure can include local security forces, but that even counting every last Iraqi IA/IP/ING as reliable (they aren't) we still barely reach this mark today with our current "surge." And note that this is a suggested minimum...more are recommended.

And yet we're sending tends of thousands home.

Suggests to me that politics and wishful thinking rather than actual military planning are still the driving force in Iraq, just like in 2003. I'll not be surprised if we hear some interesting commentary from General Petraeus once he retires as well.
 
When asked when he saw that the mission was going awry, he responded: "About the 15th of June 2003" - the day he took command.
Click to expand...

LOL!!!! :D So according to this General, Iraq turned into a real mess on the date that this General took command. :D :p

And you guys are actually still taking his comments seriously (and arguing about him)?!? :D
 
So the USS Bush is sinking on the seas of intellect and some of the complicit rats are deserting this vessels.

One wonders if declaring victory against Al-Qaeda in Iraq isn't part of the plan to get everyone on the buses and out of town as soon as possible.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wulfowitz and assorting hanger-ons screwed this pooch from the get-go. If it goes right now, it's because Bush was dragged kicking and screaming from the arms of those idiots and poltroons.
 
'mon now Glen! Aren't you being harsh? Just because Rumsfeld picked the Generals he wanted his boss to listen to doesn't mean that Bush didn't listen to his Generals!

Tommy Franks gave conflicting advice from Shinseki. One had to appreciate nuance to see that they were both right. Shinseki argued that to be successful in Iraq, you'd need a lot more folks. Tommy Franks was telling Bush he could beat the Iraqi Army with 80-120K maybe more. Neither were lying. One was taking the long-term view and the other was narrowly focused on the task at hand.

Rumsfeld is gone (thank goodness). Tommy is gone. Eric Shenseki (I can't spell his name consistently to save my life- though I worked for him a couple months long ago when he was the 1st Cav CG) is gone too.

Maybe you're right Glenn!
 
Today the military commanders in Iraq said that they feel they have made significant enough progress to declare victory against Al Qaeda.Maybe these new commanders have a little more talent than the ones saying the mission was impossible.
Click to expand...

Well if that's the case why don't we just put up a banner and have a celebration!

thumb-accomplished.jpg
 
When asked when he saw that the mission was going awry, he responded: "About the 15th of June 2003" - the day he took command.
Click to expand...

LOL!!!! So according to this General, Iraq turned into a real mess on the date that this General took command.

And you guys are actually still taking his comments seriously (and arguing about him)?!?
Click to expand...

They asked him when he SAW it. He took command and then he fully saw the problem. Makes sense to me.
 
Ok. So the minute someone says something we should blatantly accept it as fact.
Click to expand...
^ Strawman.

I said no such thing. We should neither automatically accept nor reject whatever they say. On the one hand, they have grudges. On the other hand, they are free to speak their minds.
As the old saying goes; reason follows itself and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it. In that vein, we can add a few more to the list:
-Unless the Army has a habit of promoting incompetents, it's reasonable to assume that they all learned a thing or two about how to fight wars sometime during their careers.
-Bush and his cabinet members, however, have no basis on which to claim credibility in such matters.

This is an argument between professionals and ameteurs (or if you prefer, professionals who aren't allowed to contradict ameteurs). That makes their opinions a little more valid IMO. Certainly more valid than yours.
The clincher, of course, is that history backs up what they're saying.
 
This is an argument between professionals and ameteurs (or if you prefer, professionals who aren't allowed to contradict ameteurs). That makes their opinions a little more valid IMO. Certainly more valid than yours.
The clincher, of course, is that history backs up what they're saying.
Click to expand...


Baloney. There are no more than 20 retired generals who have come out criticizing the war. I already gave you the numbers on how many active duty generals there are as well as how many retired.

I actually find it kind of offensive that you call the officers currently commanding in "iraq" amatures. For every dissenter (that hasnt been there in at least 3 years) I can find you 10 supporters that will honestly say that things are turning around.

It always blows my mind when I see people that are so desparate to see another vietnam. Just talking to folks you would think this was the worst war we ever fought. Lets ignore the fact that we have lost less troops in this entire war than on a single day in WWII. History my arse.
 
actually find it kind of offensive that you call the officers currently commanding in "iraq" amatures.
Click to expand...

I think he meant the White House.

Question the Generals who speak out but also come to terms that we have an administration that is fanatical about loyalty unto the President first with a history of not listenning to any opinion that does not agree with their own.
 
I think regardless of how it turns out (whether it turns around or not- and I believe it probably is turning around), the process and lives lost to turn it are the issue I am concerned about. Arguing whether or not we should have gone there is stupid because it is past history that some future generation can analyze.

What ticks me off, is when a reputable General says in order to do a job completely you will need XY and Z, then you don't fire him (or make him politically impotent) and find a General who tells you what you want to hear. You give serious consideration to what your General says. Shinseki was not arguing against the war, he was saying what we needed to take with us in order to secure the country.

Tommy Franks was brilliant in both Afghanistan and Iraq in beating the political forces there, but in total hindsight, Rumsfeld wanted a cheap war like Afghanistan was. The use of a proxy army (the Northern Alliance) was a brilliant and cost saving measure. We just couldn't do that with Iraq.

I don't think Bush managed his cabinet very well in all of this. I believe him to be a very sincere person and I don't ascribe to him the negative or evil that most liberals do. I just think he did a very poor job of people management at the top levels of civilian government.
 
Sour Grapes. I have never heard him admit to the mistakes he made. Hindsight is always 20/20. Many mistakes were made during the aftermath of he initial invasion. Hopefully, the US won't lose heart and leave with their tails between their legs. I don't think we can afford to lose this one. We should have gone after Iran in the first place IMHO. War is always Chaos no mattter how well you plan.
 
Russ,
Agreed. The price we'd pay to pull out before finishing the job would be catastrophic. On this issue I do not agree with Ron Paul. However, if we don't learn from our mistakes and we stubbornly continue to make them, what does that say about us? I like the analogy of a tar baby for Iraq. We just can't get out of it in a good, cheap way. The benefits of the war will never outweigh the losses. Unlike WWII, the US will not emerge stronger or more secure than we were prior to the war. The best we can hope for is remaining the same. If we pull out before we've done the job, we will suffer greatly world-wide, so that's where we are. I don't like it. Especially when it was avoidable, or at least we could have made it less costly.

I believe there were good intentions that led us there, but we know where good intentions lead...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top