General Sanchez: Iraq war is unwinnable

[GrGr]

Sanchez: US can forget about winning in Iraq

Top retired US general says absolutely convinced America has crisis in leadership at this time.

By Sig Christenson

MEOL

06/03/07 " -- --- SAN ANTONIO, Texas --- The man who led coalition forces in Iraq during the first year of the occupation says the United States can forget about winning the war.

"I think if we do the right things politically and economically with the right Iraqi leadership we could still salvage at least a stalemate, if you will -- not a stalemate but at least stave off defeat," retired Army Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez said in an interview.

Sanchez, in his first interview since he retired last year, is the highest-ranking former military leader yet to suggest the Bush administration fell short in Iraq.

"I am absolutely convinced that America has a crisis in leadership at this time," Sanchez said after a recent speech in San Antonio, Texas.

"We've got to do whatever we can to help the next generation of leaders do better than we have done over the past five years, better than what this cohort of political and military leaders have done," adding that he was "referring to our national political leadership in its entirety" - not just President George W. Bush.

Sanchez called the situation in Iraq bleak and blamed it on "the abysmal performance in the early stages and the transition of sovereignty."

He included himself among those who erred in Iraq's crucial first year after Saddam.


....

Sanchez said a large troop commitment would be needed for years to come but conceded it is "very questionable" if Americans would support it.

Still, he said, "the coalition cannot afford to precipitously withdraw and leave the Iraqis to their own devices

--------------------

So Bush's war of choice cannot be won, must not be lost. For each month that goes the cost of the war goes up and the popularity down. When the incoming recession hits the US for real people will just love this war.

 

[Lemon law]

What was needed was better initial leadership at the start. Which implies we need better leadership now but have the same team in place. At least Sanchez is honest enough to admit that he was a good part of the problem. Its one thing to postulate that there is a leadership crisis, its another thing to have insights on how to fix it.

But honesty seems to come only from the safely retired side of the military. And as GrGr points out we now have a war that can't be won and can't be lost. And its the can't be lost aspect that is chilling. Precipitous withdrawal may be tempting, but may well lead to a greater disaster. At what point will our leadership make that gear shift between trying to win what can't be won to a more realistic cutting our losses in Iraq? But the latter seems to call for diplomacy. And some honesty from those still not retired---or impeached.

 

[piasabird]

Only way the USA can have an extended stay in Iraq is to expand our Military. This idea of a lighter faster fighting force where we use a lot of National Guard and Reserve units is not going to work.

Nothing wrong with Impeaching the President if that is what you want to do. However, if your premise is that Bush was for the War so you impeach him, then you should do the same for everyone in the House and the Senate who voted for the war.

 

[Arkaign]

Have you seen the documentary 'Why we fight'? I don't think the point of the Iraq war was EVER to win, it was simply to drag it out as long as possible, as expensively as possible. Death = money for Bush's handlers. Replace Bush, same result = another puppet dancing to the strings of the masters. Long before there were boots on the ground in Iraq, there were plans for oil, for contracts, for supplies, etc. Money money money trumps all, even at the cost of countless lives, the economy at large, and global stability. Greed wins, humanity loses.

 

[Dari]

Another one steps up and tells the truth. How long can Bush keep his fingers in his ears?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: GrGr

"I am absolutely convinced that America has a crisis in leadership at this time," Sanchez said after a recent speech in San Antonio, Texas.

Absolutely.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Only way the USA can have an extended stay in Iraq is to expand our Military. This idea of a lighter faster fighting force where we use a lot of National Guard and Reserve units is not going to work.

Nothing wrong with Impeaching the President if that is what you want to do. However, if your premise is that Bush was for the War so you impeach him, then you should do the same for everyone in the House and the Senate who voted for the war.

It's not a matter of "wanting". It is a matter of principle to protect the Law and to follow the Law. To allow the President to escape responsibility for his actions is to undermine the rule of Law and the Constitution of the USA. To not impeach is the option of the weak, the afraid and the lazy.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: piasabird
Only way the USA can have an extended stay in Iraq is to expand our Military. This idea of a lighter faster fighting force where we use a lot of National Guard and Reserve units is not going to work.

Nothing wrong with Impeaching the President if that is what you want to do. However, if your premise is that Bush was for the War so you impeach him, then you should do the same for everyone in the House and the Senate who voted for the war.

It's not a matter of "wanting". It is a matter of principle to protect the Law and to follow the Law. To allow the President to escape responsibility for his actions is to undermine the rule of Law and the Constitution of the USA. To not impeach is the option of the weak, the afraid and the lazy.

Nothing wrong with Impeaching the President if that is what you want to do. However, if your premise is that Bush was for the War so you impeach him, then you should do the same for everyone in the House and the Senate who voted for the war.

Starting with Clinton and Kerry.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Have you seen the documentary 'Why we fight'? I don't think the point of the Iraq war was EVER to win, it was simply to drag it out as long as possible, as expensively as possible. Death = money for Bush's handlers. Replace Bush, same result = another puppet dancing to the strings of the masters. Long before there were boots on the ground in Iraq, there were plans for oil, for contracts, for supplies, etc. Money money money trumps all, even at the cost of countless lives, the economy at large, and global stability. Greed wins, humanity loses.

Get a grip on reality dude.
Presidents tend to focus on things such as their legacy and their historical impact.
Do you really believe that any politician is more interested in lining the pockets of his friends than making themselves look good?
You need to get out of this fantasy conspiracy world of yours before the black helicopters come and get you.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Have you seen the documentary 'Why we fight'? I don't think the point of the Iraq war was EVER to win, it was simply to drag it out as long as possible, as expensively as possible. Death = money for Bush's handlers. Replace Bush, same result = another puppet dancing to the strings of the masters. Long before there were boots on the ground in Iraq, there were plans for oil, for contracts, for supplies, etc. Money money money trumps all, even at the cost of countless lives, the economy at large, and global stability. Greed wins, humanity loses.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/iraqi-oil-maps.shtml

Maps and Charts of Iraqi Oil Fields


These are documents turned over by the Commerce Department, under a March 5, 2002 court order as a result of Judicial Watch?s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Task Force. The documents contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and ?Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.? The documents are dated March 2001. Click here to view the press release.

Iraq Oil Map
Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts - Part 1
Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts - Part 2
United Arab Emirates Oil Map
United Arab Emirates: Major Oil and Natural Gas Development Projects
Saudi Arabia Oil Map
Saudi Arabia: Major Oil and Natural Gas Development Projects

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/n...e.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33642


http://www.amazon.com/Crude-Po...errorism/dp/0785262717

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: piasabird
Only way the USA can have an extended stay in Iraq is to expand our Military. This idea of a lighter faster fighting force where we use a lot of National Guard and Reserve units is not going to work.

Nothing wrong with Impeaching the President if that is what you want to do. However, if your premise is that Bush was for the War so you impeach him, then you should do the same for everyone in the House and the Senate who voted for the war.

It's not a matter of "wanting". It is a matter of principle to protect the Law and to follow the Law. To allow the President to escape responsibility for his actions is to undermine the rule of Law and the Constitution of the USA. To not impeach is the option of the weak, the afraid and the lazy.

Nothing wrong with Impeaching the President if that is what you want to do. However, if your premise is that Bush was for the War so you impeach him, then you should do the same for everyone in the House and the Senate who voted for the war.

Starting with Clinton and Kerry.

Lets think about this for a second.


1. The CIA knew in late 2002 that the Nigerian dossier was crap. They knew it came from a liar, convict, and swindler and it originated out of SISMI in Italy, not Britain as Bush said. Yet, it was used as "fact" to back up the case. The CIA never let anybody else know that the dossier was crap, why?

2. We know that the CIA cherrypicked data, that the Pentagon operated off of erroneous conclusions of select few people. Furthermore, we know that the data the was cherry picked was also against the checks and balances put in place.

We know for a fact that Saddam had a stockpile of yellowcake. When this was brought to the attention of the State Department the person who did that was "Plutod" (ostracized). The analyst who was ostracized was a very well known analyst and was highly respected. Yet, he was ignored and removed from the process, he quit less than 6 months later. We KNEW Saddam already had the stuff sitting in a warehouse doing nothing. The IAEA knew he had it and checked on it as a normal monitoring process.

Yet, somehow, Bush makes a massive deal of it. Why? He didn't tell Congress it wasn't a big deal.

3. We know that the Aluminum tubes was a joke. Dissenting analysts were dismissed and research was omitted and then skewed to put a positive spin on the war.

4. We KNEW Saddam had no plans for a Biochem/nuke program. MI6, SISMI, and the German intelligence agencies knew this and repeatedly told the CIA, yet the CIA refused to listen.

5. We KNOW that Congress got filtered information, because, as was mentioned several times recently, the NIE given to congress eliminated dissenting opinions. We know from testimony that caveats were eliminated that might have otherwise lead Congress to a different decision.

6. We KNOW that Congress authorized the use of military force, NOT a broad-based war. Those are two completely different items. They did so based upon falsified, cherry picked, and deliberately misleading "intelligence" created by non-oversighted bureaucrats who now refuse to go on record, because they know they'd be tarred and feathered.

7. We KNOW that "the decider" is "the commmander", he controlled the situation. He says he has the power to direct the army. Thus, he should take all of the responsibility for his failures and the poor performance in this debacle.


As typical for the rubber stamppers of this forum, you are poorly educated, as your masters want you to be. You ignore, or are blissfully ignorant, of all factual information surrounding the situation. You get your sound bites from Fox, without reading in-depth, any type of research into how we were duped. Then, you run around spouting off more sound bites, like above, in your zealous frothing in an attempt to hide your complete and utter stupidity surrounding this subject.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: piasabird
Only way the USA can have an extended stay in Iraq is to expand our Military. This idea of a lighter faster fighting force where we use a lot of National Guard and Reserve units is not going to work.

Nothing wrong with Impeaching the President if that is what you want to do. However, if your premise is that Bush was for the War so you impeach him, then you should do the same for everyone in the House and the Senate who voted for the war.

It's not a matter of "wanting". It is a matter of principle to protect the Law and to follow the Law. To allow the President to escape responsibility for his actions is to undermine the rule of Law and the Constitution of the USA. To not impeach is the option of the weak, the afraid and the lazy.

Did you feel this way about Clinton who clearly broke the law?
The bolded statement pretty much sums up what the pro-impeachment forces were saying.

Finally, you guys need to get over your impeachment fantasies and deal with the reality as it is. Bush is going no where until January 2009 and there is nothing you can do to change this fact.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Did you feel this way about Clinton who clearly broke the law?

First, you say nothing in response to the issue - that Bush deserves impeachment, under the law. Whether anyone else was impeached or not doesn't change the issue.

Second, Clinton WAS impeached for his misleading testimony on his sexual activities.

Third, the question isn't whether the president breaks any law, but whether he has committed 'high crimes and misdemeanors'.

If the president littered, he'd have broken the law, but it wouldn't be impeachable, if the Congress reasonably interprets the rule.

The poster above is right that impeachment isn't just about the desire, it's about preserving the rule of law to enforce the law.

If Clinton had sone something deserving impeachment, and the republicans impeached him despite his being a popular president - instead of the way it happened where they had a witch hunt to extract revenge for Watergate and for political gain - I'd praise their having done so.

Finally, you guys need to get over your impeachment fantasies and deal with the reality as it is. Bush is going no where until January 2009 and there is nothing you can do to change this fact.

Politically, I think the democrats do great with your approach, letting Bush hurt the republicans more and more - giving him the rope to hang the party.

But on principle, I think the democrats (and republicans) are obligated for the sake of the nation to look hard at impeachment, even if it hurts democrats in 2008.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: piasabird
Only way the USA can have an extended stay in Iraq is to expand our Military. This idea of a lighter faster fighting force where we use a lot of National Guard and Reserve units is not going to work.

Nothing wrong with Impeaching the President if that is what you want to do. However, if your premise is that Bush was for the War so you impeach him, then you should do the same for everyone in the House and the Senate who voted for the war.

It's not a matter of "wanting". It is a matter of principle to protect the Law and to follow the Law. To allow the President to escape responsibility for his actions is to undermine the rule of Law and the Constitution of the USA. To not impeach is the option of the weak, the afraid and the lazy.

Did you feel this way about Clinton who clearly broke the law?
The bolded statement pretty much sums up what the pro-impeachment forces were saying.

Finally, you guys need to get over your impeachment fantasies and deal with the reality as it is. Bush is going no where until January 2009 and there is nothing you can do to change this fact.

Any President that breaks the Law should be held responsible. Don't you agree?

It is not a matter of Bush being President until 2009. It is a matter that the President of the US is a war criminal.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Do you really believe that any politician is more interested in lining the pockets of his friends than making themselves look good?

Most can do both at the same time. Dub is too incompetent. He failed at looking good.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Have you seen the documentary 'Why we fight'? I don't think the point of the Iraq war was EVER to win, it was simply to drag it out as long as possible, as expensively as possible. Death = money for Bush's handlers. Replace Bush, same result = another puppet dancing to the strings of the masters. Long before there were boots on the ground in Iraq, there were plans for oil, for contracts, for supplies, etc. Money money money trumps all, even at the cost of countless lives, the economy at large, and global stability. Greed wins, humanity loses.

Get a grip on reality dude.
Presidents tend to focus on things such as their legacy and their historical impact.
Do you really believe that any politician is more interested in lining the pockets of his friends than making themselves look good?
You need to get out of this fantasy conspiracy world of yours before the black helicopters come and get you.

Do you deny that the Iraq conflict benefits few other than those who reap power and money out of the deal? Given how Bush utterly ignores popular opinion (Gonzales, Iraq War, Rumsfeld, etc) do you think he really gives a crap about his legacy? If anything, he seems hell-bent on a privately controlled agenda than about populism or looking good whatsoever.

As a matter of fact, you can only explain his actions by way of :

(a)- outside influence directing policies
(b)- insanity

 

[piasabird]

I have another question. Who is general Sanchez and why should we listen to him?

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I have another question. Who is general Sanchez and why should we listen to him?

response to questions Thursday about Sanchez, Army spokesman Paul Boyce said only that he "retired after a long, professional career of public service to the U.S. Army and our nation." In May 2004, shortly before Sanchez turned his Iraq command over to Gen. George Casey, President Bush said, "Rick Sanchez has done a fabulous job."

Sanchez approved some harsh interrogation tactics for use at Abu Ghraib in the fall of 2003, when he and other military commanders were concerned about rising violence. Those tactics included using military dogs to frighten detainees, although the orders required Sanchez's approval in each instance.

An Army report released in 2004 faulted Sanchez for failing to properly oversee prison operations and said he indirectly contributed to some of the abuses. But the Army said in April 2005 that an inspector general's investigation cleared Sanchez of accusations of dereliction of duty in his oversight of prison operations in Iraq.

During a retirement ceremony at Fort Sam Houston in Texas on Wednesday, Sanchez's colleagues praised his tenure. Gen. John Abizaid, head of U.S. Central Command, said, "I've never stood by a better soldier in tougher times."

Sanchez's former commander in Europe, retired general Wesley Clark, told the San Antonio Express- News that Sanchez was "a fine officer." Clark sought the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination.

The taint of Abu Ghraib would have made it difficult for Sanchez to win the necessary Senate approval for a promotion, said Lawrence Korb, an assistant Defense secretary in the Reagan administration.

"The (Bush) administration didn't want to send his name to Congress because they were afraid he would be asked embarrassing questions about Abu Ghraib," Korb said. He said that while in Iraq, Sanchez had been under pressure from Washington to get better information from prisoners.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/w...nchez-retirement_x.htm

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: piasabird
Only way the USA can have an extended stay in Iraq is to expand our Military. This idea of a lighter faster fighting force where we use a lot of National Guard and Reserve units is not going to work.

Nothing wrong with Impeaching the President if that is what you want to do. However, if your premise is that Bush was for the War so you impeach him, then you should do the same for everyone in the House and the Senate who voted for the war.

It's not a matter of "wanting". It is a matter of principle to protect the Law and to follow the Law. To allow the President to escape responsibility for his actions is to undermine the rule of Law and the Constitution of the USA. To not impeach is the option of the weak, the afraid and the lazy.

Nothing wrong with Impeaching the President if that is what you want to do. However, if your premise is that Bush was for the War so you impeach him, then you should do the same for everyone in the House and the Senate who voted for the war.

Starting with Clinton and Kerry.

No, sir. The decision to invade was made by the commander in chief. The sole responsibility rests there.

 

[BDawg]

Why does General Sanchez hate America?

 

[Theb]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: piasabird
I have another question. Who is general Sanchez and why should we listen to him?

response to questions Thursday about Sanchez, Army spokesman Paul Boyce said only that he "retired after a long, professional career of public service to the U.S. Army and our nation." In May 2004, shortly before Sanchez turned his Iraq command over to Gen. George Casey, President Bush said, "Rick Sanchez has done a fabulous job."

Sanchez approved some harsh interrogation tactics for use at Abu Ghraib in the fall of 2003, when he and other military commanders were concerned about rising violence. Those tactics included using military dogs to frighten detainees, although the orders required Sanchez's approval in each instance.

An Army report released in 2004 faulted Sanchez for failing to properly oversee prison operations and said he indirectly contributed to some of the abuses. But the Army said in April 2005 that an inspector general's investigation cleared Sanchez of accusations of dereliction of duty in his oversight of prison operations in Iraq.

During a retirement ceremony at Fort Sam Houston in Texas on Wednesday, Sanchez's colleagues praised his tenure. Gen. John Abizaid, head of U.S. Central Command, said, "I've never stood by a better soldier in tougher times."

Sanchez's former commander in Europe, retired general Wesley Clark, told the San Antonio Express- News that Sanchez was "a fine officer." Clark sought the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination.

The taint of Abu Ghraib would have made it difficult for Sanchez to win the necessary Senate approval for a promotion, said Lawrence Korb, an assistant Defense secretary in the Reagan administration.

"The (Bush) administration didn't want to send his name to Congress because they were afraid he would be asked embarrassing questions about Abu Ghraib," Korb said. He said that while in Iraq, Sanchez had been under pressure from Washington to get better information from prisoners.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/w...nchez-retirement_x.htm

Sure, but does he have a tv show? a radio show? Thanks but I think Hannity and Rush are a little more qualified to assess the situation in Iraq than some general who was there.

 

[StageLeft]

Obviously. It's becoming easier and easier to predict gloom. It was not hard to guess that the troop surge wouldn't work, for instnace, and now that the first real reports are out, surprise surprise, it's not reaching its goals. What a mess. The bigger concern is not Iraq but what it indicates; sadly, a lot of people still think it's going in the right direction including the fearless leader, Dumbya himself. This speaks more for the future than any Vietnam II could alone.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: BDawg
Why does General Sanchez hate America?

He's on a DOD pension . . . plus he's saddled with being the anti-Swartkopf. Sanchez's legacy is going to be failure in Iraq and accomplishments at Abu Graihb.

some of Stormin Norman's 11 commandments
You must have clear goals. You must be able to articulate them clearly to others.

What?s broken, fix now. Don?t put it off. Problems that aren?t dealt with only lead to more problems.

Set high standards. People won?t generally perform above your expectations, so it?s important to expect a lot.

Never lie. Ever.

When in charge, take command. Some leaders who feel they don?t have adequate information put off deciding to do anything at all. The best policy is to decide, monitor the results, and change course if it?s necessary.

Do what?s right. The truth of the matter is that you always know the right thing to do. The hard part is doing it.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Have you seen the documentary 'Why we fight'? I don't think the point of the Iraq war was EVER to win, it was simply to drag it out as long as possible, as expensively as possible. Death = money for Bush's handlers. Replace Bush, same result = another puppet dancing to the strings of the masters. Long before there were boots on the ground in Iraq, there were plans for oil, for contracts, for supplies, etc. Money money money trumps all, even at the cost of countless lives, the economy at large, and global stability. Greed wins, humanity loses.

Get a grip on reality dude.
Presidents tend to focus on things such as their legacy and their historical impact.
Do you really believe that any politician is more interested in lining the pockets of his friends than making themselves look good?
You need to get out of this fantasy conspiracy world of yours before the black helicopters come and get you.

You make it sound as if Iraq was the only time Bush has done this.
Bush started lining pockets of his friends as soon as he came into office. Remember CA energy crisis, when FERC did absolutely nothing to stop blatant market manipulation by a few energy companies to rip of consumers in western states? Or the ballooning Medicare drug benefit that bans the government from negotiating prices and forces it to pay whatever the Big Pharma wants, which will bankrupt the program. It's completely within his MO to disregard the public interest in favor of interests of a few. Also, I don't see how him starting an unnecessary war to create a legacy for himself is any better than starting one to help his friends make money. Just replaces Greed with Pride as the motive.

 

[ericlp]

Uh, duh! Of course we will never win in Iraq... Not with idiot bush at the helm anyway. I could of told you this before we started. Tell me one thing bush was ever successful at in or out of office....

The guy is a major Clustertard.... He fails at everything... Asking him to win is not in his dictionary...

You don't need a crystal ball to figure out what bush is gonna fail at next. Look it up on google! really, just type the word failure in google and see what comes up... And google verifies it!!!! it's not an error or a game it's the truth. How could 2 billion computer chips lie?