"Partisan politics have hindered this war effort and America should not accept this," Sanchez said. "The security of America is definitely at stake."No matter who wins the election on Tuesday, the US military will be deeply engaged in a war going on into the fourth year. The Iraq war has been the focal point of this election season. This war was started with the stated knowledge that it is part of a long struggle. It was voted by the US Congress on a bi-partisan basis.
While it started with a broad US public support, that support was based on claims and reasons that have failed to be substantiated. Weapons of Mass destruction were not found and public support has eroded with the active criticism of of MSM and the political and social critics of GWB. All of this is true and all of this is irrelevant. The facts are that the US is in a predicament that has no simple solution. This much we know:
- The US will have to leave Iraq if the duly elected government asks or demands that it do so. In some ways this would be the simplest solution, but an unlikely one.
- There is no likelihood that the Iraqis themselves will willingly accept a strong central government by any dominant Sunni or Shiite leadership.
- There will be no significant assistance from any outside powers. The US will be doing well to maintain the existing and diminishing level of support.
- The dream of an Iraqi Democracy will remain a dream for the near future.
- No significant economic revival will occur under the present anarchy and violence.
- The American people do not have the stomach or patience to support a campaign that appears to be going nowhere.
- The US withdrawal under fire or leaving Iraq to chaos will be a disaster for US foreign policy and security.
- The US should allow the natural separation of recognizable states within an Iraqi federal system. The number of states is not important and up to the Iraqis.
- No US money should be spent for Iraqi infrastructure and development. Most of it is going to security and much of the rest is wasted by corruption. It is an Iraqi problem and they need to deal with or not as they choose. Let them build there own sewer systems.
- The US must accept the existence of local militias. They are there and it is an Iraqi problem. The US should help guarantee the security between the states and against foreign powers and not be doing internal police work.
- The US should provide military and police training to the individual states or the federal government as requested. It should charge the local or federal government for the service and let them pay the salaries and a reasonable cost of the training.
- All parties should be put on notice that attacks on US Forces will be dealt with harshly and without regard to the source.
Military alone can't win in Iraq -ex-U.S. commander
01 Nov 2006 23:15:39 GMT
Source: Reuters
"SAN ANTONIO, Nov 1 (Reuters) - Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, former commander of U.S. ground forces in Iraq, retired from the Army on Wednesday, saying the military alone cannot secure a victory in Iraq.
"We have been saying since 2003 that we could fight there for years, if we continue to apply only the element of (military) power," Sanchez told reporters. "We can continue to kill people there for a decade and until you can sort out the political and economic issues in that country, we will continue to have an issue there."
The war in Iraq has come to the forefront of next week's U.S. congressional elections as Democrats try to wrest control of Congress from Republicans.
"Partisan politics have hindered this war effort and America should not accept this," Sanchez said. "The security of America is definitely at stake."
Sanchez, a native of Rio Grande City, Texas, commanded coalition forces in Iraq from June 2003 until July 2004. Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison were abused during his tenure but an Army investigation exonerated Sanchez of wrongdoing.
Sanchez did not mention President George W. Bush or Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld by name in criticizing U.S. political leaders.
"I'm a soldier and we have civilian control of the military," he said.
When pressed by reporters to answer who was at fault for the failures in Iraq, Sanchez said, "Where do the policies come from?"
Could General Sanchez inflict major damage on the administration? No doubt.
ReplyDeleteGood job, Deuce.
Nice map rufus, but it reminds me of the worthless charts at work. There's 100 civilians a DAY being killed by sectarian violence in the very areas you say the Iraqis are taking the lead.
ReplyDeleteThe Iraqi in the "lead" are Islamo-fascists.
ReplyDeleteThat is a fact of life.
Mr Maliki was Mr al-Jaafari's Spokesman. Mr al-Jaafari was, by the end of his term, considered to Sectarian and too aligned with Mr al-Sadr, to govern Iraq in an effective manner. Why would his Press spokesperson be less so?
Replace Mr Bush with Tony Snow, what change of course would be had? While the White House Staff remained the same.
General Sanchez asks the responsibility question I have been asking for well over a year and a half. No answers at BC, well none that were politicaly correct.
There it was the standard response, responsibility for failures were foisted upon Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite, always the ones in "real" command of the US Army.
Not aQ, rufus, but Iraqi Sunni.
ReplyDeleteThose Sunni were not foreigners, they were Iraqi.
That's what puts Iraq in a Civil War status.
Amazing how much influence 4,000 aQ foreigners are credited with having, how much impact they have on the people in Iraq, while 140,000 US troops have so little.
Read This!
ReplyDeleteMore MacArthur, Less Marshall
by Peter F. Schaefer
I see things are just comcastic whit.
ReplyDeleteRufus, it appears to me that the militias are either the entire problem or the term is too broad to be meaningful. It is tribalism pure and simple and the US has nowhere near enough troops to do what the Iraqis should be doing for themselves. It seems as if the Iraqis have already factored into the equation that the US will not be there long term and they have no confidence in a federal government establishing control. The militias are the law.
ReplyDeleteWhen the US went into Iraq, Bremner fired 400,000 of the army and stated they would build up to 20,000. It looks like they are going back up to 400,000.
ReplyDeleteSharp, I think Sanchez was talking about all partisans . period.
ReplyDeleteWhen the US went into Iraq, Bremner fired 400,000 of the army and stated they would build up to 20,000. It looks like they are going back up to 400,000.
ReplyDeleteFrom the same government that brought us New Orleans relief, the war on poverty, busing, prophibition, and the bridge to nowhere.
Rufus, I agree with what you say. That is why I believe it is important to, I hate to say the word, but here goes, Iraqify asap. And yes, we all agree you are partisan, but a pleasant one.
ReplyDeleteIn many, if not most, parts of the world a President losing a Congressional election is misunderstood to mean the government will fall.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, it will be effectively the same thing. Rangel will be chairing Appropriations and he will defund the war (though nothing like 1974 when the Demos had a 2:1 lead). Conyers already has articles of impeachment drafted up. The President will be busy looking for his long-lost veto pen to have meetings with Condi and Rummy about the dang war.
Rangel will have to get a bill to defund the war through a conference committee with the Senate. We'll see how the election goes.
ReplyDeleteThat's not how it works. The war doesn't get funded by default unless Rangel successfully navigates the Senate...the basic funding originates in the House and everyone tacks on their bells and whistles. I wish DoD was funded by default, then I would get my COLA pay raise on time and wouldn't have to worry about a furlough every year.
T, am I not correct in that Dubya can carry on through a continuing resolution; and, isn't this possibly why he put most of the way budget in the appropriation bill this year rather than depend on a supplemental later in 06'?
ReplyDeleteI am currently on mandatory overtime to soak up funds which were appropriated by Congress and are expiring. Of course, as soon as the funds expire, we will sit around with our thumbs up our ass because it is illegal to spend money for which there is not an appropriation by Congress. The Constitution says military funds cannot be appropriated for longer than two years at a time. The continuing resolutions are usually to carry the government over from the end of the fiscal year (Sep 30) until the bill gets signed by Bush, which I have seen happen as late as March of the following year.
I nominate Habu1. Give him an army of Indians and Chinese and let him go privateering.
ReplyDeleteNew Ledeen Link Here
ReplyDeleteMy comments there and the thread after are my contributions.
I can't bear to rehash why W's fecklessness and failures aren't.
Again.
---
A Father's Tribute to his Son
---
Laura Ingraham adds:
"There is nothing I can add to the words of a grieving father, except to say that we owe it to these young men and women and their families to accept nothing less than victory against the dark, evil forces that rejoice every time a young Marine is killed."
---
Amen
In a word:
ReplyDeleteBlindly ignoring Syria and Iran is a fatal mistake.
Why some folks see that re: Cambodia, but refuse to see it here is beyond me.
There's a reason Sanchez was sacked without getting his fourth star. It was on his watch that the military missed phase 1 of the insurgency and let it get off the ground. Enough blame to go around for that one, but he's not clean.
ReplyDelete---
On another note:
Some guy from the Minutemen spoke here today. In response, we got loud and obnoxious protestors. I didn't see the speech, but we could hear them in the buildings blowing horns and banging on drums (fucking hippy re-treads). Someone also decided to pull the fire alarm.
It was appropriate that in class we were talking about the 'spoiled rich kid' nature of a lot of terrorists, from the Russian Social Revolutionaries to Al Qaeda today to the Weathermen.
One of the Professors made a comment about the minutemen, then explained that they were a right-wing fringe group, racist black helicopter types. He wasn't actually knowledgable about them, you could tell he got it from the regular newspapers. Rest of the kids didn't know anything about them, 2 thought that they'd been down there shooting people at the border.
Now, the Professor's a relatively reasonable person, navy veteran. But you can tell he's been in the academic bubble too long. Talked to us the first day of class about how he wished we had all this moral relativism stuff when he went through school.
May have some some good ideas about nuclear deterrent (though we clashed there), but you can tell these people are political idiots. Read the New York Times and New Yorker, speak with each other, and don't get out much. You can tell they haven't heard any opposing views, because they talk to you as if obviously you're educated, so you agree with them. Meanwhile you're sitting there thinking how shallow everything they say is.
Rufus, yes, there's a story we're not getting here.
ReplyDeleteThe press are shallow, so instead we get soundbites.
" Now, the Professor's a relatively reasonable person, navy veteran. But you can tell he's been in the academic bubble too long. Talked to us the first day of class about how he wished we had all this moral relativism stuff when he went through school. "
ReplyDelete---
Sad, so sad,
It's a sad sad situation,
What am I gonna do,
What am I gonna do?
- Elton John Speaks for us poor saps.
Feminized, politically corrected, multiculted, gelded and etc ad nauseum:
In a word, FUCKED!
Sanchez is smart to retire before the next round of Abu Ghraib pictures come out.
ReplyDeleteLook out: pictures/videos of rape and abuse of women and children coming soon.
I wonder if people have the courage to release them before the elections in 5 days.
If I were Republican, I'd hold them back from the media and release them after the Dems have control of the House or Senate. Let 'em face the wrath of the American people!
Maybe, that's the October surprise.
anonymous said...,
ReplyDeleteGeneral Sanchez's problems have little to do with Abu Ghraib, but a great deal to do with perceived disloyalty. You see, several general officers serving under General Sanchez have been vociferously critical of the administration. The statement given by General Sanchez appears to place in the camp of the dissenters.
While the administration argued that the criticism of General Sanchez's subordinates was parochial and limited. As the theatre commander, General Sanchez will be harder to blow off, although the administration will make the effort - half-assed as always.
I don't give a rat's ass if Barzani is a capo di tutti capi, so long as he is our capo di tutti capi. In fact, I much prefer dealing with a non-idealogue.
ReplyDelete