Lt. Gen Sanchez "No End in Sight" in Iraq

[Wags]

A USA Today article on Lt. Gen Sanchez's assessment on the state of affairs and on the past and present Iraq War policies.

Ex-general: 'No end in sight' in Iraq - USATODAY.com

Some will say that the Gen should have spoke out while he was on active duty and should not have waited until he retired to speak out. As some of us who have serviced well know that when one is in the service we are trained to obey orders and to accomplish whatever mission we are assigned.

It's an interesting READ.

GOD BLESS

[Gumby]

..

[Wags]

It was not meant to be a defense of Sanchez or any other Generals that did not speak out. I was only trying to point out why at times service personnel do not speak out.

I agree with you when we take the oath it is to defend the Constitution and not Old George W or any other President. And with that being said Gen Sanchez and other Generals should have spoken out while they were on active duty. Losing their careers and not getting their next stars would have been a small price to pay to protect the TROOPS which served under them and to defend the U>S Constitution.

Old George W's failed Iraq War policies have resulted in 3800 plus of OUR TROOPS being killed, an esimated 25000 to 30000 of OUR TROOPS being wounded and maimed and an estimated 500000 to 1000000 of the IRAQI PEOPLE being killed, wounded and maimed.

GOD BLESS

[Average Joe]

“As he stepped down, he called his career a casualty of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.”

Any of you other guys not make 4 Star General? What turned your careers into casualties?

[genghis]

[

Hmmm, you have "absolutely no respect" for a Lt General, given his service to our country? Sounds like you don't support our troops....

He served our country to protect our right to speak out against what we feel is wrong - he's earned my respect....

[Gumby]

..

[FinanceDude]

[..

Well, I never served, so maybe my point will be hollow. However, I have not seen a 4-star general harshly accusing their superiors with their dress blues on, maybe it happened during Vietnam, but I was too young to notice........

Is it realistic to expect a handpicked general to criticize his superiors publicly while he holds the position :confused:

[Rustic23]

During Vietnam and I would guess now, there are military leaders that disagree with the strategy of the day, and there will always be some, that rationalize their position. There options are limited. Retire and speak out. However, I believe most get caught up in the 'If I leave, I will be replaced with some yes man, I need to stay and fight, and see if I can get this thing changed, and if can't, I'll do my best to ameliorate the situation.' At some point they retire, and some continue to fight the policy by speaking out.

My guess is Gen. Sanchez told his bosses, and most likely more than once. How many of us have disagreed with a superiors decisions? How many of us quit the corporation in protest? The problem, as I see it, is that those that disagree, their ideas may not have be any better, and maybe even worse, than the decisions made. They often have hindsight on their side, and sometimes a willing press.

In WWII Montgomery often disagreed with Eisenhower. Should he have resigned and spoken out? My problem is while I agree with 'resign and speak out', I can see the other side. Only history, and I mean the type written hundreds of years from now, not tomorrow, will tell.

Gumby,
The difference between Generals Jodl and Kettle at Nuremberg, and the current situation is 'Lawful order'. However, I would throw out, the winner often decides what is lawful.

[samclem]

LTG Sanchez had an obligation to make his observations and objections known to his superiors when he was on active duty. Did he do that? Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but I haven't seen any evidence that he did ("evidence" one might expect: His removal from command of the ops in Iraq. This removal would have been totally within the purview of the SECDEF).

In addition, LTG Sanchez had the obligation, during his testimony before Congress while on active duty, to give accurate statements concerning his opinion of the strategy being pursued. We know that he raised no objections then. So, here are the options; 1) He didn't harbor these feelings at the time, and now he's getting the great foresight that comes from retrospect and he's decided to grab some press (I suspect a book will be forthcoming) or 2) He did not support US policy in Iraq, but valued his career above his obligations to the nation.

Anyway, he's only proven that once again his timing and insight is out of sync with reality. Now that things have turned the corner, he's decided to get cold feet.

[Gumby]

..

[TromboneAl]

It tells you something about the state of the country that this isn't a big deal news story. The guy who was the head of the war effort says the war is a disaster, the leaders are stupid and had a lust for power, and there's no solution. Ho hum, whatever, been there done that, what's for dinner?

[FinanceDude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TromboneAl It tells you something about the state of the country that this isn't a big deal news story. The guy who was the head of the war effort says the war is a disaster, the leaders are stupid and had a lust for power, and there's no solution. Ho hum, whatever, been there done that, what's for dinner?

Trombone Al,you would be a great Secretary of State..............

[genghis]

We do not know what Lt Gen Sanchez told his superiors, do we? This current administraton doesn't seem too open to critical suggestions.

How many people, committees, etc HAVE told the president his strategy is flawed - and what has been the result?

By the way, you also served for my right to patronize when necessary, so I will - thanks...

[Gumby]

..

[Gumby]

..

[Rustic23]

I can not remember any administration that was 'too open to critical suggestions.'

Maybe some examples?

[Gumby]

..

[Rustic23]

If I remember there were stories of Clinton going into fits when someone told him something he didn't like! Weather this president is more, less, or the same as others will be written by history long after all of us are dead. Truman's positon in history has changed from his first 10 years out of office to now, and I expect it will mellow even more as time passes.

[FinallyRetired]

I've been ignoring this story, not sure why. After watching a clip of his speech on TV I now understand.

If he began seeing this problem, and formulating his opinions in 2003, why did it take the good General four years before retiring? If he was a man of honor he would have laid down his stars as soon as he decided his orders were contrary to the nation's defense. It was his ethical duty as a uniformed officer to step aside and tell the nation that he could no longer "well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter."

So, good riddance General Sanchez and please take all other careerists with you.

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoonToRetire I've been ignoring this story, not sure why. After watching a clip of his speech on TV I now understand. If he began seeing this problem, and formulating his opinions in 2003, why did it take the good General four years before retiring? If he was a man of honor he would have laid down his stars as soon as he decided his orders were contrary to the nation's defense. It was his ethical duty as a uniformed officer to step aside and tell the nation that he could no longer "well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter." So, good riddance General Sanchez and please take all other careerists with you.

Would an early retirement been as beneficial to upcoming book deals?