Retired Army Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, the man with his hand on the tiller as Iraq slipped from chaos into nightmare had harsh words yesterday for just about everyone involved: The news media, the Bush administration, Congress and military war planners. In fact, the only guy who escapes criticism was the one at the top of the whole mess – Sanchez himself:
(Asked) where accountability lay while he headed the forces, as well as for his part in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, Sanchez said it was too late for him to do anything when he took over.
Laying most of the blame at the feet of the Bush administration for failure “plan economically and politically for Iraq”, he nonetheless declined to name names, just as he declined to take blame, just as he declined to toss his stars on the table back when it might have done some good.
I find it more than a little suspicious that a man who didn’t get nominated for a forth star which had been conceeded as a “lock” should suddenly, years later, decide that he really didn’t agree with the policy.
It seems to me that Sanchez is awfully late in coming to his conclusions about this war. I have no respect for any flag officer who claims, only well after the fact, that he disagreed with the policies he was charged with implementing.
The problem, of course, is that most flag officers just love the power and the prestige and aren’t willing to jeopardize their position until well after their retirement is locked in and the book is being written.
If you want to see what happens to a fine officer who had the balls to very publicly disagree with his Commander in Chief look up the biography of Major General John K. Singlaub. If you want someone to admire, or better yet, to emulate, then Jack Singlaub is a shining example of an officer who did his duty as he saw it regardless of the consequences.
Marine6 and I are in total agreement. As I wrote over at Phibian’s place, if these guys really disagree with a policy then they, like MGen Singlaub, should retire in protest and speak out immediately.
It’s just CYA to do otherwise.
Sanchez says: “military officers should not go public with their opinions about politics while still serving, but that officers not coming forward privately to denounce the lack of plans for the war in Iraq “was an absolute lack of moral courage.”
Contrast that to what Gen. Pace had to say about moral courage:
“I have come in my last six years to appreciate and value the courage that comes with having to stand up and speak your mind when others are thinking differently,” he said. “If you are wrong in combat, you might die. If you are wrong intellectually you have to live with it.”
With seniority comes membership in more powerful groups, he noted. “As discussions are going in one direction, it becomes more and more difficult to say ‘I see it a bit differently.’ But I will tell you that the more senior you become the more critical it is that you be the person at the table who does that,” he said.
But wait – isn’t it a whole lot easier, not to mention waaaaaay less risky, to just wait until retirement before I start armchair quarterbacking the whole thing? Then I won’t have to lay down my stars for what I think is right. Does that make me “dirty?”
Maybe not “dirty” but somewhat lacking in moral courage.
When I taught midshipmen about this subject I used to warn them that such choices don’t come often and this step should not be taken lightly as there was often a negative consequence consequence involved.
I don’t agree with Gen Pace often but his quote about speaking your mind when you differ with superiors is on target.
In my opinion, “command cowardice” evolved from the time that senior military officers began to view themselves as “corporate executives” rather than warrior leaders. When one’s advancement is almost solely dependent on one’s fitness report (one of the most subjective processes known to man), it is a rare individual who will cultivate the moral courage to take risks, voice a divergent opinion, make decisions based upon tactical/strategic imperatives and/or the well being of his troops.
To those senior officers who view themselves as leaders, rather than managers, here’s to them and those like them – damn few left!
Another military darling of the Left has been born, just months before primary elections. Will he be making the rounds with “Wellesley” Clark?
Gen Sanchez gives early assessment of his command capabilities when asked when he saw that the mission was going awry and responded: “About the 15th of June 2003″ – the day he took command.
How does he explain the follow-on successes of Gen Petraeus?
With his admissions, the man’s just short of being a disgrace to his uniform, his former troops and to his country.
(disappointed that no one caught the subtle reference contained in the first and last words of my previous comments)
MajHarvey, it just doesn’t pay to be subtle in this audience. That’s Casca’s whole problem–he’s always misunderstood because he’s too subtle.
Snort!
A General Officer self-serving? I’m shocked! He’s just having his McNamara moment. May he rot in hell.
It’s nice to pretend to have moral courage after retirement and no threat to the career path.
50 years old when he took command in Iraq and a 3-star. Am I wrong in understanding that if he resigned in protest he would not have forfeited his pension? If that is the case how can he look himself in the mirror each morning. What real risk did he have by resigning in protest if what he was seeing was so bad? Compared to the risks his own troops were taking at that time???
I’m not a big fan of the Bush administration by any stretch, but I don’t like Sanchez at all and I have no faith in anything this guy has to say.
Brian
Actually I find a lot of his observations to be dead on target. It’s just that they are incomplete, and as such have to be taken with a *huge* grain of salt. It is ridiculous to talk about the administration making mistakes in the running of the war without also talking about the military leadership (of which Herr Sanchez was a large part) having made mistakes.
And why is this news, exactly?
During what war has it ever been possible to look back and say with pride, “Damn — that was executed flawlessly – every single aspect of our plan worked out EXACTLY as we conceived it”? Wars don’t work that way. Not all the moving parts are under our control, yet he pretends they are. And what is his solution for the twin problems of self-serving partisanship in Congress and an out of control press that have deliberately twisted public opinion against the war? Should the President throw out the Constitution and muzzle the press, throw a few of those recalcitrant jerks in Congress into an airless cell in Gitmo?
Yeah. I didn’t think so.
Lovely 20.20 hindsight with no suggestions as to how things should *practically* have been done differently.
I ain’t gonna slap him too hard. Personally I wonder whose campaign he’ll join…. Man’s gotta make a living and USAA has already installed it’s latest BOD…….
During that crucial period of OIF Lex summarizes, I’ll always remember a man who looked out of place..sort of like a deer in the headlights look on his face and striving hard to remember his warrior cliches. In others words- little command of his command and no idea how to see milestones nor an endstate. No matter what we command we must have a vision..Even though it may constantly evolve, we must adapt. He never did- possibly he never had what it takes despite his record. Rising to one’s level sorta… Personal impression.
b2
B2, are you pussyfooting around the realities of minority hires? Loved the USAA line.