General Sanchez and the Blame Game

[Menning]

Time magazine ran an excerpt from ret. Lt. Gen. Sanchez's memoir, Wiser in Battle: A Soldier's Story.


To say I was shocked would be an understatement. I had never seen any approved CENTCOM campaign plan, either conceptual or detailed, for the post�major combat operations phase. When I was on the ground in Iraq and saw what was going on, I assumed they had done zero Phase IV planning. Now, three years later, I was learning for the first time that my assumption was not completely accurate. In fact, CENTCOM had originally called for twelve to eighteen months of Phase IV activity with active troop deployments. But then CENTCOM had completely walked away by simply stating that the war was over and Phase IV was not their job.

That decision set up the United States for a failed first year in Iraq. There is no question about it. And I was supposed to believe that neither the Secretary of Defense nor anybody above him knew anything about it? Impossible! Rumsfeld knew about it. Everybody on the NSC knew about it, including Condoleezza Rice, George Tenet, and Colin Powell. Vice President Cheney knew about it. And President Bush knew about it.


In the meantime, hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars were unnecessarily spent, and worse yet, too many of our most precious military resource, our American soldiers, were unnecessarily wounded, maimed, and killed as a result. In my mind, this action by the Bush administration amounts to gross incompetence and dereliction of duty.

Here's the link: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1736831,00.html?xid=site-cnn-partner

[SteveMetz]

His book is due out on Thursday.

[Tom Odom]

His book is due out on Thursday.

So you going to buy and review it, too??

Just wondering how far your masochistic tendencies extend after Feith's novel...

[SteveMetz]

So you going to buy and review it, too??

Just wondering how far your masochistic tendencies extend after Feith's novel...

I yam. I figure I need to be conversant in all of these when I start doing interviews and talks on mine. On Feith, by the way, he's donating royalties to a soldiers' fund, so I don't feel guilty about buying it. Plus I'm walking on the bright side now, reading Brian Linn's The Echo of Battle.

By the way, Tom Ricks did a dust jacket blurb for me. So I have Ken Pollack, Jeff Record, Robert Steele, Paul van Riper, and Ricks. I'm pretty happy with that.

[Tom Odom]

I yam. I figure I need to be conversant in all of these when I start doing interviews and talks on mine. On Feith, by the way, he's donating royalties to a soldiers' fund, so I don't feel guilty about buying it. Plus I'm walking on the bright side now, reading Brian Linn's The Echo of Battle.

By the way, Tom Ricks did a dust jacket blurb for me. So I have Ken Pollack, Jeff Record, Robert Steele, Paul van Riper, and Ricks. I'm pretty happy with that.

Good for you on the dust jacket...

[SteveMetz]

Good for you on the dust jacket...

I'm waiting for the first review to point out that the dustjacket blurbs are the high point of the book.

[Steve Blair]

I'm waiting for the first review to point out that the dustjacket blurbs are the high point of the book.

I was beginning to wonder....;)

[Tom Odom]

"This left General Sanchez in charge of operations in Iraq with a staff that had been focused at the operational and tactical level, but was not trained to operate at the strategic/operational level." He went on to write that neither he nor anyone higher in the Administration knew these orders had been issued, and that he was dumbfounded when he learned that Gen. McKiernan was out of the country and in Kuwait, and that the forces would be drawn down to a level of about 30,000 by September. "I did not know that Sanchez was in charge," he wrote.

Should be an interesting read. Reminds me of a direct fire plan for a company defense with multiple sectors of blame, redundant fall back positions, and a reserve pot of blame to dole out as gaps appear in the main defensive arguments. As I said on the Feith thread, this period is resulting in a truly remarkable run of accounts that all have at their core a defense for incompetence based on ignorance. They did no wrong because they did not know.

Tom

[Ken White]

...that all have at their core a defense for incompetence based on ignorance. They did no wrong because they did not know.

TomUnfortunately, it seems to be true -- incompetence due to ignorance, I mean -- what's wrong with that picture??? :mad:

[SWJED]

I yam. I figure I need to be conversant in all of these when I start doing interviews and talks on mine. On Feith, by the way, he's donating royalties to a soldiers' fund, so I don't feel guilty about buying it. Plus I'm walking on the bright side now, reading Brian Linn's The Echo of Battle.

By the way, Tom Ricks did a dust jacket blurb for me. So I have Ken Pollack, Jeff Record, Robert Steele, Paul van Riper, and Ricks. I'm pretty happy with that.

I bumped into Gen Van Riper yesterday and he told me he had written a blurb for your new book. He's using the money you paid him for a two-week vacation in Hawaii :D . Seriously, he was happy to do it!

[Shek]

As I said on the Feith thread, this period is resulting in a truly remarkable run of accounts that all have at their core a defense for incompetence based on ignorance. They did no wrong because they did not know.

Tom

Interlocking fields of ignorance?

[Tom Odom]

Interlocking fields of ignorance?

Deadly crossfire of incompetence in a zone beaten with stupidity :mad:

[Van]

...a truly remarkable run of accounts that all have at their core a defense for incompetence based on ignorance. They did no wrong because they did not know.
...
Interlocking fields of ignorance?

Deadly crossfire of incompetence in a zone beaten with stupidity

General officers are not allowed to say it is above their paygrade. 'Ignorance' in a general officer is a failure to complete adequate reconnaisance, and as such is negligence bordering on the criminal.

Sorry about that, had to be said.

[120mm]

"This left General Sanchez in charge of operations in Iraq with a staff that had been focused at the operational and tactical level, but was not trained to operate at the strategic/operational level."

You mean, we wuz trained???

News to me....

[Van]

One would hope that a general had been educated, and knew the difference between education and training.

[Ron Humphrey]

One would hope that a general had been educated, and knew the difference between education and training.

IT's great to hope but might want to go ahead and bring the shovel and your rifle to; just in case:wry:

[SteveMetz]

...or, at least, the OIF parts. So far after about 20 pages, it's worthless. At least Feith sprinkled some new information and important points into the spew of alibis. Sanchez offers an equal dose of alibis without any redeeming insights or information.

[Ken White]

is not good for you... ;)

Not that I'm complaining too loudly, mind you -- you're saving me from having to buy two books and I appreciate that.

[J Wolfsberger]

We appreciate you taking one for the team with Feith's book, but two self serving memoirs in a row is service above and beyond. :wry:

[SteveMetz]

I'm on a run of bad books. When I went to the Heritage symposium on Colorado Springs last weekend, I took Philip Bobbit's Terror and Consent. Read 80 pages and found it so useless that I bought a Jason Bourne novel to keep me occupied on the flight.

I did just finish Brian Linn's Echo of Battle last week. That was good.

[Van]

Steve,
This repeated self-abuse is obviously a cry for help. If you find yourself in Ft. Leavenworth before the end of September, I'll front for a theraputic quantity of bourbon or High Noon Saloon beer. Sanchez, Feith, who's the next rat to leave that ship?

V

P.S. GEN Sanchez (ret) is speaking to the CGSC students tomorrow. Why are they refering to him as "Dirty Sanchez"?
V

P.P.S. (later) I searched for "Dirty Sanchez" on Wiki. Never mind.
V

[kehenry1]

Please warn me next time that looking up such things might be not for public consumption...;)

[Ski]

BWAAAHHAAAHAA!

I don't know what's funnier - the mental self-flagellation Steve has decided to give himself, or the ignorance of the term "dirty Sanchez."

HAHAHAHAHAHA! Made my afternoon, thanks much...

[kehenry1]

Well, I deem somethings as a virtue and not knowing what that was definitely counts among them.

[Ken White]

and I'm not at all sure just how much better off I am now that I do know... ;)

[J Wolfsberger]

I didn't know, and it is WAY more information than I needed.

[Van]

Sorry about that, Kat et al, I treasured my sadly departed naivete also :o

Check out the Amazon reivews of this dog.

Lt Gen Sanchez has a lot of moral courage to write this book. Every page you read brings you to respect him more.

He's clearly supporting someone's biases.

So what do y'all think his agenda is, aside from trying to avoid being crucified in the history books?

[Rank amateur]

I didn't know, and it is WAY more information than I needed.

Then do not, repeat DO NOT, look up a rusty trombone.

[Ken White]

..........

[Ron Humphrey]

Something about listening to someone directly that adds value to any opinions you have of them. I know what I expect to hear but I hope I'm wrong. We'll see

[SteveMetz]

So what do y'all think his agenda is, aside from trying to avoid being crucified in the history books?


--Possible position in Democratic administration
--Salvage his reputation to do the corporate board/talking head thing

[MattC86]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/516QMTXER6L._SS500_.jpg

Wouldn't that be refreshing? "I f*ed up royally, here's why." Now where is Steve's image of hell freezing over?

Honestly, doesn't he realize he could save a whole lot of dignity just by doing that? Does he think people actually will buy into his version of what happened? Or do we think he (or Feith) himself actually believes this apologetic swill?

I'm glad Steve's reading it and not me, because these things generally make my blood pressure resemble that of somebody four times my age. . .I was having palpitations while reading Fiasco. . .

Regards,

Matt

[Van]

--Possible position in Democratic administration

Ah, the Wesley Clark/Merrill McPeak approach to dubious military achievement. One of the Amazon reviewers compared Sanchez to Clark, and I agreed with the comparison, especially in light of the content of "Waging Modern War" by Clark.

That book gave an interesting spin to
listening to someone directly... adds value to any opinions you have of them. It only made me less forgiving of Clark's choice to place the interest of the EU ahead of U.S. interests.

[Rank amateur]

I don't know. It's not easy being in a no win situation. In the ad business clients sometimes insist that you do something stupid that you know isn't going to work. Telling them they're stupid doesn't work out too well. Usually, we muddle through trying to do the best we can and when it doesn't work the client fires us for doing what they asked.

Petraeus will probably be writing a book some day about why COIN didn't produce victory either.


It only made me less forgiving of Clark's choice to place the interest of the EU ahead of U.S. interests.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but for sake of discussion how do you feel about NATO forces that put European interests above American interests in Afghanistan?

[Ski]

At least Fiasco was a generally factual account of the balls up planning process.

This is a man losing the last of his credibility trying to save his reputation. I'd say it's sad on a personal level but when you don't/can't man up and admit your faults, I'd say the ego dominates everything else. And that's always a big problem.

Warning: Never look at the Urban Dictionary. NEVER.

[Ron Humphrey]

I don't know. It's not easy being in a no win situation. In the ad business clients sometimes insist that you do something stupid that you know isn't going to work. Telling them they're stupid doesn't work out too well. Usually, we muddle through trying to do the best we can and when it doesn't work the client fires us for doing what they asked.

Petraeus will probably be writing a book some day about why COIN didn't produce victory either.?


Maybe but I doubt it. I would think he could very well write something on the greatness of the American soldier and how to bring out the very best in those you work with (Finger's Crossed)



I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but for sake of discussion how do you feel about NATO forces that put European interests above American interests in Afghanistan?

Wouldn't that be a little different. I mean how many countries are a part of NATO. Now how many countries are a part of the US.;)

Nuff Said:wry:

[Tacitus]

For those who are wading their way through this tome, what's up with the title, "Wiser in Battle"?

I can imagine a title like "Wiser From Battle," in which our dedicated scribe chronicles how he gained his wisdom or personal philosophy from battle.

But is there any evidence that Sanchez was wiser than anyone else in battle?

[Tom Odom]

For those who are wading their way through this tome, what's up with the title, "Wiser in Battle"?

Maybe it was an unattained goal...:rolleyes:

[Van]

"do you feel about NATO forces that put European interests above American interests in Afghanistan?"

Article 5 of the NATO treaty states that if any member is attacked, all the NATO members will individually and collectively counter-attack. Failure by any NATO member (except France, 'cause they're special and have an exemption) to counter-attack the AQ base in Afghanistan after 9-11 was a violation of the treaty. Serbia, on the other hand, was dealling with an internal issue (granted, they were doing it badly), and if the EU felt a need to invade, they could have left NATO out of it, as the NATO treaty was for a purely defensive alliance. But enough of the perfidious Clark.

Regarding Sanchez: Ski nailed it;
This is a man losing the last of his credibility trying to save his reputation. I'd say it's sad on a personal level but when you don't/can't man up and admit your faults, I'd say the ego dominates everything else. And that's always a big problem.

This illustrates one of the many dichotomies of modern militaries. Like high political office, high military rank attracts those who might not be tempermentally suited to fulfil the duties. Also, aspirants to high rank/position are required to expend at more time and energy pursuing the position than pursuing the education to fulfil the duties well. And in the military, there is a great deal of confusion about training, education, and the relevance of academic credentials to military competence. In Sanchez' defence, if Bremer had been as compentent a civilian diplomat and political leader as Sanchez was an officer, things would have gone better for everyone.

(Did I really just defend Sanchez? Time for a theraputic dose of bourbon.)

[TT]

Van posted: Article 5 of the NATO treaty states that if any member is attacked, all the NATO members will individually and collectively counter-attack. Failure by any NATO member (except France, 'cause they're special and have an exemption) to counter-attack the AQ base in Afghanistan after 9-11 was a violation of the treaty.

I mean no offence, Van, but your comment invokes an all too common misperception that I feel compelled to rectify. I am being overly pedantic here, but Art 5 does not require that, if invoked, all NATO members are legally required to use military force (or counterattack, as you say). What Art 5 says is, to quote (italics added);


The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, ….. will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
(Excerpted from Art 5 of The Washington Treaty 4 April 1949)


Simply put, a member state ‘could deem necessary only sending a get well card and sending the card would legally fulfill its Treaty obligations’ (this quote is from a NATO legal officer – so thanks to the LtCol for allowing me to use it). This ‘get out’ phrasing, so I have been given to understand, was used to facilitate the Truman Admin convincing the Senate to agree to the Treaty back in 1949 – so it was originally intended as a ‘get out’ for the US rather than for the Europeans. Of course, in ’49 the expectation was of Soviet aggression against NATO’s European member, not a direct attack against the US itself.

Much more important, however, in defence of the Europeans, many of them were willing to send combat forces to fight in Afghanistan in 2001 under Art 5. As one example, the Schroeder gov’t went to the Bundestag (due to German constitution requirements relating to sending German forces abroad) where it pushed through a successful vote, which if it had lost would have been a ‘vote of no confidence’ for Schroeder (and the vote barely passed), to send German combat forces (around 2000 in number, IIRC) to fight in Afghanistan with the US and NATO. The response of the Bush Admin was ‘Don’t call us, we will call you’ –and we all know the Bush Admin did not call. The Italians had a similar experience and the French were eager to be involved (they eventually were allowed send air forces and did [were allowed to?] drop ‘a’ bomb somewhere in the vicinity of Mazar-i-sharif in the north).

Simply put, the Bush admin decided to operate in Afghanistan with a ‘coalition of the willing’ rather than through NATO under Art 5 (which would have made it a NATO rather than US led operation) – and most European militaries were not invited to participate except in supporting roles (if that).

So, that NATO’s European members did not contribute combat forces was not a violation of the Treaty, primarily because the Bush admin decided in essence not to accept the help many of them offered under the invocation of Art 5 with respect to combat operations in Afghanistan (NATO did, for example, furnish a range of supporting activities, such as sending 5 of its AWACs to the US to provide air protection in 2001, to free up US AWACs for Central Asia). Worth noting in passing, I suppose, is that current NATO led ops in Afghanistan have not been authorized by the alliance under the aegis of the Art 5 invocation of 2001.

I’ll get off my hobby horse now. :o My deep apologies to all for being pedantic, way off topic.

[Bullmoose Bailey]

I'm waiting for the first review to point out that the dustjacket blurbs are the high point of the book.

Is it up on Amazon yet for our own peer review ?

[Bullmoose Bailey]

For those who are wading their way through this tome, what's up with the title, "Wiser in Battle"?

I can imagine a title like "Wiser From Battle," in which our dedicated scribe chronicles how he gained his wisdom or personal philosophy from battle.

But is there any evidence that Sanchez was wiser than anyone else in battle?

Very good point.

I am planning to read this book, I read almost all books published by Generals NATO & Warsaw Pact Generals.

Seperately I somewhat agree with the General on the planning issue, seems like it wasn't done. I just thought Secy. Rumsfeld shouldn't have waved off the State Dept, as he did according to Woodward.