Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 42

Thread: General Sanchez and the Blame Game

  1. #21
    Council Member Van's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Posts
    414

    Default Therapy may be required

    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

  2. #22
    Council Member kehenry1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Kansas City, Missouri
    Posts
    89

    Default Dirty...

    Please warn me next time that looking up such things might be not for public consumption...
    Kat-Missouri

  3. #23
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    489

    Default

    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...
    "Speak English! said the Eaglet. "I don't know the meaning of half those long words, and what's more, I don't believe you do either!"

    The Eaglet from Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland

  4. #24
    Council Member kehenry1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Kansas City, Missouri
    Posts
    89

    Default Dirty...

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

  5. #25
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default I'm with you, Kat -- I didn't know either

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

  6. #26
    Council Member J Wolfsberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    806

    Default

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

    An unruffled person with some useful skills.

  7. #27
    Council Member Van's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Posts
    414

    Default

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

    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?

  8. #28
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    567

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger View Post
    I didn't know, and it is WAY more information than I needed.
    Then do not, repeat DO NOT, look up a rusty trombone.
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    Sometimes it takes someone without deep experience to think creatively.

  9. #29
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default That resonates...

    ..........

  10. #30
    Council Member Ron Humphrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    1,099

    Post I'm looking forward to it

    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
    Any man can destroy that which is around him, The rare man is he who can find beauty even in the darkest hours

    Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur

  11. #31
    Council Member SteveMetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Carlisle, PA
    Posts
    1,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Van View Post
    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

  12. #32
    Council Member MattC86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    REMFing it up in DC
    Posts
    250

    Default Couldn't We Get One of These Someday?



    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
    "Give a good leader very little and he will succeed. Give a mediocrity a great deal and he will fail." - General George C. Marshall

  13. #33
    Council Member Van's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Posts
    414

    Default

    --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.

  14. #34
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    567

    Default

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Van View Post
    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?
    Last edited by Rank amateur; 05-16-2008 at 12:32 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    Sometimes it takes someone without deep experience to think creatively.

  15. #35
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    489

    Default

    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.
    "Speak English! said the Eaglet. "I don't know the meaning of half those long words, and what's more, I don't believe you do either!"

    The Eaglet from Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland

  16. #36
    Council Member Ron Humphrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    1,099

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Rank amateur View Post
    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)

    Quote Originally Posted by Rank amateur View Post
    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
    Any man can destroy that which is around him, The rare man is he who can find beauty even in the darkest hours

    Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur

  17. #37
    Council Member Tacitus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Bristol, Tennessee
    Posts
    146

    Default Now about this title...

    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?
    Last edited by Tacitus; 05-16-2008 at 06:57 PM. Reason: a tornado warning
    No signature required, my handshake is good enough.

  18. #38
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    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...

  19. #39
    Council Member Van's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Posts
    414

    Default

    "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.)
    Last edited by Van; 05-16-2008 at 10:54 PM. Reason: Questioning my sanity, such as it is.

  20. #40
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    129

    Default To digress wildly from the main topic of this thread….

    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. My deep apologies to all for being pedantic, way off topic.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •