Please warn me next time that looking up such things might be not for public consumption...
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
Please warn me next time that looking up such things might be not for public consumption...
Kat-Missouri
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
Well, I deem somethings as a virtue and not knowing what that was definitely counts among them.
Kat-Missouri
and I'm not at all sure just how much better off I am now that I do know...
I didn't know, and it is WAY more information than I needed.
John Wolfsberger, Jr.
An unruffled person with some useful skills.
Sorry about that, Kat et al, I treasured my sadly departed naivete also
Check out the Amazon reivews of this dog.
He's clearly supporting someone's biases.Lt Gen Sanchez has a lot of moral courage to write this book. Every page you read brings you to respect him more.
So what do y'all think his agenda is, aside from trying to avoid being crucified in the history books?
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
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
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.--Possible position in Democratic administration
That book gave an interesting spin to. It only made me less forgiving of Clark's choice to place the interest of the EU ahead of U.S. interests.listening to someone directly... adds value to any opinions you have of them
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.
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?
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
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)
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
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.
Maybe it was an unattained goal...For those who are wading their way through this tome, what's up with the title, "Wiser in Battle"?
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."do you feel about NATO forces that put European interests above American interests in Afghanistan?"
Regarding Sanchez: Ski nailed it;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.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.
(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.
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);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.
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.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)
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