His tour in command was a period of time from the beginnings of the Baathist insurgency, to the capture of Saddam, to the spring jihadi-Sadr revolt, and the beginning of a transitional Iraqi government. The overblown Abu Ghraib incident took place on his watch and unfairly killed his Army career. I thank him for his service and regret he was a casualty of events that would be considered tame compared to some college fraternity initiation rituals.
So he could be a bit bitter, no? So when I first read that he was down on the war, given his service I did not want to savage him for appearing to turn on the war. I was disappointed that a retired soldier had been elevated by the anti-war press into another saint because he turned on the war.
This article, for example, says:
The U.S. mission in Iraq is a "nightmare with no end in sight" because of political misjudgments after the fall of Saddam Hussein that continue today, a former chief of U.S.-led forces said Friday.
The Washington Post similarly highlights this quote in an article that portrays Sanchez as condemning the Iraq War.
The only problem is, this isn't what Sanchez said in his speech that is the subject of the recent media reports. Oh, the quote is right. But the context is wrong.
The press got it wrong despite the fact that they were sitting right there listening and taking notes.
Which is only appropriated since Sanchez began his speech with a condemnation of our press corps. Indeed, in his initial remarks, he does appear quite bitter at the press over the damage to his reputation over Abu Ghraib.
But when he gets past his complaints about the press regarding himself, he broadens his critique, concluding this about the collective impact of flawed reporting (Oh, and the al-caps is the way the transcript is presented. Sorry. I wasn't about to retype it):
ALL OF THESE CHALLENGES COMBINED CREATE A MEDIA ENVIRONMENT THAT DOES A TREMENDOUS DISSERVICE TO AMERICA. OVER THE COURSE OF THIS WAR TACTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT EVENTS HAVE BECOME STRATEGIC DEFEATS FOR AMERICA BECAUSE OF THE TREMENDOUS POWER AND IMPACT OF THE MEDIA AND BY EXTENSION YOU THE JOURNALIST. IN MANY CASES THE MEDIA HAS UNJUSTLY DESTROYED THE INDIVIDUAL REPUTATIONS AND CAREERS OF THOSE INVOLVED. WE REALIZE THAT BECAUSE OF THE NEAR REAL TIME REPORTING ENVIRONMENT THAT YOU FACE IT IS DIFFICULT TO REPORT ACCURATELY. IN MY BUSINESS ONE OF OUR FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS IS THAT "THE FIRST REPORT IS ALWAYS WRONG." UNFORTUNATELY, IN YOUR BUSINESS "THE FIRST REPORT" GIVES AMERICANS WHO RELY ON THE SNIPPETS OF CNN, IF YOU WILL, THEIR "TRUTHS" AND PERSPECTIVES ON AN ISSUE. AS A COROLLARY TO THIS DEADLINE DRIVEN NEED TO PUBLISH "INITIAL IMPRESSIONS OR OBSERVATIONS" VERSUS OBJECTIVE FACTS THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL CHALLENGE FOR US WHO ARE THE SUBJECT OF YOUR REPORTING. WHEN YOU ASSUME THAT YOU ARE CORRECT AND ON THE MORAL HIGH GROUND ON A STORY BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT RESPOND TO QUESTIONS YOU PROVIDED IS THE ULTIMATE ARROGANCE AND DISTORTION OF ETHICS. ...
THE DEATH KNELL OF YOUR ETHICS HAS BEEN ENABLED BY YOUR PARENT ORGANIZATIONS WHO HAVE CHOSEN TO ALIGN THEMSELVES WITH POLITICAL AGENDAS. WHAT IS CLEAR TO ME IS THAT YOU ARE PERPETUATING THE CORROSIVE PARTISAN POLITICS THAT IS DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY AND KILLING OUR SERVICEMEMBERS WHO ARE AT WAR.
MY ASSESSMENT IS THAT YOUR PROFESSION, TO SOME EXTENT, HAS STRAYED FROM THESE ETHICAL STANDARDS AND ALLOWED EXTERNAL AGENDAS TO MANIPULATE WHAT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC SEES ON TV, WHAT THEY READ IN OUR NEWSPAPERS AND WHAT THEY SEE ON THE WEB. FOR SOME OF YOU, JUST LIKE SOME OF OUR POLITICIANS, THE TRUTH IS OF LITTLE TO NO VALUE IF IT DOES NOT FIT YOUR OWN PRECONCIEVED NOTIONS, BIASES AND AGENDAS.
IT IS ASTOUNDING TO ME WHEN I HEAR THE VEHEMENT DISAGREEMENT WITH THE MILITARY'S FORAYS INTO INFORMATION OPERATIONS THAT SEEK TO DISSEMINATE THE TRUTH AND INFORM THE IRAQI PEOPLE IN ORDER TO COUNTER OUR ENEMY'S BLATANT PROPAGANDA. AS I ASSESS VARIOUS MEDIA ENTITIES, SOME ARE UNQUESTIONABLY ENGAGED IN POLITICAL PROPAGANDA THAT IS UNCONTROLLED.
He sees the press as abandoning actual reporting in favor of trying to promote a result that aligns with political forces opposed to the war and in practice aiding our enemies (See this related story on this shameful subject regarding the Medal of Honor for Navy SEAL Lt. Michael Murphy).
It was only after these points that Sanchez addressed the war we are in. And it was about far more than just Iraq.
He said that war is an extension of politics by other means. Classic Von Clausewitz, here. And unless a military commander is given the authority to wield all the elements of national power to achieve victory, he said the military's narrow military contribution to total national power cannot win the war.
Said Sanchez:
AFTER MORE THAN FOUR YEARS OF FIGHTING, AMERICA CONTINUES ITS DESPERATE STRUGGLE IN IRAQ WITHOUT ANY CONCERTED EFFORT TO DEVISE A STRATEGY THAT WILL ACHIEVE "VICTORY" IN THAT WAR TORN COUNTRY OR IN THE GREATER CONFLICT AGAINST EXTREMISM.
Thus, the war he speaks about is Iraq and the wider war. He believes that we have not made a concerted effort in Iraq to apply all elements of our national power, as our leaders in World War II understood, and that this is caused by a crisis in leadership in America:
SINCE 2003, THE POLITICS OF WAR HAVE BEEN CHARACTERIZED BY PARTISANSHIP AS THE REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC PARTIES STRUGGLED FOR POWER IN WASHINGTON. NATIONAL EFFORTS TO DATE HAVE BEEN CORRUPTED BY PARTISAN POLITICS THAT HAVE PREVENTED US FROM DEVISING EFFECTIVE, EXECUTABLE, SUPPORTABLE SOLUTIONS.
Sanchez recognizes that we don't control a sovereign Iraqi government, so applying all elements of national power is difficult under our present circumstances. Our troops will still be able to fight, make progress, and so buy time for other elements to have an effect, he said. Iraq would be far worse if our troops weren't fighting so well. The real problem?
CLEARLY, MISTAKES HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE AMERICAN MILITARY IN ITS APPLICATION OF POWER BUT EVEN ITS GREATEST FAILURES IN THIS WAR CAN BE LINKED TO AMERICA'S LACK OF COMMITMENT, PRIORITY AND MORAL COURAGE IN THIS WAR EFFORT.
Here we see his main criticism, related to his complaint that all elements of national power aren't committed--that our nation as a whole is not committed to the war. Shoot, since summer 2003, I've complained that the President and his administration have not hammered to our public on the need to fight and win the war in Iraq. I appreciate his belief that we are not sufficiently focused on the war and aware of the dangers we face if we do not win.
Sanchez may appear to digress from this point with a complaint that our ground forces will take a decade after Iraq to regain full-spectrum combat capabilities. The focus on counter-insurgency to win the war in Iraq and our small number of ground combat units mean that almost all our units must neglect conventional combat to fight as well as they have in Iraq.
But given Sanchez's comments on World War II and national commitment, it is clear that he believes our leaders should have mobilized our nation for a large and long fight. Had we vastly increased our Army's size under national mobilization, Sanchez clearly believes, we could fight in Iraq without leaving us with no conventional warfighting ground units.
Now, I have a fundamental disagreement with Sanchez here. We could not mobilize as we did for World War II because our current war is not against enemies with capitals we can conquer and armies, fleets, and air forces that must be defeated in battle. We are in a long ideological struggle that includes military action. So we must husband our nation's ability to struggle over a long period of time--decades perhaps. A World War II-style mobilization concept would simply lead us to wasting resources and burning out our will to struggle very quickly. A World War II-style mobilization assumes there is a single tangible target we can focus our national resources on.
Sanchez makes this clear here when he addresses what we need to do in Iraq absent the national mobilization he wants:
GIVEN THE LACK OF A GRAND STRATEGY WE MUST MOVE RAPIDLY TO MINIMIZE THAT FORCE PRESENCE AND ALLOW THE IRAQIS MAXIMUM ABILITY TO EXERCISE THEIR SOVERIEGNTY IN ACHIEVING A SOLUTION.
AT NO TIME IN AMERICA'S HISTORY HAS THERE BEEN A GREATER NEED FOR BIPARTISAN COOPERATION. THE THREAT OF EXTREMISM IS REAL AND DEMANDS UNIFIED ACTION AT THE SAME LEVELS DEMONSTRATED BY OUR FOREFATHERS DURING WORLD WAR I AND WORLD WAR II. AMERICA HAS FAILED TO DATE.
Here Sanchez clearly links Iraq and the wider war. But the press seems to have had difficulty transitioning between his points on Iraq and those about the wider war. Since we have not created a larger military as part of a mobilization effort, Sanchez thinks we must help the Iraqi fight on their own so we can draw down our troops strength in Iraq in order to wage the wider war against [Islamic] extremism.
And reagarding Iraq, he condemns the inadequate military contributions of allies--which he still calls "THE MOST EXTENSIVE, PRODUCTIVE AND EFFECTIVE DEPLOYMENT OF FORCES IN DECADES"--as a failing of our leaders to mobilize the nation and lead an alliance that fights with us rather than merely deploys with us to watch us fight.
His bottom line:
AMERICA HAS SENT OUR SOLDIERS OFF TO WAR AND THEY MUST BE SUPPORTED AT ALL COSTS UNTIL WE ACHIEVE VICTORY OR UNTIL OUR POLITICAL LEADERS DECIDE TO BRING THEM HOME. OUR POLITICAL AND MILITARY LEADERS OWE THE SOLDIER ON THE BATTLEFIELD THE STRATEGY, THE POLICIES AND THE RESOURCES TO WIN ONCE COMMITTED TO WAR. AMERICA HAS NOT BEEN FULLY COMMITTED TO WIN THIS WAR.
Fight until we win is what he expects.
Which brings us back to the part of the speech that the headline statement of the AP article I first quoted:
THERE HAS BEEN A GLARING, UNFORTUNATE, DISPLAY OF INCOMPETENT STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP WITHIN OUR NATIONAL LEADERS. AS A JAPANESE PROVERB SAYS, "ACTION WITHOUT VISION IS A NIGHTMARE." THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT AMERICA IS LIVING A NIGHTMARE WITH NO END IN SIGHT.
Far from a condemnation of the President and his administration, our global war's objectives, or even the prospect of achieving success in Iraq, it is a plea for a full war effort by our nation for the wider war on extremists.
And it is a condemnation of our politicians who neglect a national war effort to promote their partisan domestic goals at the expense of troops fighting and dying in the field. It is a plea to win this war.
Oh, and he condemned a press corps that couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel.
Funny how the press didn't pick up on these nuances. I guess these angles of the speech didn't penetrate the press corps' preconceived notion, biases, and agendas. Hey, the press had their "defeat quote" from one of our generals and then the story wrote itself!
But what do I know? I'm not a trained journalist who was just sitting in the damned audience listening to Sanchez.
I'm just able to read the English language. (And right before I hit the publish post button, as I waited for midnight to post, I notice that Wretchard too can read English.)
