Former top General in Iraq blast Bush admin 4 creating Iraq Nightmare

[Gunny]

we are not talking about the tactical level, however.... this really boils down to the upper stratosphere of the strategic level. Do you honestly think that any flag officer is going to inspire confidence if he does not, himself, think the battle ought to be fought?

Do you think that Robert E. Lee or Patton or Montgomery or Kingston or Petraeus, for that matter, did not take ownership in their missions?

You're comparing apples to oranges, IMO. Robert E Lee carried out his own strategy as did Patton and Montgomery was damned proud of his "Bridge Too Far" debacle (before the end result).

We KNOW the strategy in Iraq is being formulated by politicians, not professional military personnel. The military personnel I was around throughout the 90s, from the Company level to HQMC all believed leaving Saddam in place was the lesser of two evils.

While I am quite sure military personnel have been asked to formulate strategies in Iraq, I am just as sure they've been bled all over with a red pen for political considerations.

All moral whining aside, any military strategy would include sealing off borders and rooting the enemy out no matter where found and doing what is necessary to secure the AO.

That's not what's been, nor being done.

 

[maineman]

Therein lies one of the problems of leadership. Carrying out/having carried out orders that suck. A good Marine can do so without letting his subordiantes know he disagrees.

Bitches go UP the chain, not down.

of course. and bitches stay inside the corps as well, don't they?

 

[maineman]

How'd the Weapons Officer get put in charge of BM's?

1stLt's in the Navy are Ensigns, not 1stLts.

On the surface, I would say you believe the XO did it right because he did not blame the order on the Capt. He also did not claim the idea as his own. He gave an order without assigning ownership of the idea.

I would also say that the XO is probably a pilot if he thinks a rocket launcher can be used to remove just the paint.

OK... a little training for jarheads who think they know what the fuck they are talking about when it comes to nautical terminology.

1. Weapons Officers on destroyers are department heads and the divisions in their departments include, besides pure weapons delivery and fire control system organizations, the deck force. The TITLE of the division officer of the deck force on a combatant (and, similarly, the TITLE of the department head of the deck department on a non-combatant ship) is the FIRST LIEUTENANT. (kinda like the TITLE for the guy in charge of a navy ship is THE CAPTAIN, even if he is of lesser rank than captain (O-5) which, as we all know, is not the same thing as a marine corps captain (O-3) the navy equivalent of which is a Lieutenant.

2. As far as ranks go, 1st Lt.s (O-2's) in the navy are NOT ensigns (they are comparable to 2nd LT's (O-1's) O-2's in the navy are Lieutenant Junior Grades (LTJG's)

and go read what the fuck I wrote and not what the douchebag SR wrote vis a vis rocket launchers.

 

[SR_fullpolitics]

OK... a little training for jarheads who think they know what the fuck they are talking about when it comes to nautical terminology.

1. Weapons Officers on destroyers are department heads and the divisions in their departments include, besides pure weapons delivery and fire control system organizations, the deck force. The TITLE of the division officer of the deck force on a combatant (and, similarly, the TITLE of the department head of the deck department on a non-combatant ship) is the FIRST LIEUTENANT. (kinda like the TITLE for the guy in charge of a navy ship is THE CAPTAIN, even if he is of lesser rank than captain (O-5) which, as we all know, is not the same thing as a marine corps captain (O-3) the navy equivalent of which is a Lieutenant.

2. As far as ranks go, 1st Lt.s (O-2's) in the navy are NOT ensigns (they are comparable to 2nd LT's (O-1's) O-2's in the navy are Lieutenant Junior Grades (LTJG's)

and go read what the fuck I wrote and not what the douchebag SR wrote vis a vis rocket launchers.

maineman,

Your parable isnt/wasnt relevant to the topic at hand. General Sanchez was given a task, his responsibility wasnt to follow the tactical directions of his civilian leadership, his responsibility was to DIRECT the tactical implementation of his civilian leaderships strategic aims. That much he owns, and his performance and the results of his performance should not speak towards his leaderships decisions. it doesnt make any sense.

My version of your parable is exactly what has occurred with General Sanchez isnt it? Someone above him made a decision, he then implemented that decision very poorly (im sure we can agree his performance wasnt the greatest) and now he's railing out against the person who tasked him with the job because of HIS OWN RESULTS.

Wheres your accountability for this guy?

And by the way, why call me a douche bag? i havent attacked you or called you any names?

SR

 

[Gunny]

OK... a little training for jarheads who think they know what the fuck they are talking about when it comes to nautical terminology.

1. Weapons Officers on destroyers are department heads and the divisions in their departments include, besides pure weapons delivery and fire control system organizations, the deck force. The TITLE of the division officer of the deck force on a combatant (and, similarly, the TITLE of the department head of the deck department on a non-combatant ship) is the FIRST LIEUTENANT. (kinda like the TITLE for the guy in charge of a navy ship is THE CAPTAIN, even if he is of lesser rank than captain (O-5) which, as we all know, is not the same thing as a marine corps captain (O-3) the navy equivalent of which is a Lieutenant.

2. As far as ranks go, 1st Lt.s (O-2's) in the navy are NOT ensigns (they are comparable to 2nd LT's (O-1's) O-2's in the navy are Lieutenant Junior Grades (LTJG's)

and go read what the fuck I wrote and not what the douchebag SR wrote vis a vis rocket launchers.

I defer to your inside knowledge. I was just along for the rides anyway.

Never been on a noncombat ship except to go fishing.

 

[maineman]

maineman,

Your parable isnt/wasnt relevant to the topic at hand. General Sanchez was given a task, his responsibility wasnt to follow the tactical directions of his civilian leadership, his responsibility was to DIRECT the tactical implementation of his civilian leaderships strategic aims. That much he owns, and his performance and the results of his performance should not speak towards his leaderships decisions. it doesnt make any sense.

My version of your parable is exactly what has occurred with General Sanchez isnt it? Someone above him made a decision, he then implemented that decision very poorly (im sure we can agree his performance wasnt the greatest) and now he's railing out against the person who tasked him with the job because of HIS OWN RESULTS.

Wheres your accountability for this guy?

And by the way, why call me a douche bag? i havent attacked you or called you any names?

SR

when you "quote" me and change the words that I wrote, folks like gunny give ME shit about rocket launchers.....

and regarding Sanchez's performance, if my strategic mission for you was to empty out the ocean with a teacup, I am sure that your implementation of that mission would be equally shitty.

I have said all along that the strategic goals in Iraq were not appropriate for the US military...and asking them to accomplish those goals is not different than asking pigs to fly. The best damned pig on the planet who tries his damnedest to accomplish the mission, ain't gonna fly. And that is NOT the pig's fault

 

[maineman]

I defer to your inside knowledge. I was just along for the rides anyway.

Never been on a noncombat ship except to go fishing.

how did you get from point a to point b if not on a gator freighter?

Those amphibious ships - and auxiliaries like ammo ships and oilers - are called non-combatants, and the deck officer on a non-combatant is a department head and not merely a division officer.. and yet both of them are FIRST LIEUTENANTS!

from wikipedia
US Navy and US Coast Guard
In the United States Navy, First Lieutenant is a position title and is held by the officer in command of the Deck department. On smaller ships, a First Lieutenant holds the rank of Lieutenant Junior Grade or Ensign. On larger vessels, the position is held by a Lieutenant or, in the case of extremely large warships such as aircraft carriers, a Lieutenant Commander or even full Commander. However, on US submarines, where the deck department may only have a few junior sailors, the First Lieutenant may be a senior enlisted member, such as a first class petty officer or chief petty officer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Lieutenant#US_Navy_and_US_Coast_Guard

 

[Gunny]

when you "quote" me and change the words that I wrote, folks like gunny give ME shit about rocket launchers.....

and regarding Sanchez's performance, if my strategic mission for you was to empty out the ocean with a teacup, I am sure that your implementation of that mission would be equally shitty.

I have said all along that the strategic goals in Iraq were not appropriate for the US military...and asking them to accomplish those goals is not different than asking pigs to fly. The best damned pig on the planet who tries his damnedest to accomplish the mission, ain't gonna fly. And that is NOT the pig's fault

I have never given you shit about rocket launchers ... although I WOULD be scared to see one in your hands ...

Any strategic goals there may be take a back seat to political goals ... and THAT is why it doesn't fly.

 

[maineman]

I was referring to this little jibe:

I would also say that the XO is probably a pilot if he thinks a rocket launcher can be used to remove just the paint.

and we are in agreement that the US military is not equipped to achieve political objectives.

 

[Gunny]

how did you get from point a to point b if not on a gator freighter?

Those amphibious ships - and auxiliaries like ammo ships and oilers - are called non-combatants, and the deck officer on a non-combatant is a department head and not merely a division officer.. and yet both of them are FIRST LIEUTENANTS!

from wikipedia
US Navy and US Coast Guard
In the United States Navy, First Lieutenant is a position title and is held by the officer in command of the Deck department. On smaller ships, a First Lieutenant holds the rank of Lieutenant Junior Grade or Ensign. On larger vessels, the position is held by a Lieutenant or, in the case of extremely large warships such as aircraft carriers, a Lieutenant Commander or even full Commander. However, on US submarines, where the deck department may only have a few junior sailors, the First Lieutenant may be a senior enlisted member, such as a first class petty officer or chief petty officer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Lieutenant#US_Navy_and_US_Coast_Guard

You call LHAs/LHDs non-combat ships? They're small carriers and have more firepower than a WWII bomber squadron.

I have never heard a Naval officer addressed as First Leutenant. Sorry. Not saying you're wrong ... just saying I never heard it. I really never paid attention the ship's organization anyway.

I consider not remembering the Naval chain of command a sign of old age. I completely forgot there was such thing as a LTjg.

 

[maineman]

I have never given you shit about rocket launchers ... although I WOULD be scared to see one in your hands ...

you would be surprised to know that I fired the very first ever Harpoon missile warshot launched in open ocean. 1977

 

[Gunny]

you would be surprised to know that I fired the very first ever Harpoon missile warshot launched in open ocean. 1977

ummm ..... did you get the paint off anything?

 

[SR_fullpolitics]

when you "quote" me and change the words that I wrote, folks like gunny give ME shit about rocket launchers.....

and regarding Sanchez's performance, if my strategic mission for you was to empty out the ocean with a teacup, I am sure that your implementation of that mission would be equally shitty.

I have said all along that the strategic goals in Iraq were not appropriate for the US military...and asking them to accomplish those goals is not different than asking pigs to fly. The best damned pig on the planet who tries his damnedest to accomplish the mission, ain't gonna fly. And that is NOT the pig's fault

And heres where me and you disagree. If you gave me a mission to empty out the ocean with a teacup, I, IN MY COMMAND POST would make it clear to your associates (Senators, Congressmen, etc..), as well as yourself that I need more than tea cup. ESPECIALLY if the lives of those under my command were at stake and were dying to accomplish this task. THAT WAS HIS JOB maineman. No one told him what to do, he's trained, he's educated, he's supposed to LEAD and he's supposed to implement the policies of this nation. If he makes mistakes and does a poor job, the results speak to his professional ability and that should be fine with him as a military man. But evidently it is not, he feels like the poor state which is a result of his performance in large part is the fault of those above him who made the strategic decision. Again we're back to the guy who formulated new coke, which no one liked, and then him arguing that because no one liked what he created that it was the fault of those above him for making that decision.

What if he had done a better job? What if he had spoken up if he felt he needed more? what if he had succeeded in his mission instead of doing such a poor job?

what if people had liked new coke?

Would he then be a hero? The decisions would have then been correct by his leadership? This is the problem maineman. If he felt like his mission was too hard for him, he shouldve stepped down, if he felt like he was not being provided the resources necessary he shouldve spoke up or resigned.

Instead I think he liked being a general, and I think although men were dying he was more content on being a General than speaking up or out. You seem to think that that isnt his job, you seem to think he's supposed to own the decisions of his higher ups. I disagree. He should own his implementations of those strategic aims, and if he isnt getting what he's wanting then he needs to do what is right. He does not have to disagree with his chain of command, he does not need to own their visions, but if you task me with emptying the ocean, and men are dying because im not given the resources then Im going to do what is necessary to fix that...not what is necessary to remain in my position.

SR

A

 

[Gunny]

And heres where me and you disagree. If you gave me a mission to empty out the ocean with a teacup, I, IN MY COMMAND POST would make it clear to your associates (Senators, Congressmen, etc..), as well as yourself that I need more than tea cup. ESPECIALLY if the lives of those under my command were at stake and were dying to accomplish this task. THAT WAS HIS JOB maineman. No one told him what to do, he's trained, he's educated, he's supposed to LEAD and he's supposed to implement the policies of this nation. If he makes mistakes and does a poor job, the results speak to his professional ability and that should be fine with him as a military man. But evidently it is not, he feels like the poor state which is a result of his performance in large part is the fault of those above him who made the strategic decision. Again we're back to the guy who formulated new coke, which no one liked, and then him arguing that because no one liked what he created that it was the fault of those above him for making that decision.

What if he had done a better job? What if he had spoken up if he felt he needed more? what if he had succeeded in his mission instead of doing such a poor job?

what if people had liked new coke?

Would he then be a hero? The decisions would have then been correct by his leadership? This is the problem maineman. If he felt like his mission was too hard for him, he shouldve stepped down, if he felt like he was not being provided the resources necessary he shouldve spoke up or resigned.

Instead I think he liked being a general, and I think although men were dying he was more content on being a General than speaking up or out. You seem to think that that isnt his job, you seem to think he's supposed to own the decisions of his higher ups. I disagree. He should own his implementations of those strategic aims, and if he isnt getting what he's wanting then he needs to do what is right. He does not have to disagree with his chain of command, he does not need to own their visions, but if you task me with emptying the ocean, and men are dying because im not given the resources then Im going to do what is necessary to fix that...not what is necessary to remain in my position.

SR

A

Y'know, y'all BOTH have valid points.

But, let's assume he did exactly as you say ... bitched up the chain of command and the response he got was "That's nice, now carry on"?

What EXACTLY are you going to do to "fix" that?

 

[maineman]

And heres where me and you disagree. If you gave me a mission to empty out the ocean with a teacup, I, IN MY COMMAND POST would make it clear to your associates (Senators, Congressmen, etc..), as well as yourself that I need more than tea cup. ESPECIALLY if the lives of those under my command were at stake and were dying to accomplish this task. THAT WAS HIS JOB maineman. No one told him what to do, he's trained, he's educated, he's supposed to LEAD and he's supposed to implement the policies of this nation. If he makes mistakes and does a poor job, the results speak to his professional ability and that should be fine with him as a military man. But evidently it is not, he feels like the poor state which is a result of his performance in large part is the fault of those above him who made the strategic decision. Again we're back to the guy who formulated new coke, which no one liked, and then him arguing that because no one liked what he created that it was the fault of those above him for making that decision.

What if he had done a better job? What if he had spoken up if he felt he needed more? what if he had succeeded in his mission instead of doing such a poor job?

what if people had liked new coke?

Would he then be a hero? The decisions would have then been correct by his leadership? This is the problem maineman. If he felt like his mission was too hard for him, he shouldve stepped down, if he felt like he was not being provided the resources necessary he shouldve spoke up or resigned.

Instead I think he liked being a general, and I think although men were dying he was more content on being a General than speaking up or out. You seem to think that that isnt his job, you seem to think he's supposed to own the decisions of his higher ups. I disagree. He should own his implementations of those strategic aims, and if he isnt getting what he's wanting then he needs to do what is right. He does not have to disagree with his chain of command, he does not need to own their visions, but if you task me with emptying the ocean, and men are dying because im not given the resources then Im going to do what is necessary to fix that...not what is necessary to remain in my position.

SR

A

those are your opinions...and fresh out of boot camp, filled with piss and vinegar and idealism, I am sure you think they are correct. I disagree...and the red sox are coming back in the late innings against the indians so I must be on my way - priorities!

 

[SR_fullpolitics]

Y'know, y'all BOTH have valid points.

But, let's assume he did exactly as you say ... bitched up the chain of command and the response he got was "That's nice, now carry on"?

What EXACTLY are you going to do to "fix" that?

Well, to be honest his chain of command going UP, isnt that far. It seems hard to imagine that if he proposed tactics and asked for resources that someone above him would simply shoot him down off hand.

But in addition to this, he was asked directly by Congressmen and Senators if what was being provided was enough, if what was being done was enough.

I personally dont believe that he lied to anyone up his chain of command or to members of Congress, or to the president. Sadly my theory is that he just wasnt that good a General. Which is more plausible than any other explanation.

The reason for this is that his comments are almost exclusively without accountability for his own performance. And in addition he didnt speak to ANY efforts on his part to change a direction with an adverse result. This isnt hypothetical, this is something that can be directly addressed. It would be different if his comments included scenarios where he referenced a time where he voiced something and was denied. Even at this stage when mens lives are on the line he should not withold such information.

He calls for people to be held to account, but lacks his own accountability which makes his entire rant suspect, especially based on his performance.

SR

 

[Gunny]

those are your opinions...and fresh out of boot camp, filled with piss and vinegar and idealism, I am sure you think they are correct. I disagree...and the red sox are coming back in the late innings against the indians so I must be on my way - priorities!

I wish I was fresh out of boot camp again. I still had hair!

 

[SR_fullpolitics]

those are your opinions...and fresh out of boot camp, filled with piss and vinegar and idealism, I am sure you think they are correct. I disagree...and the red sox are coming back in the late innings against the indians so I must be on my way - priorities!

the only problem is these opinions are not idealistic.

Theyre based in fact and whats been said on the record.

Did the General say he was denied resources?
Did the General say that the SecDef decided against his tactical plans in favor of his own?
Did the General mention any time he was told to tow the line?

In his latest rant, did he mention his own performance short comings? If they were his own, then it would make sense he wouldnt want to draw attention to that. If they were the fault of his higher ups, and with men in the line of fire, WHY WOULD he keep such damning evidence to himself?


Either he's a weak man, not strong enough to "own" his own performance, or he's a weak man, not strong enough to stand up for the men under his command and for the strength and success of his nation's interests, or he was neither and was shot down by his higher ups WHICH WOULD REQUIRE HIM TO RESIGN. If he has any moral strength at all, with men and women still at risk he would tell us what he was denied and by who.

These are just the facts of reality, they are not idealistic in anyway, anyone from any ideological bend can see a spade as a spade.

SR

 

[maineman]

You call LHAs/LHDs non-combat ships? They're small carriers and have more firepower than a WWII bomber squadron.

I have never heard a Naval officer addressed as First Leutenant. Sorry. Not saying you're wrong ... just saying I never heard it. I really never paid attention the ship's organization anyway.

I consider not remembering the Naval chain of command a sign of old age. I completely forgot there was such thing as a LTjg.

no naval officer is addressed as First Lieutenant. Officers in charge of deck divisions OR deck departments are THE First Lieutenant. It is not their rank, but their job title

 

[DeadCanDance]

the only problem is these opinions are not idealistic.

Theyre based in fact and whats been said on the record.

Did the General say he was denied resources?
Did the General say that the SecDef decided against his tactical plans in favor of his own?
Did the General mention any time he was told to tow the line?

In his latest rant, did he mention his own performance short comings? If they were his own, then it would make sense he wouldnt want to draw attention to that. If they were the fault of his higher ups, and with men in the line of fire, WHY WOULD he keep such damning evidence to himself?


Either he's a weak man, not strong enough to "own" his own performance, or he's a weak man, not strong enough to stand up for the men under his command and for the strength and success of his nation's interests, or he was neither and was shot down by his higher ups WHICH WOULD REQUIRE HIM TO RESIGN. If he has any moral strength at all, with men and women still at risk he would tell us what he was denied and by who.

These are just the facts of reality, they are not idealistic in anyway, anyone from any ideological bend can see a spade as a spade.

SR

Did the General say he was denied resources?
Did the General say that the SecDef decided against his tactical plans in favor of his own?

Paul Bremer - Bush's top man in Iraq - says both he and General Sanchez requested more troops back in 2004:

Paul Bremer's Meeting Notes:

On May 17 [2004], I had a meeting with General Sanchez to discuss the war.

What would you do if you had two more divisions, Rick? I asked him.

He was a practical soldier who didn't normally speculate about the hypothetical when there were so many concrete problems to address each day.

But he answered immediately. "I'd control Baghdad."

He hated the fact the insurgents seemed able to operate openly in the capital....

On May 18, I gave Rice a heads-up that I intended to send Secretary Rumsfeld a very private message suggesting that the Coalition needed more troops....

That afternoon I sent my message to Rumsfeld. I noted that the deterioration of the security situation since April had made it clear, to me at least, that we were trying to cover too many fronts with too few resources....

I stressed that while I did not think our mission was on the brink, I felt we were in a dangerous situation. I recommended that he consider whether the Coalition could deploy one or two additional divisions for up to a year.

I verified that the secretary received my message. I did not hear back from him.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2006/01/new_bremer_book_challenges_sec_1.html