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

[Gunny]

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

Okay, you're a military person with a military mind, and you propose a sound military strategy and tactics to carry it out. Only that strategy and tactics are not politically correct, and don't mesh with the political goals of the administration. They get shot down before the ink is dry.

Congress is not in the General's Chain of Command. The President and SecDef are. Who are you loyal to?

Sanchez may or may not be right or wrong. I see sour grapes on his part, but that's not really what I'm arguing.

I'm asking YOU how YOU think you can go against the current administration (regardless who the President is), JCS because you have decided they are wrong but you are right?

If your complaints are shot down, what do you do? Retire? Go to the media? Go tell your command it's a f-d up deal but you're going to try it anyway?

Or do you suck it, "aye, aye, sir," step back, about face and carry on?

 

[SR_fullpolitics]

Okay, you're a military person with a military mind, and you propose a sound military strategy and tactics to carry it out. Only that strategy and tactics are not politically correct, and don't mesh with the political goals of the administration. They get shot down before the ink is dry.

My job is to make decisions and to develop the strategy and tactics to accomplish the mission. I have been schooled, trained, educated, everything else under the sun in how to do these things. If my ideas are not acceptable and I am the expert then WHY IN GODS NAME should i remain in command from my own perspective. If men are dying, and I believe that MY tactics will help solve the problem and I am told they are no good, then why would I remain in the position of being in command. A couple of incentives come to mind, none of them having to do with duty or honor.

Congress is not in the General's Chain of Command. The President and SecDef are. Who are you loyal to?

The truth. If the sec def tells me I cannot have more troops because it might cause a political uproar and cost the president his job, then so be it, I may get fired, I may resign, but at some point the nation should know that good men and women died while the secdef was worried about the presidents approval ratings. Nothing is stopping Sanchez from letting us know now. But my loyalty is to the mission, then the men. I follow the orders of my chain of command, there is no loyalty to any president or secdef, they come and go at the whims of others. If both civilians do not value my military expertise and do not agree with my tactical plans then why exactly should i be the commander to oversee a failed mission and the loss of valuable men and women in the process.

Sanchez may or may not be right or wrong. I see sour grapes on his part, but that's not really what I'm arguing.

I'm asking YOU how YOU think you can go against the current administration (regardless who the President is), JCS because you have decided they are wrong but you are right?

Again, why should I hold command if everyone has decided I am wrong? The only reason would be because I love being in command, that is not something I value in a good officer.

If your complaints are shot down, what do you do? Retire? Go to the media? Go tell your command it's a f-d up deal but you're going to try it anyway?

Or do you suck it, "aye, aye, sir," step back, about face and carry on?

If my requirements are not met, and I am failing in my mission, and theres no way for me to turn it around, the only to do is say "aye, aye, sir" and carry on, then im going to carry on doing something else.

And I think this is the point. Good officers want to lead, but not for the perks, instead they want to lead because its necessary, and the nation requires it. Accomplishing the mission is the number one goal, not remaining in command. Then after performance failures they certainly do not blame the people who task them if they did not perform well in the task.

Throughout our history great men have been tasked to do impossible things, they were supported, their ideas were listened too and without either they could not have been effective. Thats the nature of our system, we must support the men who we've charged with the tasks. If we dont they have the ability to speak out, if not the obligation to speak out on behalf of those they commanded and those they lost under that command. Without it, our system doesnt work. Without it, as maineman pointed out, every officer is just a liar. I dont believe thats the case. The General says he wants people held to account, well, I dont believe we should dismiss the people who make the strategic decisions based on the performance of those who implement with tactical ones...except when they leave incompetent men in charge of implementation or they deny competent men the tools and the resources to get the job done.

If the kind General would like to share these experiences of being denied the tools and the resources then by all means lets hear it. There has been a lot reported on the supposed career killer decisions if you opposed our civilian leadership. That may all be true, but if it is, and good military men save their own careers in favor of turning a blind eye to good tactical decisions, then the system truly is broken and we are in a whole heap of shit.

SR

 

[Gunny]

Okay, you're a military person with a military mind, and you propose a sound military strategy and tactics to carry it out. Only that strategy and tactics are not politically correct, and don't mesh with the political goals of the administration. They get shot down before the ink is dry.

My job is to make decisions and to develop the strategy and tactics to accomplish the mission. I have been schooled, trained, educated, everything else under the sun in how to do these things. If my ideas are not acceptable and I am the expert then WHY IN GODS NAME should i remain in command from my own perspective. If men are dying, and I believe that MY tactics will help solve the problem and I am told they are no good, then why would I remain in the position of being in command. A couple of incentives come to mind, none of them having to do with duty or honor.

Congress is not in the General's Chain of Command. The President and SecDef are. Who are you loyal to?

The truth. If the sec def tells me I cannot have more troops because it might cause a political uproar and cost the president his job, then so be it, I may get fired, I may resign, but at some point the nation should know that good men and women died while the secdef was worried about the presidents approval ratings. Nothing is stopping Sanchez from letting us know now. But my loyalty is to the mission, then the men. I follow the orders of my chain of command, there is no loyalty to any president or secdef, they come and go at the whims of others. If both civilians do not value my military expertise and do not agree with my tactical plans then why exactly should i be the commander to oversee a failed mission and the loss of valuable men and women in the process.

Sanchez may or may not be right or wrong. I see sour grapes on his part, but that's not really what I'm arguing.

I'm asking YOU how YOU think you can go against the current administration (regardless who the President is), JCS because you have decided they are wrong but you are right?

Again, why should I hold command if everyone has decided I am wrong? The only reason would be because I love being in command, that is not something I value in a good officer.

If your complaints are shot down, what do you do? Retire? Go to the media? Go tell your command it's a f-d up deal but you're going to try it anyway?

Or do you suck it, "aye, aye, sir," step back, about face and carry on?

If my requirements are not met, and I am failing in my mission, and theres no way for me to turn it around, the only to do is say "aye, aye, sir" and carry on, then im going to carry on doing something else.

And I think this is the point. Good officers want to lead, but not for the perks, instead they want to lead because its necessary, and the nation requires it. Accomplishing the mission is the number one goal, not remaining in command. Then after performance failures they certainly do not blame the people who task them if they did not perform well in the task.

Throughout our history great men have been tasked to do impossible things, they were supported, their ideas were listened too and without either they could not have been effective. Thats the nature of our system, we must support the men who we've charged with the tasks. If we dont they have the ability to speak out, if not the obligation to speak out on behalf of those they commanded and those they lost under that command. Without it, our system doesnt work. Without it, as maineman pointed out, every officer is just a liar. I dont believe thats the case. The General says he wants people held to account, well, I dont believe we should dismiss the people who make the strategic decisions based on the performance of those who implement with tactical ones...except when they leave incompetent men in charge of implementation or they deny competent men the tools and the resources to get the job done.

If the kind General would like to share these experiences of being denied the tools and the resources then by all means lets hear it. There has been a lot reported on the supposed career killer decisions if you opposed our civilian leadership. That may all be true, but if it is, and good military men save their own careers in favor of turning a blind eye to good tactical decisions, then the system truly is broken and we are in a whole heap of shit.

SR

Are you actually a Marine LCpl?

 

[SR_fullpolitics]

Are you actually a Marine LCpl?

Yes Gunnery Sergeant

SR

 

[Gunny]

Yes Gunnery Sergeant

SR

If my requirements are not met, and I am failing in my mission, and theres no way for me to turn it around, the only to do is say "aye, aye, sir" and carry on, then im going to carry on doing something else.

Not once in 20+ years did I consider quitting because things weren't going my way. I really don't recall things being my way much at all, either. I had to make do a lot. So did everyone else. The Marines are noted for it.

So I really don't understand the attitude in your statement. It wasn't anything I was ever taught in the Corps.

 

[SR_fullpolitics]

Not once in 20+ years did I consider quitting because things weren't going my way. I really don't recall things being my way much at all, either. I had to make do a lot. So did everyone else. The Marines are noted for it.

So I really don't understand the attitude in your statement. It wasn't anything I was ever taught in the Corps.

Gunnery Sergeant, not having things go your way and being denied the ability to accomplish whatever it is you were tasked to do are two different things. Adapting and overcoming is one thing, being put in a position of leadership with out the ABILITY or the RESOURCES is something that is totally different.

We are taught to adapt and overcome, but we are also trained, fed, housed, trained some more, armed, and prepared, as im sure you were. These abilities and resources give us the confidence to do whatever is asked, but if come civilian politician decided to tell us to go clear a village but said "Guns are very violent, we dont want to give you guns", then id be god damned if my Gunny wouldnt be kickin peoples ass UP the chain of command, his career be damned.

This situation is no different. And I dont believe you would look to your men and say "Well boys, sharpen your tooth pics we're doin this one without any weapons". I think you would agree that that isnt adapting and overcoming, thats a situation where duty demands you to do the right thing, and the right thing is not retaining your command while you lead a suicide charge with no hope of accomplishing the mission.

If you were charged with command and faced with leading a platoon, a company, a brigade, or a division of Marines into a hostile city and were denied your weapons by civilian leadership for whatever reason but was tasked with taking over the city, and you just said "well...aye, aye, sir" and led them into a slaughter and that was okay with you, then we are at the point where we are in a world of shit.

SR

 

[SR_fullpolitics]

Not once in 20+ years did I consider quitting because things weren't going my way. I really don't recall things being my way much at all, either. I had to make do a lot. So did everyone else. The Marines are noted for it.

So I really don't understand the attitude in your statement. It wasn't anything I was ever taught in the Corps.

In addition. With the top command spot in Iraq comes the power and the ability to influence in order to lead. A top commander resigning is not in any form taken as a measure of his desire to quit. It is his desire to protest what in his professional military expertise is something that is not right.

Make no mistake, if he was denied troops, or resources and he resigned, he would not be labeled a quitter, but I can damn sure see a different outcome in our elections and a much different tone from the next group of civilian leaders who do not choose to listen to sound military advice.

Which afterall is why we have the JCS, why we have our Commands, and why we have a dedicated and committed military system.

If we get to a point, where military leaders do not tell truth to power out of fear they will lose their jobs or it may be harmful to their careers, then we will be at a point where good Marines will die at a rate we cannot afford for missions that mean nothing to anyone.

We depend on those men in the upper stratosphere to give sound advice and to tell truth to power. The system doesnt work any other way.

And I did not suggest quiting because its too hard or im not getting my way.


SR

 

[Gunny]

In addition. With the top command spot in Iraq comes the power and the ability to influence in order to lead. A top commander resigning is not in any form taken as a measure of his desire to quit. It is his desire to protest what in his professional military expertise is something that is not right.

Make no mistake, if he was denied troops, or resources and he resigned, he would not be labeled a quitter, but I can damn sure see a different outcome in our elections and a much different tone from the next group of civilian leaders who do not choose to listen to sound military advice.

Which afterall is why we have the JCS, why we have our Commands, and why we have a dedicated and committed military system.

If we get to a point, where military leaders do not tell truth to power out of fear they will lose their jobs or it may be harmful to their careers, then we will be at a point where good Marines will die at a rate we cannot afford for missions that mean nothing to anyone.

We depend on those men in the upper stratosphere to give sound advice and to tell truth to power. The system doesnt work any other way.

And I did not suggest quiting because its too hard or im not getting my way.


SR

IMO, you are giving a CG more power than he/she has. Winning the war became secondary to politics starting with Truman and has changed little with few exceptions since.

Regardless what you wish to call it, resigning because you don't like the mission you've been handed is quitting.

 

[maineman]

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

and listen, corporal...like I said....you don't really know enough about the code of ethics in play for commissioned officers to be speaking with such supposed authority on this.

No active duty general would EVER say that the CinC or SECDEF "denied them resources".... they would have had a discussion about resources...the general would have made his case for why he needed more, and the civilian in charge would have made the decision. The general might argue, but the civilian in charge would have made his case and then reaffirmed the decision and, at that point, no one had "denied" anyone anything.... they had had a high level discussion and a decision had emerged.

No active duty general would EVER say that the SECDEF had decided against HIS tactical plans in favor of his own.... up until the decision about what tactical plan will be used is made, all there are is suggestions... and once the decision IS made, there is only ONE tactical plan, and everyone is on board with it.

No general on active duty would EVER say that anyone had told him to "toe the line". IT IS UNDERSTOOD.

toe the line or mark
a. to conform strictly to a rule, command, etc.
b. to shoulder responsibilities; do one's duty: He tried hard to toe the line on the new job.

If any general so disagrees with the direction he is being asked to take that he cannot bring himself to accept it and support it as if it were his very own idea, he resigns. Barring that, he soldiers on. period.

 

[CSM]

The first day of my plebe year intro to naval leadership class. The parable of "The damned Exec"

The captain tells the executive officer right before the ship pulls into port, that the motor whale boat's paint job is unsatisfactory and the boatswain's mates must not go ashore on liberty until it is chipped and repainted. The executive officer argues that the men have been at sea for a long time and that they could easily paint it the next day...The captain is adamant. The exec turns...leaves...goes and looks at the motor whale boat, and then goes to the weapons officer and tells him that the paint job is unsatisfactory and that the BM's are to stay on board until it is repainted. The weapons officer complains to the exec but he is adamant. The weaps boss goes to the First Lieutenant and tells him "the damned exec says your BM's can't go ashore until the MWB is repainted. The First Lieutenant goes to his chief and tell him that the damned exec is keeping the BM's onboard until the boat is repainted...and on down the line...everyone blaming the damned exec. The moral of the parable was: the only person in that scenario that did it RIGHT was.... the damned exec.

This made me smile. Of course the exec did the right thing. However, I notice that you were VERY careful not to quote the exec as saying "I want that boat painted before your men go ashore!" (ownership claimed!) That is a HUGE difference from "The boat will be painted before your men go ashore!"

Anyone who has been in the service for any length of time knows the exec probably got his orders from someplace else or at the very least is left to speculate as to where the order came from....it doesn't matter very much as the damn boat gets painted. "Ownership" only becomes important when someone is trying to place blame. Ironically, we hung a bunch of Nazi's for taking "ownership" right after WWII. We all know how well the "I was only following orders" excuse works! That is of course an extreme example of the ownership you say Naval officers are taught.

 

[maineman]

This made me smile. Of course the exec did the right thing. However, I notice that you were VERY careful not to quote the exec as saying "I want that boat painted before your men go ashore!" (ownership claimed!) That is a HUGE difference from "The boat will be painted before your men go ashore!"

Anyone who has been in the service for any length of time knows the exec probably got his orders from someplace else or at the very least is left to speculate as to where the order came from....it doesn't matter very much as the damn boat gets painted. "Ownership" only becomes important when someone is trying to place blame. Ironically, we hung a bunch of Nazi's for taking "ownership" right after WWII. We all know how well the "I was only following orders" excuse works! That is of course an extreme example of the ownership you say Naval officers are taught.

and I would suggest that everyone who directed their subordinates to paint the boat because the exec told them to was "only following orders". The exec was giving orders - and those orders came with the power and authority of HIS position. And if everyone down the line had done the same thing, not only would the boat have gotten painted, but the effective authority of the entire chain of command would have been strengthened. A pack of boatswain's mates who lose their liberty on the say so of a leading petty officer might be angry, but the stature and effective authority of the LPO would have been raised much higher than if the LPO merely blamed it on the damned exec. And I have had some complete asshole executive officers in my day who worked for creampuff captains... I would never presume, in those cases, that the exec was simply following orders from the skipper.

 

[CSM]

and I would suggest that everyone who directed their subordinates to paint the boat because the exec told them to was "only following orders". The exec was giving orders - and those orders came with the power and authority of HIS position. And if everyone down the line had done the same thing, not only would the boat have gotten painted, but the effective authority of the entire chain of command would have been strengthened. A pack of boatswain's mates who lose their liberty on the say so of a leading petty officer might be angry, but the stature and effective authority of the LPO would have been raised much higher than if the LPO merely blamed it on the damned exec. And I have had some complete asshole executive officers in my day who worked for creampuff captains... I would never presume, in those cases, that the exec was simply following orders from the skipper.

I agree. The fact is that things are not so simple. Creampuff captains, asshole captains and just plain human nature along with situational circumstances creat some interesting (or not so interesting) dynamics! Even the military has some pretty "utopian" POVs! Somehow, reality always screws things up.

 

[SR_fullpolitics]

IMO, you are giving a CG more power than he/she has. Winning the war became secondary to politics starting with Truman and has changed little with few exceptions since.

Regardless what you wish to call it, resigning because you don't like the mission you've been handed is quitting.

Gunnery Sergeant, politics is a reality that existed long before Truman and hasnt changed since the beginning of warfare.

The role of the CG is two fold, and always has been, its to direct the tactical operations in order to implement the strategic goals of the nation, and two is to serve as the figure head in a leadership role that represents the military involved in the conflict. This goes all the way back to George Washington.

A CG resigning in protest to the negative decisions of their civilian leadership is not in any way related to the mission not being liked, or in any way about quiting.

I mean this with no disrespect, but do you even attempt to read the posts?

SR

 

[SR_fullpolitics]

No active duty general would EVER say that the CinC or SECDEF "denied them resources".... they would have had a discussion about resources...the general would have made his case for why he needed more, and the civilian in charge would have made the decision. The general might argue, but the civilian in charge would have made his case and then reaffirmed the decision and, at that point, no one had "denied" anyone anything.... they had had a high level discussion and a decision had emerged.

No active duty general would EVER say that the SECDEF had decided against HIS tactical plans in favor of his own.... up until the decision about what tactical plan will be used is made, all there are is suggestions... and once the decision IS made, there is only ONE tactical plan, and everyone is on board with it.

No general on active duty would EVER say that anyone had told him to "toe the line". IT IS UNDERSTOOD.

I was not refering to him or any other CG doing so while on Active Duty status. That is why I asked the questions of him now maineman...as all logic would suggest...he came out the other day and opened his mouth. He's not active anymore.

SR

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Add in the fact he did not say what Maineman and the press have claimed he said.....

 

[maineman]

Add in the fact he did not say what Maineman and the press have claimed he said.....

please show me what, exactly, I have "claimed he said" that he did not say.

I'll wait.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

please show me what, exactly, I have "claimed he said" that he did not say.

I'll wait.

Let us see.... try your thread starting name. It is a convenient dodge on what he DID do. Which is accuse everyone of making a mess. Not just the Admin, he includes the press, the people, the Congress and one must assume he includes himself and his fellow Generals.

But hey keep on claiming otherwise, your good at that.

 

[maineman]

here is what I will "claim":

this "thread" was created when two similar threads were combined. MY thread was entitled "another leftist surrender monkey?"
When the two threads were combined, my title was not chosen for the combined product.

The only thing I "claimed" Sanchez said was a direct quotation from what Sanchez actually said.

what else ya got?

perhaps a retraction?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

here is what I will "claim":

this "thread" was created when two similar threads were combined. MY thread was entitled "another leftist surrender monkey?"
When the two threads were combined, my title was not chosen for the combined product.

The only thing I "claimed" Sanchez said was a direct quotation from what Sanchez actually said.

what else ya got?

perhaps a retraction?

You did NOT quote him completely, you edited what he said. Provide the full quote or admit your full of shit.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Here let me help you out...

"The administration, Congress, the entire interagency, especially the State Department must shoulder the responsibility for this catastrophic failure, and the American people must hold them accountable," he said. Only Josh White of the Washington Post mentioned this prominently.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1007/jkelly101607.php3

And shall I quote how he spent more time blasting your precious media then he did the Bush Administration? Or doesn't that fit with your political agenda?

Selective indeed.