What Gen. Sanchez Actually Said

[CSM]

and

BY THE WAY: something quoted verbatum CAN NOT be taken out of context.

Sure it can. If I said "I went racing last weekend in my new car. It was a glorious day and accident free. I was driving 130 mph!" and you only quoted "I was driving 130 mph" in an attempt to give the impression that I broke the law; you would be quoting me verbatum but taking it out of context. But then you knew that too.

 

[doniston]

Sure it can. If I said "I went racing last weekend in my new car. It was a glorious day and accident free. I was driving 130 mph!" and you only quoted "I was driving 130 mph" in an attempt to give the impression that I broke the law; you would be quoting me verbatum but taking it out of context. But then you knew that too.

For your specific benefit. OK, A comjplete sentence (thought) can not be quoted out of context. You are referencing a portion of a sentence or thought.

Is that easier for you???

(Usually you seem a bit more reasonable---and "astute")

 

[steeliniraq]

A very good point. He surely shares the blame for not coming forward when it might have done some good. He put him self in front of the country - he was not willing to stand up and say what needed to be said at the cost of his job.

None-the-less while Pres. Bush claims he listens to the military it is utterly clear that he only accepts their recommendations if it suits him to do so. So very many mistakes have been made that we deserve to loose this war (AND NO - I'M NOT SAYING THAT I WANT US TO LOOSE). In war you cannot make such mistakes.

If we are going to continue the war in Iraq, and personally I see no alternative but to do so, we need to bring back the draft. We will also need to rush the first 50,000 new combat soldiers through the training process and get them into Iraq no later than July 2008. Then break the country into about a dozen states, stabilize it, and start to get the oil we simply must have to pay for this fiasco.

I can see only two other alternatives:

1) Get out of Iraq and let the chips fall where they may and try to recover from this fiscal disaster as best we can.

2) Support the Sunni's and allow them to dominate Iraq - effectively the USA would simply replace Saddam with the dictator of our choice and start the whole cycle over again.

The problem with option 1 above is that the Shiite's would dominate, and this is unacceptable.

I am a soldier. I would rather go back to Iraq 20 times then have 1 single person who was drafted in my ranks (IMO). I want the people fighting beside me to be there of their own free will. If you havent noticed the Army and Marines are retaining over 100% of their goals every year (Dont have exact info but I will look it up and post later). As far as rushing 50,000 draftees over to Iraq ASAP that is no ever going to happen. If the draft started tomorrow then these new Soldiers and Marines would be placed in units that are on a deployment schedule some time in the future. Rushing 50,000 green soldiers into a combat environment like this would be devastating. Most of these soldiers would go to units and be under the charge of NCO's and O's that are combat proven.

 

[Warner]

The draft is neither feasible, nor necessary.

A simple change in strategy and tactics would suffice. I know of NO politician on either side of the aisle who would take the steps to do what is necessary to secure Iraq and get out. It seems they too are more concerned with their careers or legacies than doing what is necessary.

Gunny, I assume you used to be a Sgt? The situation it is far more difficult than you believe. The divisions are far too deep for a "simple change in strategy" to work, short of one that involves a level of violent response that is politically impossible and probably would not work anyway. The idea that less than 100,000 troops would be needed to secure the post-war Iraq was absurd. Not having another 250,000 troops available by 2004 in case they were needed was, in my opinion, criminally negligent.

The problem is the Neo-Con's seem to have thought that we could fight this war without really going to war. We have not ramped up the size of our military nor have we sacrificed at home for this war.

The USA's lack of commitment to this war is laughable.

If we really want to win we really have to GO TO WAR! That means a draft, reducing the base military pay back to something that can be supported for a decade, replacing overpaid contract support positions with underpaid military personel as fast as possible (or drafting those companies), and instituting some kind of war tax to pay for it all.

What we're doing right now is standing in front of a fan and throwing shit into it. More of the same will make things worse not better.

 

[steeliniraq]

Gunny, I assume you used to be a Sgt? The situation it is far more difficult than you believe. The divisions are far too deep for a "simple change in strategy" to work, short of one that involves a level of violent response that is politically impossible and probably would not work anyway. The idea that less than 100,000 troops would be needed to secure the post-war Iraq was absurd. Not having another 250,000 troops available by 2004 in case they were needed was, in my opinion, criminally negligent.

The problem is the Neo-Con's seem to have thought that we could fight this war without really going to war. We have not ramped up the size of our military nor have we sacrificed at home for this war.

The USA's lack of commitment to this war is laughable.

If we really want to win we really have to GO TO WAR! That means a draft, reducing the base military pay back to something that can be supported for a decade, replacing overpaid contract support positions with underpaid military personel as fast as possible (or drafting those companies), and instituting some kind of war tax to pay for it all.

What we're doing right now is standing in front of a fan and throwing shit into it. More of the same will make things worse not better.

I understand and agree with your thought "to win we really have to GO TO WAR!" Were I don't agree with you at all is the rest of the paragraph. Everyone wants to bring back a military draft. Everyone but the Soldiers and Marines it would affect!!!! I am a Soldier. I DON'T WANT SOME UNCOMMITTED "SOLDIERS" WATCHING MY BACK! A person who is forced to be a Soldier or Marine will get me killed because they will not take things serious! It didnt work in Vietnam for a reason. It did work in WW2 but that was because everyone believed in the case and that is the only reason. Second, you want to reduce my pay?!?!?! I don't make very much as it is and you want my pay to be reduced? When you do that do you think PROFESSIONAL Soldiers and Marines will stay in the military? I agree that the overpriced civilians should go but I am guessing we should replace them with the Soldiers that are drafted?!? OK one of the main reasons we only have close to 4,000 dead in 5 yrs of war is because of how Professional our military is. By sending these drafted "Soldiers" and "Marines" over all you will do is fill many more body bags! What we need to do is force Maliki to take off our handcuffs. Let us go after the groups in the south and north. When we are allowed to fight our way things magically happen like Al Anbar. Crazy, I know!

 

[CSM]

For your specific benefit. OK, A comjplete sentence (thought) can not be quoted out of context. You are referencing a portion of a sentence or thought.

Is that easier for you???

(Usually you seem a bit more reasonable---and "astute")

Exactly! A sentence (by definition) can stand alone. The THOUGHT being conveyed may or may not. I have a problem when folks intentionally cloud an issue by using rules of grammar to misrepresent a concept of thought. It is clear to me that when the general's speech is taken IN CONTEXT that he is spreading the blame around and not directing his criticism soley at the Bush administration; in fact, he seems to spend more time venting about the other entities involved than he does on the administration.

It is the intentional obfuscation and misrepresentation that has made me detest politics and politicians.

As to my being "astute" ... if I don't let bullshit like some tried to pull in this thread slide by and accept partisan crap at face value means I am not "astute" then so be it. Of course, you knew that too.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

For your specific benefit. OK, A comjplete sentence (thought) can not be quoted out of context. You are referencing a portion of a sentence or thought.

Is that easier for you???

(Usually you seem a bit more reasonable---and "astute")

Actually it is a single sentence... I was driving 130 miles an hour.

When one makes paragraphs and makes whole speeches or books, the entirety of the thing is the thought. You can take whole sentences, even whole paragraphs from out of written or spoken material and have it out of context.

 

[Warner]

I am a soldier. I would rather go back to Iraq 20 times then have 1 single person who was drafted in my ranks (IMO). I want the people fighting beside me to be there of their own free will.

Of course that's what you'd like. But that is not going to be enough to get the job done.

If you havent noticed the Army and Marines are retaining over 100% of their goals every year (Dont have exact info but I will look it up and post later).

Here's the relevant info:

(put in the www) chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-recruit11oct11,1,6617133.story

Note that to reach its goals the Army had to more than double the number of waivers it gives for criminals, quadruple the number of waivers it gives for felony criminals, accept 5 times as many high-school dropouts as it accepted prior to the start of the war, and pay a $20,000 quick ship bonus to new recruits.

Ideally soldiers would be on the line of their own free will. But you can hardly say those who sign up because they have no other prospects (dropout's with criminal records have few prospects) and for big signup bonuses as being the kind of soldier you want fighting beside you right?

As far as rushing 50,000 draftees over to Iraq ASAP that is no ever going to happen. If the draft started tomorrow then these new Soldiers and Marines would be placed in units that are on a deployment schedule some time in the future. Rushing 50,000 green soldiers into a combat environment like this would be devastating. Most of these soldiers would go to units and be under the charge of NCO's and O's that are combat proven.

In WWII it took about 6 months to get a solider ready for combat. It is not ideal to rush new soldiers though training and shipping them out but we are past the ideal and quickly getting into the desperate. Experienced soldiers would still take the point positions and the draftee's would slowly be integrated into their ranks. They would also fill support positions allowing those currently working those positions to be shifted to front line units when appropriate.

There are also other considerations I cannot go into which compel the USA to significantly increase the size of the military, especially the Army, as fast as possible. If we don't have a another 250,000 combat troops (and that many more support troops) by the end of this decade we will be in serious trouble.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Of course that's what you'd like. But that is not going to be enough to get the job done.



Here's the relevant info:

(put in the www) chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-recruit11oct11,1,6617133.story

Note that to reach its goals the Army had to more than double the number of waivers it gives for criminals, quadruple the number of waivers it gives for felony criminals, accept 5 times as many high-school dropouts as it accepted prior to the start of the war, and pay a $20,000 quick ship bonus to new recruits.

Ideally soldiers would be on the line of their own free will. But you can hardly say those who sign up because they have no other prospects (dropout's with criminal records have few prospects) and for big signup bonuses as being the kind of soldier you want fighting beside you right?



In WWII it took about 6 months to get a solider ready for combat. It is not ideal to rush new soldiers though training and shipping them out but we are past the ideal and quickly getting into the desperate. Experienced soldiers would still take the point positions and the draftee's would slowly be integrated into their ranks. They would also fill support positions allowing those currently working those positions to be shifted to front line units when appropriate.

There are also other considerations I cannot go into which compel the USA to significantly increase the size of the military, especially the Army, as fast as possible. If we don't have a another 250,000 combat troops (and that many more support troops) by the end of this decade we will be in serious trouble.

Are you telling us Clinton, the darling of the left, the SAVIOR, fucked up when he cut the military to the bone? Are you telling us that even though we previously had MUCH more than the 500 k troops you claim we need now on the rolls in an all volunteer military we can not do that again?

Your facts are weak. History proves your wrong. We do NOT need to rush into a draft nor rush green recruits to battle. The military does need to be bigger by at least 300k and probably 500 to 600 k. BUT it can be done and with in the all volunteer process, nor do we need to cut benefits nor pay to do it.

The only reason the left even talks abut the draft is as a weapon to scare the right and the country, they believe if they talk enough about it and pretend they will do it, they will get protests going against the war. Same with why they pushed the Turkey Genocide crap. They haven't the balls to vote against what they claim the people don't want and want to end it by other methods.

 

[steeliniraq]

Of course that's what you'd like. But that is not going to be enough to get the job done.



Here's the relevant info:

(put in the www) chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-recruit11oct11,1,6617133.story

Note that to reach its goals the Army had to more than double the number of waivers it gives for criminals, quadruple the number of waivers it gives for felony criminals, accept 5 times as many high-school dropouts as it accepted prior to the start of the war, and pay a $20,000 quick ship bonus to new recruits.

Ideally soldiers would be on the line of their own free will. But you can hardly say those who sign up because they have no other prospects (dropout's with criminal records have few prospects) and for big signup bonuses as being the kind of soldier you want fighting beside you right?



In WWII it took about 6 months to get a solider ready for combat. It is not ideal to rush new soldiers though training and shipping them out but we are past the ideal and quickly getting into the desperate. Experienced soldiers would still take the point positions and the draftee's would slowly be integrated into their ranks. They would also fill support positions allowing those currently working those positions to be shifted to front line units when appropriate.

There are also other considerations I cannot go into which compel the USA to significantly increase the size of the military, especially the Army, as fast as possible. If we don't have a another 250,000 combat troops (and that many more support troops) by the end of this decade we will be in serious trouble.

And again you dont understand how the Army works. Guys in support positions can not and never will be moved to front line positions. They are not 11B they are support guys so why would they be moved to a front line?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And again you dont understand how the Army works. Guys in support positions can not and never will be moved to front line positions. They are not 11B they are support guys so why would they be moved to a front line?

The Marines could do it. But then the Marine Corps considers every Marine to be a rifleman BEFORE anything else. But it wouldn't happen anyway. This si not the 1940's, it takes more than 6 months to train most support personnel anyway. And while you MIGHT be able to train a rifleman in 6 months your not going to send thousands of them anywhere except in a HUGE crisis which we are NOT in.

If I am not mistaken Army and Marine Corps both spend several months training before deploying even experienced troops to a combat zone.

 

[steeliniraq]

The Marines could do it. But then the Marine Corps considers every Marine to be a rifleman BEFORE anything else. But it wouldn't happen anyway. This si not the 1940's, it takes more than 6 months to train most support personnel anyway. And while you MIGHT be able to train a rifleman in 6 months your not going to send thousands of them anywhere except in a HUGE crisis which we are NOT in.

If I am not mistaken Army and Marine Corps both spend several months training before deploying even experienced troops to a combat zone.

The point of the conversation was he wanted to put the drafted support guys in a support role in Iraq and send the old support guys into a front line unit. While every Marine is a rifleman first and every Soldier is suppose to me ready to fight I think you can agree with me Gunny that advanced tach. and a certain mindset is needed. Without this more men then needed will be killed and the force will not be as efficient as it can be. Beside if we send all the experienced support guys to the front who will show the new draftees what to do and how to do it? Continue to grow the force but DO NOT do so by endangering the high standard we hold ourselves to today for a watered down higher number tomorrow!

 

[trobinett]

Hmmm...imagine that!

Indeed, why do I have a hard time, taking ANYTHING serious, I read in the MSM these days?

 

[Warner]

Are you telling us Clinton, the darling of the left, the SAVIOR, fucked up when he cut the military to the bone? Are you telling us that even though we previously had MUCH more than the 500 k troops you claim we need now on the rolls in an all volunteer military we can not do that again?

Your facts are weak. History proves your wrong. We do NOT need to rush into a draft nor rush green recruits to battle. The military does need to be bigger by at least 300k and probably 500 to 600 k. BUT it can be done and with in the all volunteer process, nor do we need to cut benefits nor pay to do it.

The only reason the left even talks abut the draft is as a weapon to scare the right and the country, they believe if they talk enough about it and pretend they will do it, they will get protests going against the war. Same with why they pushed the Turkey Genocide crap. They haven't the balls to vote against what they claim the people don't want and want to end it by other methods.

Gunny,

I was not a Clinton guy, so please stop trying to paint me with that "everyone who does not like Bush is a leftist" brush you swing around so causually.

I suppose the military should have been cut back some after the end of the cold war. But I agree it should not have been cut back so severely as it was.

However, the bigger problem has been the failure of the Bush Administration to increase the size of the force since 9/11.

I agree the Democrats are a bunch of chickenshits who lack the balls to act. Unfortunately the Republicans are a buch of chickenhawks who want to act but won't take any risks themselves (the % of rep. politicians children in the military is miniscule by comparison to that of the general population). As I've said before I really don't see any candidate so far that I could support.

As for putting less than top-notch troops in combat positions in Iraq, it is certainly undesirable but it is going to be necessary. We need more troops because the front is going to expand in a big way. How would you suggest we go about this?

And as far as not knowing how the military works - I do know how it works. Unfortunately, it's not working, and every day we delay doing what must be done means it will only be worse when the shit coming down the pipe gets here.

 

[Gunny]

Gunny, I assume you used to be a Sgt? The situation it is far more difficult than you believe. The divisions are far too deep for a "simple change in strategy" to work, short of one that involves a level of violent response that is politically impossible and probably would not work anyway. The idea that less than 100,000 troops would be needed to secure the post-war Iraq was absurd. Not having another 250,000 troops available by 2004 in case they were needed was, in my opinion, criminally negligent.

The problem is the Neo-Con's seem to have thought that we could fight this war without really going to war. We have not ramped up the size of our military nor have we sacrificed at home for this war.

The USA's lack of commitment to this war is laughable.

If we really want to win we really have to GO TO WAR! That means a draft, reducing the base military pay back to something that can be supported for a decade, replacing overpaid contract support positions with underpaid military personel as fast as possible (or drafting those companies), and instituting some kind of war tax to pay for it all.

What we're doing right now is standing in front of a fan and throwing shit into it. More of the same will make things worse not better.

LMAO ... gee ... do I note a hint of condesension? Trust me, the argument is not above me, nor am I impaired/intellectually limited because I'm a retired Gunnery Sergeant.

First off, I said a change in strategy. I didn't say any pantywaists weren't going to get queasy over it. However, the statement stands as correct because THAT is what it would take.

Second, before we go drafting people that don't want to be there, we've got a WHOLE BUNCH of military personnel manning obsolete Cold War bases mostly to keep the local foreign economies going. More than enough as a matter of fact, to do the job in Iraq.

You outlined generalities and I responded with the same. Don't go turn around and tell me it's too complicated because I didn't draw up a complete plan of battle with all forces I intended to use.

But you're correct about one thing ... the apologists and whiners would never go for it because it involves doing what it takes to win.

 

[CSM]

And again you dont understand how the Army works. Guys in support positions can not and never will be moved to front line positions. They are not 11B they are support guys so why would they be moved to a front line?

Guess what! The Army is doing exactly that. There are a whole bunch of MOS qualified guys doing things way outside what they were trained for. Entire Field Artillery brigades find themselves doing things like convoy escort, civil affairs and yes even kicking down doors and clearing urban terrain. Both my sons are doing exactly that and they are NOT nor ever intend to be 11B.

 

[steeliniraq]

Guess what! The Army is doing exactly that. There are a whole bunch of MOS qualified guys doing things way outside what they were trained for. Entire Field Artillery brigades find themselves doing things like convoy escort, civil affairs and yes even kicking down doors and clearing urban terrain. Both my sons are doing exactly that and they are NOT nor ever intend to be 11B.

I understand that but is Field Artillery not a combat arms branch? As far as Civil Affairs their job is being out with line units doing projects. I was referring to S shop and admin personnel. If they are out with line units that is a shock to me.

 

[CSM]

I understand that but is Field Artillery not a combat arms branch? As far as Civil Affairs their job is being out with line units doing projects. I was referring to S shop and admin personnel. If they are out with line units that is a shock to me.

Oh they are. Lots of guys (and gals) who normally do staff and staff support stuff are out there on gun trucks, for example. Scarey, aint it?

I don't personally agree with it but there it is.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Yep he did...which is a FAR cry from this headline in the NYT: "Former Top General in Iraq Faults Bush Administration " The text of his speech blasts the media even harder than his criticism of almost everyone else he names.

To help the NYT understand Sanchez' speech, a cartoonist has drawn them a picture (October 14-20, 2007).

http://www.creators.com/editorialcartoons/chuck-asay/2259.html