No End In Sight
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.
Retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who commanded coalition troops for a year beginning June 2003, cast a wide net of blame for both political and military shortcomings in Iraq that helped open the way for the insurgency — such as disbanding the Saddam-era military and failing to cement ties with tribal leaders and quickly establish civilian government after Saddam was toppled.
He called current strategies — including the deployment of 30,000 additional forces earlier this year — a “desperate attempt” to make up for years of misguided policies in Iraq.
“There is no question that America is living a nightmare with no end in sight,” Sanchez told a group of journalists covering military affairs.
[source]
How many people have to say it before the American upper-right-quadrant gets it?
… and is Sanchez now a phoony soldier?
Ex-General Says Iraq Is A “Nightmare”
The U.S. mission in Iraq is a “nightmare with no end in sight” because of political misjudgments aft
More likely they’ll be ponting out how the media reporting on Sanchez’s speech has been blatently dishonest.
The nightmare he’s referring to is that brought about by a failing of the national leadership (particularily, though not exclusively the Bush administration) to craft a coherent strategy that involves synchronizing all of the nation’s powers necessary to bring about victory.
He cites a Japanese proverb, “Action without vision is a nightmare”.
And the media leaves out the juicy bits from the first half of his speech.
http://www.militaryreporters.org/sanchez_101207.html
The first half of his speech is, indeed, very interesting. While a bit self-serving, he raises some very interesting questions about the role of media vis a vis government, and especially in wartime.
In a totalitarian state, media are arms of the government. Xin Hua news service will NEVER print anything that runs counter to the interests of the government of China. The role of media in a free market democracy is more confusing. There’s the whole fourth estate thing…a sector providing independent reportage, analysis and criticism. There’s also the business…an industry which competes for viewers/readers/advertising dollars. That second role is in conflict with the first, although pure capitalists pretend it’s not.
General Sanchez is an employee of the state, and part of his job was to get a military job done. His job was, no doubt, made more difficult by the presence of journalists, and by reportage on issues that did not put US governance or military policy in a positive light, and he’s understandably frustrated about that. But is democracy best served by a press that follows the state line and promotes state initiatives (including the military ones) without criticism?