home

Gen. Sanchez: Dems Right On Iraq

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 12:20:13 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Another troop hater:

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top commander in Iraq shortly after the fall of Baghdad, said this week he supports Democratic legislation that calls for most troops to come home within a year.

Of course, Sanchez is a controversial figure who allowed the atrocities at Abu Ghraib under his watch. And his past judgments were very faulty. My point is not that we should trust his judgment. I do not. I have made my own. My point is it is hard to label Sanchez or anyone, who favors withdrawal from Iraq as "anti-troops. That is the political sigificance here. Hopefully, it will stiffen some Dem backbones.

< Brooks: Rudy Is A Phony | The Problem With Obama: Axelrod Edition >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Gen. Sanchez: Dems Right On Iraq | 31 comments (31 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    jarober (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 02:26:15 PM EST
    I told you many times you do not get to call people traitors here.

    Go to LGF or Red State for that.

    I will delete all your comments doing so.

    Sigh (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by jarober on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 02:38:45 PM EST
    I find it fascinating that you consider the comparison so odious - that's telling all by itself. The person I referenced made many comments which - if you substituted the current President for Lincoln - can be found widely on left blogs today.

    Stop sighing (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 02:42:10 PM EST
    and stop accusing people of being traitors.

    I will delete such comments every single time.

    Parent

    WH BS (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by squeaky on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 02:57:55 PM EST
    The General is right....As if we did not know. Hope this gets more light than one day at the NYT:
    A treasure trove of guerrilla documents, according to the NYT, shows that 41% of the foreign jihadis in Iraq come from Saudi Arabia, which is also a major source of funding for them. Another big group comes from Libya, with Yemenis the third largest cohort. There were none from Lebanon, despite constant US accusations of Hizbullah involvement. Of the some 25,000 alleged insurgents in US custody in Iraq, only 390 are foreigners. 4/5s of the Iraqis and nearly all the foreigners are Sunni Arabs. (The US appears to have never captured a Shiite Iranian fighter in Iraq.) The statistics raise the question of why US military officials are always focusing on Iran and Hizbullah so much, when they clearly are not very much of the problem, while never, ever, mentioning the Saudi issue. The Guardian has more.
    Via (3.00 / 2) (#5)
    by squeaky on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 02:58:47 PM EST
    Juan Cole

    Parent
    That number may, or may not (1.00 / 2) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 09:34:59 PM EST
    be correct. Either way, if you expect to win, then we need, as odious as this is, the government of SA.

    In the meantime this appears to be incorrect.

    (The US appears to have never captured a Shiite Iranian fighter in Iraq.)

    Oh???

    Iraqi and U.S. troops battled Shi'ite militiamen...Iraqi security officials said Iranian fighters had been captured in the fighting, in which a sniper shot dead the commander of an Iraqi quick reaction force and two of his men.

    Link

    Camp Victory, Baghdad Province: The US and Iraqi Army continue to target Iran's surrogates inside Iraq. Today, US forces captured an officer of Iran's Qods Force during a raid in the northern Kurdish province of Sulimaniyah. US forces also conducted a series of raids against Mahdi Army and Special Groups cells inside Baghdad and Diwaniyah over the past 24 hours.

    Link

    But that really begs the issue, as Juan Cole surely knows.

    Dramatic video produced by Iraqi insurgents and captured in a raid earlier this week by U.S. troops clearly shows a battery of sophisticated Iranian-made rocket launchers firing on American positions east of Baghdad, Pentagon officials said Wednesday.

    Link

    In Washington Wednesday, a Pentagon official who declined to be identified because of the information's sensitivity, confirmed that some gunmen had gone to Iran for training and that al-Khazaali has a following. However, the official could not confirm the number of his followers or whether Iran was financing them.

    Link

    Got any more fantasy stories??

    Parent

    Define winning. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Edger on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 08:02:12 AM EST
    Got any more fantasies?

    Parent
    I note that you (1.00 / 2) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 09:47:15 AM EST
    don't try and argue the point that "no" Iranians have been captured.

    Nice try and changing the subject.  

    Parent

    Define winning. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Edger on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 09:49:38 AM EST
    Got any more fantasies?

    Parent
    As Usual (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by squeaky on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 01:50:09 PM EST
    Herr propaganda minister ppj misses the point, intentionally. The point of the NYT article is that all of the US (and ppj) propaganda has been about demonizing Iran and Lebanon while making a case that the insurgents in Iraq are foreign agents.

    The truth of the matter is that Iran and Lebanon have not been the evil agents that have largely infiltrated Iraq to stir up trouble. In the foreign insurgents have been a minor force in the Iraq war.

    What has not been mentioned by our "anonymous government sources" is that our allies are the major terrorists/foreign insurgents in Iraq.

    That is the point of the new evidence reported by the NYT. But as being propaganda minister of TL ppj's job is to argue that allegedly one Iranian fighter has been captured in a war that has lasted four and a half years.

    Dishonest through and through.

    Parent

    BW Squeaky tries to hide.. (1.00 / 2) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 07:18:47 PM EST
    The truth of the matter is that Iran and Lebanon have not been the evil agents that have largely infiltrated Iraq to stir up trouble. In the foreign insurgents have been a minor force in the Iraq war.

    Iran has certainly and without doubt supplied weapons and men.

    Tell me. How many is too many?

    And do you think this statement refers to "1?"

    Iraqi security officials said Iranian
    fighters
    had been captured in the fighting,

    Check out the differene between "fighters" and "fighter."

    I see that reading is still not your strong suit.

    Parent

    You Lie and Shill (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by squeaky on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 08:34:45 PM EST
    Routinely, which is why you are the TL propaganda minister, second rate at that. Your sources are only from US propaganda, aka lies. The apparent truth is that SA and Lybia, our allies, are supplying the foreign terror to Iraq.

    Even if your claim is true and not supplied by your pal Rove et al, the number of Iranian fighters captured in Iran is less than the fingers on your hand.

    But as usual you have not read the NYT story, why bother when you can read powerlie or deadstate.

    From your link

    Big Lizards.... Hatched by Sachi on this day, June 30, 2006, at the time of 6:18 AM.
    Of course Sachi's link to the story is a bona fide dead link aka garbage. And your other link Long War Journal article by >BIll Roggio links back to his own writing or Operation Iraiq Freedom  a US gov. propaganda site.

    CS Monitor has this to say about Roggio who gets his credentials from the weakly standard:

    His bias can be overwhelming at times - his posts can sound a lot like government talking points filtered through war stories. When he's not filing stories from a war zone, he likes to take issue with the mainstream media's reporting of events, such as The Washington Post's recent report on the dangers of Anbar Province. He often sees Al Qaeda as the hand behind most of what's going on in Iraq, such as the Thanksgiving bombings that killed more than 200.

    Those views are not in the mainstream and many people, including Iraq Study Group cochairmen James Baker and Lee Hamilton, do not subscribe to them. But while some might discount Roggio as a journalist who lets his patriotism and ties to the military get in the way of his work, there is value in his reportage.

    In the voices of Roggio's soldiers, readers hear a soldier's perspective - or at least some soldiers' perspectives....

    From the NYT story linked to above:

    Also striking among the Sinjar materials were the smaller numbers from other countries that had been thought to be major suppliers of foreign fighters. As recently as the summer, American officials estimated that 20 percent came from Syria and Lebanon. But there were no Lebanese listed among the Sinjar trove, and only 56 Syrians, or 8 percent of the total.

    American officials have accused Iran, the largest Shiite nation in the Middle East, of sending powerful bombs to Iraq and of supporting and financing Shiite militias that attack American troops. They also contend that top Iranian leaders support efforts to arm Shiite fighters.

    But whatever aid Iran provides to militias inside Iraq does not seem to extend to supplying actual combatants: Only 11 Iranians are in American detention, United States officials say.

    [snip]

    According to the rosters found in the raid, the third-largest source of foreign fighters was Yemen, with 68. There were 64 from Algeria, 50 from Morocco, 38 from Tunisia, 14 from Jordan, 6 from Turkey and 2 from Egypt.




    Parent
    actually, the last time i checked, (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by cpinva on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 04:48:37 AM EST
    this isn't BTD's site, it belongs to jeralyn merritt, BTD is merely a guest poster. be that as it may, he's still charged with enforcing the site's posting rules, as agent for ms. merritt.

    only those who consider our military nothing more than pieces in a big game of "RISK", would have the temerity to label anyone who wanted to remove them from harm's way a traitor. that would seemingly describe most of the present administration, and a little less than 50% of congress.

    none of the above mentioned have anything actually at risk in iraq, save their personal political legacies. i take small comfort from that.

    The vast majority of the country (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Edger on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 06:57:39 AM EST
    has been telling "the enemy": Bush, Cheney, the necons, and their wingnut cheering squads - that not only should the troops be withdrawn, they should never have been sent into Iraq in the first place.

    It took Sanchez far too long to come to his senses, but at least had them to come to, unlike the wingnut cheering squad.

    I woke up this morning (1.00 / 2) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 10:07:37 AM EST
    and discovered that we did preemptively invade Iraq.

    And we are in Iraq.

    Because of that we have two choices. First, we can surrender and lose.

    Secondly we can stay and win.

    If we surrender and leave, the loss will be an undeniable proclamation that the US does not have the ability to fight an extended asymmetrical war and will result in such wars being started by the radical Moslems around the world, including inside the US.

    As OBL said in this 3/97 interview with CNN's reporter Peter Arnett, withdrawal ends nothing.

    REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, will the end of the United States' presence in Saudi Arabia, their withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US ?

    BIN LADIN: ....So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.

    So all of your moaning and screaming and demonstrations of Bush Derangement Syndrome aside, why we are there is interesting only from an historical viewpoint.

    That this retired General does not understand that puzzles me. Generals are supposedly smart well educated people. This makes my puzzlement even greater.

    We are there. We must win. Loosing would be costly beyond belief.

    Parent

    Define winning. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Edger on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 10:09:01 AM EST
    Got any more fantasies?

    Parent
    Yes, I sometimes (1.00 / 2) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 10:26:46 AM EST
    fantasize that you will start to understand what is happening in the world...

    And if you need someone else to define winning I think I understand your problem.

    Parent

    Define winning. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Edger on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 10:30:47 AM EST


    Parent
    Other than 9/11 itself (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 10:43:39 AM EST
    What wars do you think OBL has started that we didn't win? Are you saying we lost Afghanistan? If so how?

    What prevents radical Moslems from "starting wars" in the US today?

    Are you saying we If we continue to send blood and treasure to Iraq, OBL and his ilk won't have any need to start wars, because we are already  bogged down in one?

    Experience tells us we cannot sustain guns and butter forever. At what point, in cost in blood and treasure, would Iraq not be worth it to you? 50,000 US Dead? 100,000? 200,000? How much money? To the point we cannot fund NHC (which you supposedly favor)?  SSDI? Our Infrastructure? How much taxation/deficits should/could we endure?

    Explain the differences between WWII and Iraq.

    Parent

    Why are so afraid to post (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by jondee on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 02:15:18 PM EST
    the entire transcript of the interview, Jim?

    That out of context excerpt that you keep re-posting ad nauseum is about as informative the Republican For-A-Good-Time.. graffiti in the Minneapolis Airport mens room.

    Parent

    Pepe Escobar, Oct 17, 2007 (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Edger on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 11:59:10 AM EST
    It's the resistance, stupid
    At this critical juncture, it's as if the overwhelming majority of Sunnis and Shi'ites are uttering a collective cry of "we're mad as hell, and we won't take it anymore". The US Senate "suggests" that the solution is to break up the country. Blackwater and assorted mercenaries kill Iraqi civilians with impunity. Iraqi oil is being privatized via shady deals - like Hunt Oil with the Kurdistan regional government; Ray Hunt is a close pal of George W Bush.

    Political deals in the Green Zone are just a detail in the big picture. On the surface the new configuration spells that the US-supported Shi'ite/Kurdish coalition in power is now challenged by an Iraqi nationalist bloc. This new bloc groups the Sadrists, the (Shi'ite) Fadhila party, all Sunni parties, the partisans of former interim prime minister Iyad Allawi, and the partisans of former prime minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari. This bloc might even summon enough votes to dethrone the current, wobbly Maliki government.

    But what's more important is that a true Iraqi national pact is in the making - coordinated by VicePresident Tariq al-Hashimi, a Sunni, and blessed by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani himself. The key points of this pact are, no more sectarianism (thus undermining US strategy of divide and rule); no foreign interference (thus no following of US, Iran, or Saudi agendas); no support for al-Qaeda in the Land of the Two Rivers; and the right to armed resistance against the occupation.
    ...
    For their part the Sunni Arab sheikhs in Anbar are totally against what would be a Western Iraq provincial government - possibly encompassing three, majority-Sunni provinces, Anbar, Salahuddin and Nineveh.

    If on one Shi'ite side we have Ammar al-Hakim from SIIC, on the other side - literally - we have Muqtada al-Sadr. The same day Ammar al-Hakim was courting the tribal sheikhs, pan-Islamic Muqtada was saying he was against any soft partition or provincial governments. That's exactly what the sheikhs like to hear.
    ...
    Away from the Anbar sheikhs, the Sunni front is also moving fast. Last week six key, non-Salafi jihadist resistance groups, on a video on al-Jazeera, officially announced their union under the "Political Council of the Iraqi Resistance". They are the Islamic Army in Iraq, the al-Mujahideen Army, Ansar al-Sunna, al-Fatiheen Army, the Islamic Front for the Iraqi Resistance (JAMI), and Iraqi Hamas.

    The whole process has been on the move since early summer. The council has a 14-point program. The key point is of course guerrilla warfare as the means to throw the occupiers out. A very important point - deriding the usual Pentagon rhetoric - is that the council is fiercely against al-Qaeda in the Land of the Two Rivers. The council also rejects all laws and the constitution passed under the occupation; calls for an interim government; defends Iraq's territorial integrity and rejects sectarianism.

    It has been the Sunni Arab guerrillas that have virtually defeated the US in Iraq.
    ...
    As far as all the key Sunni and Shi'ite factions in Iraq are concerned, they all agree on the basics. Iraq won't be occupied. Iraq won't hold permanent US military bases. Iraq won't give up its oil wealth. And Iraq won't be a toothless pro-Israel puppet regime.
    In the short term, the ONLY thing (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Edger on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 12:07:10 PM EST
    that continued occupation of Iraq, and continued enabling and funding of it does, is kill more Americans in Iraq.

    In the long term it is destroying America's reputation in the world, and may be the beginning of the fall of the empire.

    The invasion and occupation was and is the biggest strategic foreign policy disaster in the history of America.

    It is time to leave Iraq. Long, long past time.

    Parent

    thanks for this (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by tnthorpe on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 12:23:42 PM EST
    I see that I was wrong to say that there is still a deadlock. Perhaps a national gov't with some real chances for success is yet possible.

    Parent
    I think that (none / 0) (#26)
    by Edger on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 12:39:41 PM EST
    Iraqis are extraordinarily determined people. They don't roll over and give give up easily. They've been down this road before. Many times...

    A Short History of the Republic of Iraq

    The region of Mesopotamia--modern-day Iraq --has been a magnet for greedy conquerors for thousands of years. Time and again, thieving invaders coveting her rich natural resources and advanced society have pillaged "the land between two rivers." Time and again, the invaders were defeated and expelled. The Americans led by "leaders" comprised of rich oil barons and neo-conservative Zionists are the latest in a long line of imperialists. If they had only read history, however, they could have predicted that they, too, would suffer great losses from an unwavering resistance. They could have predicted that they, too, will have to leave. In the words of Yogi Berra, they "made the wrong mistake." But while imperialism in Western Asia is nothing new, our weaponry and war crimes may put Americans in the history books as Iraq 's most barbaric invaders ever.
    ...
    Every Iraqi knows of Al-Hajaj bin Yusef Al-Thaqafi, a ruler from a thousand years ago reputed to have led the most brutal and repressive regime in Iraq's long history. The name "Al-Hajaj" is invoked in casual conversation to describe times when conditions have hit rock bottom. Ironically, Saddam Hussein admired the rule of that brutal leader. Some Iraqis thought the now assassinated president would replace Al-Hajaj in the colloquial lexicon--that is, until the 2003 arrival of "Al-Dijaj" (in Arabic, "the chicken"): George W. Bush and his chicken hawk administration. Those rich politicians in Washington , who send poor Americans to kill and be killed in the name of stealing control of Iraq 's oil, evaded their own opportunities for military service. And just as the British used King Faisal as a puppet ruler in the 1920's, the Americans have their own stooges today, including Ahmed Chalabi, Iyad Allawi, Ibrahim Jafaari, and Nuri Al-Maliki. Al-Dijaj and the rest of the chicken coop know nothing of combat, poverty, or human suffering either at home or abroad.

    --By Dr. Sadiq H. Wasfi and Dahlia Wasfi, Liberate This



    Parent
    The (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by tnthorpe on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 12:18:45 PM EST
    Bush Administration has been defining victory down ever since they staged their little party on the USS Lincoln, May 2, 2003. The Dems have enabled the BA to use the word even as it has become meaningless. The steps necessary to building a functioning civil society were never contemplated by Rummy et al.; the Iraqi gov't remains mired in corruption, deadlocked along tribal and religious lines; its governing class has mostly fled the country.

    Meanwhile, the insanity continues here among Bush enablers, when reasons for going to war are of merely "historical" interest, as if a war's rationale and its success were entirely unrelated. Of course, the Bush Admin. repeatedly changed the rationale for the war when time and again they were shown to be peddling falsehoods, either their own or Chalabi's, who played them for fools. After almost 4,000 American dead, I think the troops are owed more than such callous nonchalance. I can't see one good reason for one more person to die for Bush's ignorance and errors, and I think finally Gen. Sanchez realizes as much. He finally acknowledged that you can't democratize at gunpoint: "the three-star general told a group of reporters that the U.S. mission in Iraq was a 'nightmare with no end in sight.'"

    Accusation? (1.00 / 1) (#6)
    by jarober on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 04:32:00 PM EST
    Big Tent: Please show me where - in the text I posted - I called anyone a traitor.  Especially given that I can find text equivalent to what the 19th century politician said on various lefty sites - including this one - every day.

    This is not open for debate (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 05:20:00 PM EST
    That's the rule. Do not do it again.

    Parent
    So, J.R (none / 0) (#29)
    by jondee on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 02:20:17 PM EST
    All wars are morally and strategically equivalent; is that what you think?

    Parent
    I didn't ask for a debate (1.00 / 1) (#8)
    by jarober on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 05:39:26 PM EST
    I didn't ask for a debate, I asked for an explanation.  Clearly, you're incapable of explaining your policy.  It's your site, so you don't really need to - but it sure doesn't reflect on you very well.

    Whatever (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 06:22:13 PM EST
    Just do not do it.

    End of discussion.

    Parent

    Anyone who tells the enemy that the (1.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 09:13:30 PM EST
    troops should be withdrawn, fails to understand what he is really saying.

    That's the best I can say for Retired General Sanchez.

    Gen. Sanchez: Dems Right On Iraq | 31 comments (31 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment