I am also incensed over the fact that idiotic conflation of such non-events to real racism, cheapens and degrades the continuing struggle against real racism in this nation. These two, Stein and the Hotline (not Hot Air) character, along with several commenters, make reference to Obama's speech on racism being "timely" in reference to this alleged racism. In fact, their comments did more to damage any possible good or truth that Obama's speech might have done.

Having attended the Vets For Freedom event in Kansas City, heard Bellavia's speech about real heroes vs. the paper heroes America puts on pedestals, read his book honoring the men he fought with (of all ethnicities and races) and listened to many other speeches by these men and women, the idea that Bellavia was making a racist remark or could be construed to do so is preposterous beyond belief.

Bellavia's speech was slightly abbreviated in order to move the event along and introduce McCain. In this event, he mentioned that Tiger Woods would not be the "hero" that he taught his children to look up to. He would teach them to look up to men like McCain. He introduced McCain as "the real 'Audacity of Hope'".

Bellavia has given a similar speech all along the Vets for Freedom tour. In Kansas City, his speech regarding the same theme, included noting various athletes and Hollywood stars from Tiger Woods to Tom Cruise, among several, that people call "heroes" when, in fact, he served with real heroes and was on tour with some real heroes. It is a theme that has been repeated many times among those who have served, their families and those who support them as on this blog: America has lost its way when choosing its "heroes" and it shows in our continued selfishness, our unwillingness to sacrifice in a greater cause and our total absorption with all things "me".

Sam Stein has very likely never read Bellavia's book, House to House. While it is a book about war, it is not a book about hate. It is a book about love for the brothers that Bellavia served and bled with in the Battle for Fallujah. It is about the love and honor that he feels for those who he served, who died in that battle and later. he never mentions the race, color or ethnicity of these men, though he calls them by name and their names sometimes gives their heritage away along with several pictures of his unit included in the book. They include black, white, Hispanic, Asian and many other nationalities and ethnicities. These men were not colors or races to Bellavia, but brothers. He calls them "heroes" and they are more so than a Woods, Obama, Clinton, Cruise, Spears or any other whom the shallow would deem "heroes" for their alleged "struggles" to overcome things that have little to do with sacrificing all for another.

Bellavia's heroes are men like 1Lt Edward Iwan, Japanese-American, who led Bellavia's platoon and who died in Fallujah November 12, 2004 having taken over the gunner's position in a Bradely fighting vehicle, surrounded by insurgents on every side firing AK-47s, sniper rifles, heavy machine guns and RPGs. Iwan was cut down by just such an RPG. Bellavia continuously referred to Iwan as a great leader who took care of his men to the end.

At the end of his book, Bellavia lists the 41 men from his unit who gave the ultimate sacrifice in order of the date of their death. They are a true representation of America's "melting pot" with names like "Khan", "Kennedy", "Eckhart", "Martinez" and many more. Bellavia wants people to remember these men and honor their sacrifice.

Stein and the other fellow, posted only a small snippet of the actual event in order to make this implications. I note that he did not bother to post any other video or pictures from the event that clearly shows the many men and women of many races and ethnicities that were part of the "Vets on the Hill" event. These men and women had served in the military as Bellavia had and were there for the same reason: to insure that those who had fought, were fighting and those who had sacrificed, had their voices heard. They want to insure, as LTC Steve Russell (ret) has said, that their sacrifices were not simply "remembered" by names chiseled on a black stone wall, but would be "honored" by a lasting memorial of freedom and democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Those attending, those of the many races, ethnicities and genders, knew exactly what Bellavia was speaking of when he compared a "hero" for children like Tiger Woods to a real hero who had sacrificed much for his nation like McCain and the many who had served in the past and present. Tiger, Bellavia has previously noted, is a fine man who has made much of his talents and often gives much back to communities like free golf clinics for the young and underprivileged, charitable events and various foundations. He is an excellent example of how to be a self made man who knows how to give back in recognition of the advantages he had been given.

But, if you are going to tell your children about "heroes", "sacrifice" and "love of country" who are you going to tell them about?

Try Mike Mansoor, Navy Seal, Medal of Honor recipient, who have his all for his country and for the men he served with when he jumped on a grenade.

Obama was not completely wrong. There is racism in this country, though not institutionalized and rarely raising its head publicly. I know what racism looks like. I had an unpleasant and unfortunate experience last week when someone made a comment that was neither ambiguous, subtle nor misconstrued, though it was under their breath and in the company of people they thought were "like minded" for some unknown reason. That person now knows it is unacceptable and intolerable, not only by me, but those in our group.

This egregious and scurrilous attack on Bellavia, however, makes me very upset. What good has Sam Stein done to equate, no, lower the issue of real racism to comparison with this non-event? I'll tell you, he has done no good. In fact, the construing of these comments to "racism" actually provides people cover when confronted with real, subtle and unsubtle, racism. He has done nothing, but provided a place for every half-wit with a political ax to grind, who see our soldiers as nothing but jack booted oppressors, and dislikes McCain, the Iraq war, and various other angst and neurosis, a place to vent their ugliness and idiocy.

Sam Stein owes Bellavia an apology, in public (since he made it that way).

Sam Stein, tear down that post.

� Secure this line!

The term *hero* has been bandied about so much over the past couple of decades that it's lost much of its original connotation, just as the term *racist* has been watered-down by overuse.

I don't walk through certain sections of Trenton because some of the inhabitants have spread the word that any white face appearing on their turf will be shot. I have *friends* in that neighborhood, but I won't visit them -- not because I'm a prejudiced SOB, but because it would be suicide for me to do it. My friends don't want me to visit because their homes would get firebombed -- the gang-bangers figure any black family receiving white visitors are informants.

But by Stein's definition, I'm a racist.

Wotta moron...

Heh. And now we're circular... since the Hot Air post linked our post with the citation for Bellavia's MoH nomination...

And now we're circular...

Only some of us.

I'm *linear*...

Where did the "Chickenhawk" meme go?

Now that the Dems don't have a faux military hero as their nominee, they're embarking on a strategy to trivialize and debase real military heroes like McCain and Bellavia, either by insinuating that they're racists, like the yahoos in kat's post, or like Jay Rockefeller in his recent comments that McCain just dropped laser guided bombs from 30,000 feet without considering the human toll of the destruction below.

Huffington Post is just a bunch of zealous morons, especially Mrs Huffington herself. Sometimes I just want to stuff my pointy highheel shoe right up their A$$, they would be burping leather for a month.

Racist, yea say "boo" and they think you are stating a racist quote. They are the ones who are racist, just like Sharpton. Idiots....

Heh. Someone whizzed in Rita's Wheaties® this morning!

Hero - A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life.

Athlete - A person possessing the natural or acquired traits, such as strength, agility, and endurance, that are necessary for physical exercise or sports, especially those performed in competitive contexts. Professional Athlete - same as above - except for MONEY.

My achin' butt!! Just sayin'. ML

I think they have been wizzing in my Wheaties for some time now :)

I just cannot stand when those people dripple lies and attack a person who has served his country with honor and distinction. We just need to stand up and fight that kind of rhetoric; and with pointy highheel shoes just for an extra jolt :).....

Since when did comparing sports heroes to war heroes become an issue of race? What a load of crap.
I'm waiting for Tiger to come out and announce that it's a load of crap too, as he's done in the past when the race card has been forced into play. He recognizes a true racial slur versus a comparison of hero status.

Crap, I tell ya. Crap.

While I think the last thing that David Bellavia is, is a racist. The "Tiger" thing wasn't well thought out. don't get me wrong, no one is on target all the time.

One of Huffington's commenters said that if it wasn't meant to be an insult, he didn't get the point. That's where I find myself in this. Sure John McCain should be admired for his service (no one needs to tell Princess Crabby that....). But, to be frank, there is nothing wrong with young people admiring Tiger Woods. He's naturally talented, he works hard & has achieved his successes legitimately.

John McCain doesn't need us to tear down other people to build him up.

"Dripple" - a new word for me.

I like it.

I'm quadrilateral, not even trapezoidal. No two sides of me are parallel.

It wasn't about "McCain" v. "Woods", it was "war hero" v. "athlete", "sacrifice of mind, body and life" v. "sacrifice of free time to practice".

Now, you're right, Woods is a good example of perseverance, goal setting and achievement with the extra of giving back to the community. That's a nice example for kids to look up to. But, I wouldn't call him a "hero" and if I was trying to inspire kids about doing the right thing or sacrificing something for a greater cause, it would be McCain or the men with Bellavia I would point to, not Tiger.

kat's kernel:

Hero vs Example

There are villains that this documentary wanted to ‘get’. They just happened to be VP Cheney and SecDef Rumsfeld instead of President Bush and the entire Administration. Quite honestly, this worked more like a hit piece on them than an indictment of President Bush. At their feet was laid almost all the blame for the run up to war, including claims of fudging the intelligence and ‘Curveball’, and the mishandling of the post takedown of Saddam. Rumsfeld, most heavily Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Yoo take the heat for Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and things over which there is debate over like ‘is it torture’ and should Taliban or other insurgents be considered POWs. These are the villains. Cheney is Darth Sidious/Emporer Palpatine, and Rumsfeld is his acolyte, sort of, Darth Vader who has things so drastically wrong at every turn.

I was actually quite surprised at the treatment of just about everyone else in the current Administration. President Bush is not a villain or a war criminal in this. A weak man maybe, someone mislead by those closest to him, and dominated by Cheney but not a villain. Dr. Rice gets a mixed treatment. She’s given a ‘weak nancy-girl’ treatment in the first installment but given kudos for pushing the Administration toward the ‘Clear, Hold, Build’ strategy and for taking on Rumsfeld after being made SecState. She’s given a lot of kudos for that. SecState Powell is treated like a sage who should have been listened to, but wasn’t. Surprisingly the flaws in everyone but Cheney and Rumsfeld are not taken as a pathway to denounce them as war criminals. They are portrayed as flawed, tragic, or unready for prime time individuals, but not evil. People caught up in events beyond their control or erroneous lines of thought, but not evil.

There is an assumptions underlying how this documentary’s first night unfolds that I don’t and never will agree with. One of the most prominent being the proposition that the War on Terror is solely about al Quaeda. Rumsfeld and Cheney, our villains, push for a broader conflict in the ME, or seek to satisfy some bizarre jones to attack Iraq, but the CIA wants to keep it only about bin Laden and aQ. I’ve always rejected this. Why? For the best formal reasoning read Dr. Tom Barnett’s books and blog. In a nutshell: because turning this into retributive raids or manhunts doesn’t end the threat. We did Libya, and still got attacked. Did Sudan, the infamous cruise missile diplomacy. Still got attacked. We tried the first WTC attackers in civilian court, and attacks still continued. Whack-a-mole and targeted manhunts all thru the 70’s to the late 90’s and it only gets worse. No, the solution to the problem of Islamicist ideology driven terrorism has to be larger and more complicated than simply hunting for OBL and taking down the Taliban because if that’s all it was we’d never have had a bin Laden because we did that in the 80-90’s (Libya et al.) to seemingly no effect. So, right there, I find a major flaw in this documentary. They’re pushing people who looked to the problem of int’l terrorism as a bigger problem than just bin Laden and labeling them traitors or people with, possibly evil, ulterior motives for the broader view. Since that’s a very critical assumption, underlying much of the first night’s case, it is a crippling disagreement.

The second night is by far the weakest in my opinion. It showed a real lack of knowledge by the documentarians of what Rumsfeld was trying to do. They really try to play it as strategy summed up in nine words: “Do it small. Get out fast. Screw the aftermath.” Rather simplistic, and also tosses aside what they laid out as the plan going in for the aftermath, yes, they admit that there was a post Saddam plan drawn up before the invasion, the first night (Achmed Chalabi). Something they spent a good twenty or thirty minutes on the previous night. That constitutes a continuity problem in my eyes. Honestly, Barnett does it best. Rumsfeld was right, and wrong. He had it 100% right on how small we could go to take down Iraq but was 100% wrong on the post conflict reconstruction being able to be done by the same sized force. The documentarians take the tack that Rumsfeld’s a grandstanding idiot, mostly.

The second night follows a chronology that could have been taken straight from the New York Times staff writers. It does present the first Battle of Fallujah in terms I’d not considered in the past, and bases their claims on interviews of ‘insiders’ (but not faceless, nameless ‘highly placed officials’). But, even here, it doesn’t look like they’re willing to go much outside their preset script. They deserve credit for trying a multidiscipline treatment of event, but they still take a preset position and are unwilling to deviate from it (the insurgency became indomitable after that because there were too few troops in Iraq, and it’s Rumsfeld’s fault).

By far I found the weakest bit of this whole thing was the panel of people they interviewed. It seemed stacked to me. Much of the commentary was done by some of the harshest critics. Where were the critics but not opponent type people? Did Barnett get called but turn them down? I’m not saying that they should’ve put Jonah Goldberg on there, but couldn’t someone like Max Boot or Mark Steyn---people who present cases for other rationales for doing Iraq---have been put on there? Now that would have put the real question to the people: is it or isn’t it part of a larger campaign, is the WOT only a big name for what amounts to ‘Get bin Laden!’? Some of the people they got were excellent choices. Andrew Krepinevich being one example, COLs Hammes and McMaster being others of the dozen or so out of the 50 or so people who offer commentary that are experts instead of journalists who really lend something substantive to the doc. Unfortunately the experts don’t get as much time as the journo’s and book writers do. I’d much rather have listened to dueling accounts of what happened and why between Col HR McMaster and Col Hammes or Gen Keating than listen to Ricks deride the strategy of the Gen casey tenure as ‘war tourism’.

One of the best, if painful, elements to this was the documentation of Rumsfeld’s role in ‘energetic interrogation’ implementation. They did this one well, if somewhat melodramatic. They laid they case, they showed the documents, they didn’t trot out someone un-named source. This was straight up reporting.

Worth watching. Gollum can’t give a number of ‘yes my preciousssssessss’ or anything like that on this. It is too complex for that kind of treatment. I’d watch it again. I want to watch it again. But that doesn’t mean I liked it or agreed with much of it. I know, it’s PBS, but it is worth the time.
--ry

� Secure this line!

I think Stephen Den Beste's summary of why we went to war in Iraq is one of the best I've seen so far:

http://denbeste.nu/essays/strategic_overview.shtml

I also watched the Frontline piece and it is worth the time. In the theory that you have to pan a lot of dirt to find a nugget this piece should be one of a number of sources. But yes, it was more like a docudrama then a true documentory.

why did we go to war in Iraq? Because I said so.

Ryan, The bottom-line is this, I agree with "Kat-Missouri". It really comes down to this- Because, Grumpy said so." But it is equally true, NONE of us have the facts! Everything has been intentionally blurred. Therefore, we have a whole series of different docudramas, this would include the whole military-veteran blog world, including this one. I am not saying you are liars or are trying to deceive anybody. You are dealing with perceptions. Even the people who are there only see a microcosm of the whole real picture. Many could accurately say this whole blog world is nothing more than a glorified op-ed piece. In the final view, these men will answer to the old "Hag" herself, her name is History. There will be a day when all of this will hang out in the open for all to see, totally and factually, with no spin.

You think there's no spin in History?

For a fascinating read on the subject, I would highly encourage everyone to read Yossef Bodansky's The Secret History of the Iraq War.

I found it to be a thorough study on the rat's nest that was/is Iraq.

Historians tell only the unvarnished, verifiable, uninfluenced truth, Trias!

Don't undermine my confidence!

No. this war will be spun so badly in history, no one will know what's real or not, not even if they put it "all out there". Our grandchildren will look back and think we were crazy, uber-hubris near nazis that over responded to the death of a tiny number of our citizens by giving our oil hungry and imperial government the go ahead to trample on some poor nation that we had alternately wanted to blow to pieces and annex to our country for over a decade for its oil wealth under the guise of getting the people who attacked us on 9/11.

Which will also have deep caveats about the probability that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the government in order to start the war in the first place.

I want to write McMillan and demand that, under the Iraq war, when they are explaining why we went to war, they should put my picture and the words "I said so." Someone should take the responsibility and stop dumping it all on the administration like some horrifically bloody scape goat.

Helllloooo???? I hope they write in those books how the Iraq war started out with 70% support. Of course, if they do, they will write that American citizens believed Saddam ordered 9/11.

History was already written in the newspapers. You just have to marvel at the bizarre parallel universe we live in. I can't decided which of us actually went down the rabbit hole.

Saddam will be a martyr to imperial dreams.

As we start going down the path of history, "She" will reveal all of the truth. Kat, you are right, people will try to spin it. The old saying many years ago was, "When politicians die, they don't bury them, they just screw them into the ground." The question becomes, "Is it a right handed thread or a left handed thread?" But as we grow older, we see things differently. There was another old saying, "He who does not learn from history is condemned to repeat it, repeat it and repeat it over again until you learn." D.O.D. made a policy change to disregard history, military and other types. In truth, this is like disregarding the 800 pound gorilla in the room. This is the most arrogant moronic move a human can make.

Somebody said "History is written by the winners" I guess nobody cares what the loosers think. At least there will be more sources for historians when this chapter is written and not just the front page of the NYT. Well...if they can make sure the Sandy Bergers of the world ain't stuffing history down the front of their pants.

I try to read different accounts so I can determine what was to have supposed to maybe happen. My father made me read British accounts of the Revolution when I was young just to make that point. Lordy but we were not nice people.

And..to get this off my chest...if it was just for oil...Canada and Mexico are next door and Chavez sits just around the corner. With what we have in country; we use very little from the middle east.

Don't go starting anything while I'm fishing in the Bahamas. I need to get back here. I promised my grand children to be out for trout season.

My father made me read British accounts of the Revolution when I was young just to make that point. Lordy but we were not nice people.

Nope, we sure weren't. For the most part, we refused to stand and fight unless we had an advantage in position or numbers and we had our sharpshooters target the officers *on purpose*, which was the height of Bad Sportsmanship in EuroWarfare back in the day.

We're *good* at guerrilla and counter-guerrilla warfare, whenever our doctrine doesn't get in the way...

BTW, my branch of the family had combatants on both sides during that scrap, so we usually refer to it as "Our First Civil War"...

‘Iran increases sub range to attack Israel and US.’ Yeah, an SSK(conventional power attack submarine, not a ‘boomer’ or ballistic missile submarine) firing a cruise missile is bad juju. 450kg sounds like a lot, particularly to those who don’t know that 1kg=2.2 pounds, but it’s only the equivalent of a 1000lb bomb. Again, bad juju, but not anything like the throw weight of a ballistic missile. It will blow the snot (Snot? Yeah, real nice technical term there, ry.) out of whatever building it hits or severely damage any USN asset that has its point defense systems defeated, but it isn’t all that different than what was already faced. 300km sounds far, but as 5km=3.2 (approximately) statute miles(don’t know what it comes to in nautical) you’re looking at a distance almost half of that from San Francisco to Los Angeles. Draw a circle on a map with a radius of about 190 miles. That’s the range of the cruise missile in question. That’s how close the sub would have to get to hit Tel Aviv or any US assets. So you might as well draw a circle of 190 mile radius centered on Tel Aviv on a map too. That’s where the sub would have to be to fire on Israeli territory. That circle basically leaves only the Red Sea in the vicinity of Medina or closer. Unless said Kilo rounds the Horn of Africa into the Atlantic to enter the Med, and then, well, hello SOSUS, the British Royal Navy, and the USN. Better to stick to the Arabian area.

There’s mention of the Kilo being a ‘Black Hole’ with the implication that she’d be a witch to track until it is well into firing range. True, SSK can be eerily quiet on battery(shudder). But a Kilo is going to have to snorkel to attain the range listed by Debka, and 400nm at 3kt from any port in Iran is well short of the 190 mile radius on your map. Snorkling is way loud. Running diesel generators is the equivalent of a Metallica concert in the realm of submarine stealth---not that I claim to know from personal experience mind you, but I have 'friends'. A Kilo isn’t going to transit all the way into a firing position on battery power, and if rumor be true on the ChiCom having an AIP edition of the Kilo it’s doubtful that they simply handed it over to Iran. She’s coming up for a blow. That doesn’t mean she’ll be found but it does mean there’s a chance, especially since there’s a nice, defined, area in which to look simplify matters (where the Gulf of Aden meets the Red Sea, defile even.). She’s findable well before she reaches a firing position if you’re nervous about it. A US sub tasked to find her will when she comes up for a blow while transiting to the Red Sea, if one is so tasked specifically.

But, they could put a nuclear warhead on it, ry you idiot! They might, if they had one. If they could make one small enough to meet the 1000lb requirement they might (where’s Jeffery Lewis the Arms Control Wonk when you need him?). If they had a tested warhead that they knew would work instead of simply landing in Israel like a lead weight they might. All publicly available data I’ve seen says they don’t, and that the Chinese don’t have it to sell to them either (ballistic missile warhead tech on the other hand…). They’ve not conducted a test of the warhead—why do I feel like I’m arguing about DPRK’s supposed nuc missile arsenal again?--- while they may have tested the alterations to the vehicle to hold such a warhead.

They could abuse the right of navigation laws to operate their sub in the Persian Gulf and IO until they reached some waypoint from which they could saunter on into a firing position around Medina in the Red Sea. Aye, they could. But they’d have to snorkel a few times while doing so, and thereby give away where they are and a basic course. In other words, a big red flag to watch the iron witch closely and react decisively when something untoward is done (such as hearing the witch flood tubes in preparation to fire or come up to launch depth because there’s a fairly well defined, by a weapon by weapon basis, depth below which the ASCM cannot be deployed).

It’s bad juju. No doubt. It’s a reason to invest in ASW(anti-sub warfare) assets like the P-3 (or its successor, or another bird from another country) and submarines capable of operating out there themselves to find said Kilo(if you’re Israel, which only has a limited capacity for this. The US already has both and in numbers to protect Med targets and deployed task forces.).

But it isn’t a reason to panic, which the Debka piece is basically begging people to do. We rightly get called clowns—or worse---- for it when we OS guys do that ‘the sky is falling’ thing overmuch. Particularly when this threat has existed for as long as Iran has owned Kilo class SSK with any kind of CM that can be modified for land attack missions, which in this case is since the mid-90s. Stick to the facts. Don’t ‘chew the steak’ for your client or audience. Don’t turn everything Iran does into Godzilla swimming into Tokyo Bay. It doesn’t do us any good.
--ry

� Secure this line!

Wow all those words condense into "Don’t turn everything Iran does into Godzilla swimming into Tokyo Bay"

In many ways i feel like Israel is more a favourite punching bag than a legitimate target. A way to deflect the ire of citizens at home. Not that I'm saying they wouldn't like to attack it.

From my layman pov disrupting the shipping of Israel would be a good way to go if i wanted to harm it. The whole nuke and missile thing sounds too expensive or too limited. I just don't feel those subs cut the mustard regardless of the way they go from what you say and the specs. Those turds in power are always talking up capability for political reasons.

Remember too Israel weathered a literal rain of missiles recently. I doubt Iran could do enough to really make a lot of impact that way.

It would be one more terror and a prelude to a more significant attack if Iran put a missile from a sub on Israel.

I guess I'm saying you're treating it as if it was singularly about the subs. Or about Israel. Everyone always assumes this is about Israel, but there are other targets I would be equally concerned about and other capabilities.

NOt that I place much treasure on a Debka report. Just saying.

It's not DEBKA, it's the reporting on Iran in general. Few people actually look at the Iranian kit to see what it's capable of. Then they regurgitate the text of the Iranian press release. Some analysts have been studying the various aspects of the Iranian military, but few are sourced for info. Basically, the Iranian military is about as good as the Iraqi military in 1991.

Cheers

That's my assessment, too, CAPT H. With perhaps slightly better maintenance in some key elements, and less so in others, despite their trolling of DRMO auctions for airplane parts.

*A term of art from the artillery. Harassment and Interdiction Fires.

Back in the day, when you could just kill people and break things without a note from a lawyer, they were pre-planned, but to the enemy, random, fires at known gathering points, road junctions, Main Supply Routes, assembly areas, etc - to keep the bad guy nervous that the world around him might start exploding at any minute.

*Not really relevant to today's operating environment, right? But, it *is*

The UAVs (oops, can't call 'em UAVs anymore - they're now Unmanned Aerial Systems... some Colonel got his Legion of Merit for that change...), er, um UAS's we fly over Afghanistan and Pakistan looking for targets of opportunity are a form of H&I fires, if you really want to parse it finely. We just have better sensors and fire control now.

I call the post that because it's random things posted by me and people I've given posting privileges to. It's also an open trackback, so if someone has a post they're proud of, but it really isn't either Castle kind of stuff, or topical to a particular post, I've basically given blanket permission to use that post for that purpose. Another term of art that might be appropriate is "Free Fire Zone"

� Secure this line!

When you consider anything Sanchez says, you have to remember to take it with a grain of salt- this is the man in charge during Abu Ghraib, who lost a star and any chance of furthering- or even continuing- his military career as a result of the Abu Ghriab fallout.
Bitter is the word that comes to mind.

Technically he didn't *lose* that star. He just never got it.

And Karpinski, who did lose her star, didn't officially lose it for Abu Ghraib, but for failing to mention her shoplifting arrest on her GO vetting paperwork. (That story is pretty complex, and there's no doubt that Abu Ghraib is what caused someone to examine her paperwork closely), but she *should* have lost her star for Abu Ghraib.

And Sanchez should have been retired on the spot, not allowed to take V Corps back to Germany and hang around like he did. But I'm mean that way.

I would tend to agree with both of you on Sanchez in general. But the point of the Powerline post, and indeed the thrust of Sanchez' words, is that the press jumps to conclusions and does poor reporting and fact-checking. Forget who is speaking and just read the words - he is right. And how ironic that they prove his very point by titling the piece as if he thrashed the administration rather than them! It is to laugh.

And I meant to limit my agreement to his thrashing of the press, as I did not yet read the second half of the speech.

Barb makes the mistake of assuming because I commented, I read the link!

This is a blog, I'm a blogger! I don't have to do that!

Actually, I'm saving my thoughts on Sanchez for tomorrow - FuzzyB just beat me to the linkage. I was just making clear Sanchez didn't lose a star, he didn't get the star everyone expected him to.

But I'm guessing no one at DoD or the White House wanted the circus the Senate Confirmation of a 4th star for Sanchez would have been.

It seems to me that Sanchez is awfully late in coming to his conclusions about this war. I have no respect for any flag officer who claims, only well after the fact, that he disagreed with the policies he was charged with implementing.

The problem, of course, is that most flag officers just love the power and the prestige and aren't willing to jeopardize their position until well after their retirement is locked in and the book is being written.

If you want to see what happens to a fine officer who had the balls to very publicly disagree with his Commander in Chief look up the biography of Major General John K. Singlaub. If you want someone to admire, or better yet, to emulate, then Jack Singlaub is a shining example of an officer who did his duty as he saw it regardless of the consequences.

I'm going to don my Triple C cap here, and cut GEN Sanchez some slack.

Most of us weren't party to the meetings where the Iraq War Plan was hashed out. We don't know if he raised objections back then and was then a good soldier in not going to the press or Congress the way MacArthur did. Not everyone involved in Op Overlord and its aftermath liked it or agreed in how it was implemented----it's just that those arguments have largely been forgotten and ignored--- nor have those on the ground always agreed with the political leadership's decisions(from WW1 to the Gulf War). .

So I'm going to cut Sanchez some slack. Unless someone can come forward with the minutes of those planning sessions to show Sanchez sat on his hands I'd say lay off a bit. I really don't like the ad hominem like charges that he shouldn't be believed because Abu Ghraib was under his set of responsibilities. He deserves better than that.

...he shouldn't be believed because Abu Ghraib was under his set of responsibilities. He deserves better than that.

If you're in command, you get the credit for what goes right and the blame for what goes wrong, regardless of your contribution (or involvement) in either situation. That's why he got that big Flag-grade dust before he hung up the star suit and why he gets the big retirement check now, ry.

KtLW blames me for everything that's gone wrong in the immediate galactic neighborhood since Adam gave Eve the apple -- or the quince, depending on your knowledge of Mesopotamian flora -- and I don't even get the consolation of calling a press conference...

It seems to me that Sanchez is awfully late in coming to his conclusions about this war. I have no respect for any flag officer who claims, only well after the fact, that he disagreed with the policies he was charged with implementing.

Exactly. Where was all this courageous truth-to-powering when it might have made a difference?

*crickets chirping*

No, he saves the carping for when it will hurt someone else who is trying to do the same job he was.

Your response seems a bit like a non-sequitur to me, Chief. He takes all the blame(and all the credit) but can't be believed because something bad happened under him? For all time anything he says is inherently suspect? I'm not talking about blame or accolades, but whether or not he should be believed simply because Abu Ghraib occurred. That seems very ad-hominem to me. It is saying democrats can't be trusted, HRC is a democrat, ergo she cannot be trusted kind of thing. He gets all the accolades and all the blame, what does that have to do with the veracity of what he says now? So Patton was unbelievable because he slapped a couple of soldiers? Really, that's the tack you seem to be taking here. Something bad happened under him so he's totally un-credible. So because KtLW says it's your fault I shouldn't believe you when you tell me how to cut down trees then? That, in essence, is what you're saying, Unka Bill.

It's not like he's David Brock, an admitted liar trying to pass himself off now as a truth teller.

And had he spoken out publicly in the past? Come on, you know he'd have been crucified by us for thinking he was MacArthur, the American Ceaser who could change American policy by being 'God's Gift to the Army'--which necessitated his firing to save the Republic. Can't have your cake and eat it too is what I'm saying. You can't have civilian control of the military, banning officers from speaking publicly since that amounts to them telling the civies what to do(forbidden! Run Will Robinson! Danger! DAnger!), and then blast a guy for not speaking out publicly while he was in uniform. That's an unfair position. That's like saying, "Sit here and let me lock up your arms so I can beat you with a stick no matter what you do." (Please note: I don't agree with Sanchez.)

The knock that it's taken him a bit long since he went on the 'fade away' is not what I'm arguing against, but that he spoke out at all. UNless there's minutes of the meetings I think you all need to cut the guy some slack. Kill his arguments instead of hurling the trivet at his head. (Ow! Who knew Cassie was that accurate from out on the Eastern Seaboard? That's gonna leave a mark. At least she didn't tweak my ears.)

And Sgt. B seems to be doing recon work by being ahead.

Your response seems a bit like a non-sequitur to me, Chief. He takes all the blame(and all the credit) but can't be believed because something bad happened under him?

Heh. Read the first paragraph again.

Then read the second one again.

There are people who won't believe him just because AG happened on his watch, there are people who won't believe him because he was in Bush's Army and there are people who won't believe him because he doesn't have an Irish surname.

Democrats won't believe him because poor Iraqi terr suspects being held in an Iraqi prison in the middle of Iraq were denied their red-white-and-blue Civil Rights guaranteed by the US Constitution and Republicans won't believe him because they figure the idea of putting somebody's Froot o' the Looms on a detainee's head had to have come from higher than E-5 level.

All of which means, "It doesn't matter whether you believe him or not, because the crux of the matter is that he's made a bit of political hay and waited until he was essentially untouchable before he did it."

And don't forget -- *I* gave you the pros, cons, technical and tactical details, environmental impact statement, suggestions on how to hide the resulting evidence *before* you did the deed -- in *writing* -- and I didn't peach on ya to GreenPeas after the assassination, so *I* haz cred...

True. He didn't technically lose a star.. but I'm willing to bet that if he hadn't been caught up in Abu Ghraib he would have 4 now instead of 3.

*Shakes head*

AFSis... iddn't dat whut I sayd?

OK, if you are too lazy (like me) to read Sanchez....you can listen on CSpan.

Sanchez starts speaking 8 minutes in. For 10 solid minutes he rips the press. Then he turns to the management of the conflict in Iraq for 12 minutes. Then he took questions for 25 minutes. Then they gave him a little present "The Day of Battle" by Rick Atkinson book about WWII.

Yes, John, I know you did. I was just making the point that I also knew that, just didn't lay it all out in my first comment.
Mama may have raised a fool... but I'm no idjit.

And don't forget -- *I* gave you the pros, cons, technical and tactical details, environmental impact statement, suggestions on how to hide the resulting evidence *before* you did the deed -- in *writing* -- and I didn't peach on ya to GreenPeas after the assassination, so *I* haz cred...

Tiz true, Unka Bill did do this. Somehow while out teaching people how to fly heloflopters at night he had time to instruct on how to do yard work. Though I still wound up with a half dozen nicks and cuts, learning the trade with a real empty tool shed dontchaknow. The three ______ _____ were a pain in the butt to get rid of, particularly since Mom passed on the copper nail trick. Digging out root balls is not fun.

Chief, yer a living national treasure, as they say in Japan, and ought to be subsidised. Yup, I vote for 1% of my pay in my next job to be sent right to you, and have my social security "contribution" have that deducted from it.