ARLINGTON, Va. - 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 might recall that there was no coherent Iraqi military to recall after major combat operations ceased. And that army (unlike the currrent one), with a core of corrupt Sunni officers and beaten-down Shi'a enlisted personnel, wasn't going to help matters much. One can argue how best the several hundred thousand young men should have been handled, but there was a careful discussion and a decision made. Had I been in charge, and no one asked me, I would have disbanded the army as a military force, but kept them on duty and paid as a construction/clean-up/light security force. Even that would have been problematic, and I'll concede it might not have worked.
As to the tribal leaders, our people approached them from almost the first day. But they weren't listening to us because 1) they had dreams of getting their power back 2) Sammy was still on the loose and 3) al-Qaeda was making what they thought was a better offer. Now they know they'll never be top dogs again, Sammy has been hanged, and al-Qaeda abused them so badly that they see us as the better deal. Takes time to make that clear, general. |
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.
| I'm going to presume he was blunt with the President when he was in charge in Iraq. If not, why not? And if so, someone has to explain why he was 1) wrong or 2) ignored. |
Sanchez avoided pointing his criticism at any single official or agency, but it appeared a broad indictment of White House policies and a lack of leadership in the Pentagon to oppose them. Such assessments — even by former Pentagon brass — are not new, but they have added resonance as debates over war strategy dominate the presidential campaign.
Sanchez went on to offer a pessimistic view on the current U.S. strategy against extremists will make lasting gains, but said a full-scale withdrawal also was not an option. "The American military finds itself in an intractable situation ... America has no choice but to continue our efforts in Iraq," said Sanchez, who works as a consultant training U.S. generals.
| It's not intractable at all. The current effort will either succeed, or not. If not, and if the Iraqis can't pull their country together, we'll have to leave. Sammy will still be dead, but we may have to go back in ten years or so. If the current effort succeeds to the point of more political stability, we'll pull back gradually. Nothing in either choice is intractable. |
|