Another former US Commander speaks out.

[DeepIron]

Yet another top ranking military leader speaks out: :up::up::up:

CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/13/iraq.sanchez/index.html
Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1241629620071013
BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7042805.stm

My favorite part:
Retired Lt Gen Ricardo Sanchez also labelled US political leaders as "incompetent" and "corrupted".
Too true, too true... :nope:

[bradclark1]

He's letting his views known thats for sure and you can't call him wrong either.

[ASWnut101]

Just curious, but I've noticed that they are all "ex-commanders" or retired. Why?

[Ishmael]

Just curious, but I've noticed that they are all "ex-commanders" or retired. Why?

It's against the Uniform Code of Military Justice for any member of the armed forces to criticize the Commander-In-Chief under the Disrespect of an Officer statue, no matter how big an idiot he may actually be.

I don't know what he says about Abu Ghraib, but it was Rumsfeld and the PCA that ordered the General from Gitmo, Murphy I think his name was, to "Gitmoize" Abu Ghraib with Civilian Contractor interrogaters ordering US troops around to torture prisoners. This led to the scandal, which only fed the insurgency.

[bradclark1]

I don't know what he says about Abu Ghraib, but it was Rumsfeld and the PCA that ordered the General from Gitmo, Murphy I think his name was, to "Gitmoize" Abu Ghraib with Civilian Contractor interrogaters ordering US troops around to torture prisoners. This led to the scandal, which only fed the insurgency.
As the Iraq commander he was held ultimately responsible for Abu Ghraib. Goes with the job.

[JALU3]

The problem with this story is that they only provide snippets of what he said, and attempt to roll it to supporting one policy preference over another.

Here is an other article which includes more of what he stated:
http://stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=49460

Included is a line usually left out of the other articles:
“From a catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan, to the administration’s latest surge strategy, this administration has failed to employ and synchronize the political, economic and military power,” Sanchez said.

[micky1up]

amazing how they all say its wrong after they have lead men into danger not while they are in those positions pension worries probably

[Chock]

This just goes to show that there really is nothing new under the sun, Iraq and Afghanistan are (as many feared) turning into Vietnam Mark 2, and it was years after the US pull out from SE Asia that complaints and criticisms surfaced. Very few people spoke out at the time with regard to complaints about poor policies and attrocities, and those that did were pretty much ostricized.

One of my personal heroes, Hugh C Thompson Jnr is a case in point for this kind of thing. He had the balls to stop the My Lai massacre and threatened to attack US troops if they carried on murdering villagers, going so far as to order his helicopter crewmen to open fire on anyone who did so, also ordering his superior officers to cease what they were doing (which, knowing they were doing wrong, was an order they obeyed, despite outranking him).

Of course, this did Thompson's career no favours whatsoever, and he (and his helicopter crew) were only eventually honored for their actions over thirty years after the event. Before that recognition, he was treated like dirt by the US Army, whereas what he actually did should be one of things of which they are most proud.

If more people displayed the kind of bravery and selflessness he did, the world would be a much better place.

You can read about Hugh C Thompson Jnr's actions here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Thompson,_Jr.

:D Chock

[bradclark1]

Things are starting to change.
“If the general remains silent while the statesman commits a nation to war with insufficient means, he shares culpability for the results,”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/us/14army.html?ex=1350014400&en=ddab59dbe6e8fcc9&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

These are the junior field grade officers who are being groomed to lead the Army in the future. That this is happening at all at the Command and Staff course at all is kind of shocking to me but in a good way. It seems that professional courage and conscience is starting to grow. If it is happening here it is happening in the other services also.

[waste gate]

For the sake of argument, a question was posed: If enough four-star generals had done that, would it have stopped the war?
“Yeah, we’d call it a coup d’etat,” Colonel Fontenot said. “Do you want to have a coup d’etat? You kind of have to decide what you want. Do you like the Constitution, or are you so upset about the Iraq war that you’re willing to dismiss the Constitution in just this one instance and hopefully things will be O.K.? I don’t think so.”

This is the most telling piece of the arcticle. By design the military are subservant to the national political authority. Are liberals now in favor of overturning this? Sounds like it. The unfortunate aspect for liberals is that they are unarmed by choice, and victims by predilection and birth.

[Skybird]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gylkh3Hk3s

[waste gate]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gylkh3Hk3s

I guess I need some of your overly wordy interpretation here SB:D

What does this clip to do with the thread subject?

[Skybird]

Some will understand that without words, others even wont be helped with many words.

[DeepIron]

Some will understand that without words, others even wont be helped with many words.

Sounds suspiciously like what the "The Sphinx" would say from the movie "Mystery Men".... Cool.... :cool:

But we can't just vacate Iraq with Iran standing by to fill the vacuum...

What can be done?

[Skybird]

Some will understand that without words, others even wont be helped with many words.

Sounds suspiciously like what the "The Sphinx" would say from the movie "Mystery Men".... Cool.... :cool:

But we can't just vacate Iraq with Iran standing by to fill the vacuum...

What can be done?

If you can't leave, as you say, then you have to stay. Your concerns you should have taken into account four and a half year earlier, beforer making the loosing move. Now it is too late, so you need to suffer the karma you have created yourself. You maybe will learn to understand what went wrong, and why, and see your errors back then. This will not free you from suffering your karma nevertheless.

[DeepIron]

I knew it Skybird... you are "The Sphinx"... :lol:

[bradclark1]

For the sake of argument, a question was posed: If enough four-star generals had done that, would it have stopped the war?
“Yeah, we’d call it a coup d’etat,” Colonel Fontenot said. “Do you want to have a coup d’etat? You kind of have to decide what you want. Do you like the Constitution, or are you so upset about the Iraq war that you’re willing to dismiss the Constitution in just this one instance and hopefully things will be O.K.? I don’t think so.”

This is the most telling piece of the arcticle. By design the military are subservant to the national political authority. Are liberals now in favor of overturning this? Sounds like it. The unfortunate aspect for liberals is that they are unarmed by choice, and victims by predilection and birth.
Funny how if you don't like something it's automatically liberal.:lol: Kind of narrow Waste Gate.

responsibility:
An act or course of action that is demanded of one, as by position, custom, law, or religion

They don't have to say no. That is wrong. But if more Generals had of honestly supported Gen Shinseki in claiming the goals were untenable would this disaster have happened? Was it right to fire a Army Chief of Staff because he gave a true assessment when asked by congress about his opinion on this invasion? Would the president have still pressed ahead if faced with the reality of his decision?
I leave it with this quote:
“We have an obligation that if our civilian leaders give us an order, unless it is illegal, immoral or unethical, then we’re supposed to execute it, and to not do so would be considered insubordinate,” said Major Timothy Jacobsen, another student. “How do you define what is truly illegal, immoral or unethical? At what point do you cross that threshold where this is no longer right, I need to raise my hand or resign or go to the media?”
It is enough that this is being questioned.

[JALU3]

Well what we do is learn from our mistakes . . . hunker down for the long-haul . . . grow our force size and capability to meet the foreseen needs of the situation . . . and adjust and overcome.
Defeat is not an option . . . the impact of a collapse of the Nation-State of Iraq on the region would have implications that would last dozens of years after that event. All those impacts would be foreseen as a negative on US interests in the region.
As with other situations, the US has the resources, if it chose to focus its resources, to avoid defeat, and achieve a marginal victory . . . if only we would have the willpower to avoid defeat.

[bradclark1]

As with other situations, the US has the resources, if it chose to focus its resources, to avoid defeat, and achieve a marginal victory . . . if only we would have the willpower to avoid defeat.
Okay. Then where would these resources be to focus?

[Ishmael]

Some will understand that without words, others even wont be helped with many words.

Sounds suspiciously like what the "The Sphinx" would say from the movie "Mystery Men".... Cool.... :cool:

But we can't just vacate Iraq with Iran standing by to fill the vacuum...

What can be done?

My question is simply this. Why can't we leave? Ultimately it is for the Iraqi people to figure out for themselves. Whether they live in peace or slaughter each other is ultimately their business and their responsibility. If all our troops are doing there is being targets for both sides of a religious civil war, what purpose are they serving there other than to protect oil. We need to remove our troops from Iraq and go back to hunting bin-laden and al-zuahiri in Waziristan, where our troops should have been concentrating the last four years.

But Bush won't do that. His plan is, and always was, to bankrupt the nation, break the military and dump this war off on the next administration so they can blame the next guy for "losing" Iraq.

Here's a clue. Iraq was lost the minute Bush,Cheney, Rumsfeld and their little friends didn;t send enough troops to maintain civil order. If you read Naomi Klein's new book, "The Shock Doctrine", It's hard to escape the realization that chaos in Iraq was their plan all along.

[waste gate]

Some will understand that without words, others even wont be helped with many words.

Sounds suspiciously like what the "The Sphinx" would say from the movie "Mystery Men".... Cool.... :cool:

But we can't just vacate Iraq with Iran standing by to fill the vacuum...

What can be done?

My question is simply this. Why can't we leave? Ultimately it is for the Iraqi people to figure out for themselves. Whether they live in peace or slaughter each other is ultimately their business and their responsibility. If all our troops are doing there is being targets for both sides of a religious civil war, what purpose are they serving there other than to protect oil. We need to remove our troops from Iraq and go back to hunting bin-laden and al-zuahiri in Waziristan, where our troops should have been concentrating the last four years.

But Bush won't do that. His plan is, and always was, to bankrupt the nation, break the military and dump this war off on the next administration so they can blame the next guy for "losing" Iraq.

Here's a clue. Iraq was lost the minute Bush,Cheney, Rumsfeld and their little friends didn;t send enough troops to maintain civil order. If you read Naomi Klein's new book, "The Shock Doctrine", It's hard to escape the realization that chaos in Iraq was their plan all along.

It isn't quite a simple as 'Why can't we leave'? It goes much deeper than that.

Iran has said it would fill the vacuum created by the US military withdrawal. This is the same Iran whose leader has a belief in the apocalyptic end to man in order to bring about the reign of Allah. This is the same Iran whose leader regularly espouses the destruction of another nation, that nation being Israel. Iran's threats are not idle. The summer of 2006 when Iranian surrogates battled with Israel using Lebanon as the battlefield is a prime example.

If you can't see the US using its blood and treasure for Israel I have another situation to contemplate. Russia. The EU is already concerned about the Russian use of natural gas as a weapon against the EU. Russia has made no secret of its alliance with Iran, albeit an alliance of convenience. Now the US leaves the vacuum in Iraq for Iran, and Russia has an uneasy relationship with the EU regarding energy, what do we have? Does the EU really want the US to withdraw from Iraq at this point? Probably not. Is the world more stable if Iran controls that much of the Mid-East (think HMS Cornwall), not likely.

The scenrio(s) goes even deeper. So no, 'Why can't we leave'?, isn't a realistic option. And any responsible person sees that.

[Skybird]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-511492,00.html


Many in the US military think Bush and Cheney are out of control. They are rebelling against Bush and Cheney. Washington Post reporter Dana Priest recently said in an interview that she believed the US military would revolt and refuse to fly missions against Iran if the White House issued such orders.

CENTCOM [US Central Command, the military grouping whose responsibilities include the Middle East] commander Admiral William Fallon reportedly thwarted Cheney's wish to sent a third additional aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf. One paper wrote that he "vowed privately there would be no war against Iran as long as he was chief of CENTCOM."

Lt. Gen. Bruce Wright, in charge of US forces in Japan, told the Associated Press last week that the Iraq war had weakened American forces in the face of any potential conflict with China. He was quoted as saying, "Are we in trouble? It depends on the scenario. But you have to be concerned about the small number of our forces and the age of our forces."

See this and link it to the still living rumours that that bomber loosing nukes some time ago was indeed on a mission to stockpile nukes in the ME and that part of the Air Force revolted against those orders ( http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=121678 , http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6909 ) . Of course this was offcially denied, and always will be denied, but the timing of these and other events (the Israelis strike, the rethoric concerning war with Iran, and some other minor details like French and Russian diplomatic activities at that time) remains to be suspicious.

[SUBMAN1]

That is not what I call a top commander. His backgraound is that of a tank commander, and he had no idea how to command troops outside of tank formations. I watched a Frontline report on him and he was supposed to be the clean up and get out commander, and he had no idea how to deal with an insurgency. He was in a position that he shouldn't have been in from the start, and had little experience commanding. The real commanders had already left the battlefield, and he was just supposed to finish a job he had no idea how to finish. He is just blaming everyone for the failure of his career is what I am seeing. I have more on him if anyone is interested.

-S

[bradclark1]

That is not what I call a top commander. His backgraound is that of a tank commander, and he had no idea how to command troops outside of tank formations. I watched a Frontline report on him and he was supposed to be the clean up and get out commander, and he had no idea how to deal with an insurgency. He was in a position that he shouldn't have been in from the start, and had little experience commanding. The real commanders had already left the battlefield, and he was just supposed to finish a job he had no idea how to finish. He is just blaming everyone for the failure of his career is what I am seeing. I have more on him if anyone is interested.

-S
Who are you talking about?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

The scenrio(s) goes even deeper. So no, 'Why can't we leave'?, isn't a realistic option. And any responsible person sees that.

I bet that's what a lot of people said about Vietnam before they left anyway...

[waste gate]

The scenrio(s) goes even deeper. So no, 'Why can't we leave'?, isn't a realistic option. And any responsible person sees that.

I bet that's what a lot of people said about Vietnam before they left anyway...

Was that what was said? Link please.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

The scenrio(s) goes even deeper. So no, 'Why can't we leave'?, isn't a realistic option. And any responsible person sees that.

I bet that's what a lot of people said about Vietnam before they left anyway...

Was that what was said? Link please.

Remember the good old days of Domino Theory. And how that didn't stop the Americans from leaving when the bodies started piling, and how everything ended up more or less fine in the end?

[Chock]

Was that what was said? Link please


Well it might not have been said, but it was exactly what happened right after Lam Son 719 didn't work out. And once the ARVN lost helicopter support from the US in '75, it was all in the bag for Uncle Ho. If you substitute Dinnerjacket for Ho (and the religious nutters behind him that pull the strings), that's what's in store for Iraq if the coalition pulls out (or more likely, when it pulls out, which I'm fully expecting Gordon Brown to announce for British troops right before he announces an election).

:D Chock

[SUBMAN1]

That is not what I call a top commander. His backgraound is that of a tank commander, and he had no idea how to command troops outside of tank formations. I watched a Frontline report on him and he was supposed to be the clean up and get out commander, and he had no idea how to deal with an insurgency. He was in a position that he shouldn't have been in from the start, and had little experience commanding. The real commanders had already left the battlefield, and he was just supposed to finish a job he had no idea how to finish. He is just blaming everyone for the failure of his career is what I am seeing. I have more on him if anyone is interested.

-S Who are you talking about?
Sanchez - He's a simple tank commander, nothing more. This is the guy speaking out in the article.

[Skybird]

that is nonsens, because all high ranking flag officers have started in small, so did Sanchez. Abu Ghraib gave his career a political killing-point, of course.

wikpedia (English) has a short biography of him, however, the far more detailed biography, listing all his assignments and merits, is to be found on the German Wikipedia site:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardo_S._S%C3%A1nchez

Sounds like a regular career from platoon leader to division commander, with some representative assignments of no small reputations in between.

English Wikipedia quoted him with a japanese proverb: "Action without vision is a nightmare." I like that.

Do I have special interst in or sympathy for the man? No. I just don't like it that somebody is getting a bashing and minimizing of his career just because he is of the "wrong" opinion.

[bradclark1]

Sanchez - He's a simple tank commander, nothing more. This is the guy speaking out in the article.
You don't become a lieutenant general in todays army by being just a simple tank commander. Then again they made Rick Lynch a major general and I thought he sucked when he was a lieutenant colonel. And there is no 'simple' to being a tank commander.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Sanchez - He's a simple tank commander, nothing more. This is the guy speaking out in the article. You don't become a lieutenant general in todays army by being just a simple tank commander. Then again they made Rick Lynch a major general and I thought he sucked when he was a lieutenant colonel. And there is no 'simple' to being a tank commander.

And what other choices are there, really. There's "simple" infantry commander and "simple" artillery commander. That's it. There are other specialties, sure, but as you get further away from the combat arms, your chances of promotion to the top levels fall rapidly.

[SUBMAN1]

Sanchez - He's a simple tank commander, nothing more. This is the guy speaking out in the article. You don't become a lieutenant general in todays army by being just a simple tank commander. Then again they made Rick Lynch a major general and I thought he sucked when he was a lieutenant colonel. And there is no 'simple' to being a tank commander.

Yes you do. He was not, nor has ever had any training or experience to deal with what he had to deal with. His former commanders did, but thought the job was done. His boss said he made a mistake by putting him in charge and takes full blame for it.

Don't get me wrong, Sanchez is a good tank commander, and he is exceptional at tank warfare, but he is not good at urban combat and has never had any real training or experience in it. Tack on an insurgency, and you have a brewing pot of mistakes - one right after the other.

-S

[Tchocky]

That his concentration is in tank warfare shouldn't impair his powers of observation.

Retired Lt Gen Ricardo Sanchez also labelled US political leaders as "incompetent" and "corrupted".

[Skybird]

Even if you are not fluent in German, you can make sense of this, by looking at the years, ranks, and unit names.

I wonder why in 2005, when he was in command of the Vth Corps in Germany, and the corps was moving to Iraq to become the headquarter for operations there, commanded by another general than Sanchez, I wonder why the unit flag remained with Sanchez in Germany?


1973 Studium mit einem Bachelor (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor) in Mathematik und Geschichte an der Texas A&M University-Kingsville (http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Texas_A%26M_University-Kingsville&action=edit) ab. Während seines Studiums erhielt er ein ROTC (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_Officer_Training_Corps)-Stipendium und wurde daher nach dem Studium in die US Army eingezogen und bei der Panzertruppe zum Second Lieutenant (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Lieutenant) ausgebildet. Seine erste Verwendung war die eines Zugführers (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zugf%C3%BChrer_%28Milit%C3%A4r%29) im 4. Bataillon (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataillon), 68. US-Panzerregiment (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regiment) der 82. US-Luftlandedivision (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/82._US-Luftlandedivision) in Fort Bragg (North Carolina) (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Bragg_%28North_Carolina%29). Anschließend folgten Verwendungen als Erster Offizier (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erster_Offizier) einer Kompanie (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kompanie_%28Milit%C3%A4r%29), als assistierender Logistikoffizier und Operationsoffizier (S3 (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabsabteilung)) in der selben Division.

Später wurde Sánchez Ordonnazoffizier des assistierenden Divisionskommandeurs. Im Juni 1977 übernahm er das Kommando über die C-Kompanie des 4. Bataillons, 68. US-Panzerregiment. Danach wurde er als Kontrolloffizier im Büro des Sekretärs des Joint Staff (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Staff) der US Forces Korea (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Forces_Korea), der 8. US-Armee (http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=8._US-Armee&action=edit) eingesetzt. Sánchez absolvierte die Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monterey_%28Kalifornien%29), Kalifornien (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalifornien) mit einem Master-Abschluss in Operationsforschung und Ingenieurwesen für Systemanalyse und wurde danach dem US Army Armor Center (Panzerausbildungszentrum) in Fort Knox (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Knox), Kentucky (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky) zugeteilt. Er diente dort als Leiter der Abteilung für zukünftige Panzerkampfsysteme, der Gruppe für spezielle Studien und der Panzerinvestitions- und Strategiegruppe. Ebenso war er als Projektoffizier im Direktorat des Kampfentwicklungszentrums eingesetzt.

Danach schloss sich eine Auslandsverwendung in Gelnhausen (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelnhausen), Deutschland an, wo er als Operationsoffizier (S3) und Erster Offizier (XO) des 3. Bataillons, 8. US-Kavallerieregiment (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kavallerie) der 3. US-Panzerdivision (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/3._US-Panzerdivision) diente und danach als stellvertretender Operationsoffizier (G3) der Division in Frankfurt am Main (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_am_Main) eingesetzt war. Im Juni 1990 übernahm er dann das Kommando des 2. Bataillons, 69. US-Panzerregiment der 197. US-Infanteriebrigade (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigade) in Fort Benning (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Benning), Georgia (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia) und führte dieses im Kampfeinsatz während der Operationen Desert Shield/Storm (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zweiter_Golfkrieg) im Kuwait (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwait) und dem Irak (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irak). Nach dem Krieg wurde seine Brigade in die 3. Brigade der 24. US-Infanteriedivision umgegliedert. Nach diesem Truppenkommando war er als Ermittler für das Büro des Generalinspekteurs der US Army in Washington (D.C.) (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_%28D.C.%29) tätig. Im Juli 1994 übernahm er dann das Kommando der 2. Brigade (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigade) der 1. US-Infanteriedivision (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/1._US-Infanteriedivision) (der späteren 3. Brigade der 1. US-Panzerdivision (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/1._US-Panzerdivision)) in Fort Riley (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Riley), Kansas (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas). Danach wurde er ins Hauptquartier des US Southern Command (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Southern_Command) (SOUTHCOM) in Quarry Heights (http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quarry_Heights&action=edit), Panama (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama) versetzt, wo er als stellvertretender Stabschef eingesetzt war.

Nach der Beförderung zum Brigadier General (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigadier_General) wurde Sánchez Operationsdirektor und später Direktor für Strategische Planungen (J-3/J-5) des SOUTHCOM. Nach dieser Verwendung wurde er assistierender Divisionskommandeur der 1. US-Infanteriedivision in Deutschland. In dieser Zeit war er auch Kommandeur (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kommandeur) der Mulitnationalen Brigade Ost der KFOR (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/KFOR) im Kosovo (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo). Danach übernahm er den Posten des stellvertretenden Stabschefs des Operationshauptquartiers der 7. US-Armee/US Army Europe (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/7._Armee) in Heidelberg (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidelberg).

Am 10. Juli 2001 wurde Sánchez für zwei Jahre Kommandierender General (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kommandierender_General) der 1. US-Panzerdivision in Wiesbaden (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiesbaden), Deutschland. Während dieser Zeit führte er die Division in der Operation Iraqi Freedom I (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irak-Krieg) im April 2003. Am 14. Juni 2003 wurde er zum Lieutenant General (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieutenant_General) befördert und übernahm das Kommando des V. US-Korps (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/V._US-Korps) und der Combined Joint Task Force 7 (http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Combined_Joint_Task_Force_7&action=edit) im Irak. Nach der Umstrukturierung der Kommandokette war er vom 15. Mai 2004 bis zum 4. Juli 2004 Kommandeur der Multinationalen Streitkräfte im Irak (Multi-National Force Iraq (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_Iraq)). Während seiner Amtszeit gelang den Koalitionstruppen (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koalition_der_Willigen) die Festnahme des ehemaligen Diktators Saddam Hussein (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein).

Nach dem Abu-Ghuraib-Folterskandal (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu-Ghuraib-Folterskandal) wurde er von seinem Posten enthoben und im Juli 2004 durch General (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/General) George W. Casey junior (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Casey_junior) abgelöst. Ursprünglich für die Beförderung zum General vorgesehen um eventuell das Kommando des US Southern Command (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Southern_Command) zu übernehmen, wurde dieses Vorhaben jedoch aufgegeben, da das Armed Services Committee (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Committee_on_Armed_Services) des US-Senats (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senat_der_Vereinigten_Staaten) dies wegen des Skandals nicht bestätigt hätte. Der Posten ging an General Bantz J. Craddock (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantz_J._Craddock). Sánchez´ Rolle als indirekt Verantwortlicher für den Abu-Ghuraib-Skandal führten zu seiner Versetzung zum V. US-Korps und Nichtbeförderung zum General. Nach der Kommandoübergabe kommandierte er das V. US-Korps in Deutschland. Als das Korps jedoch im November 2005 Vorbereitungen traf um als Hauptquartier (Multi-National Corps Iraq (http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multi-National_Corps_Iraq&action=edit); MNC-I) das Kommando in Bagdad (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagdad) zu übernehmen, wurde Lieutenant General Peter W. Chiarelli (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_W._Chiarelli) als vorwärtiger Kommandeur eingesetzt. Sánchez und mit ihm die Truppenfahne (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truppenfahne) des Korps blieb jedoch unüblicherweise in Deutschland. Am 6. September 2006 gab Sánchez das Kommando in den Campbell Barracks (http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Campbell_Barracks&action=edit) in Heidelberg (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidelberg) nicht wie üblich an seinen Nachfolger, Major General Fred D. Robinson (http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_D._Robinson&action=edit) ab, der zu diesem Zeitpunkt als Nachfolger noch nicht feststand, sondern an seinen Vorgesetzten David D. McKiernan (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_D._McKiernan). Sánchez trat schließlich am 1. November 2006 in den Ruhestand.

Seine Ausbildung erfolgte als Panzeroffizier und schließt das Command and General Staff College (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_and_General_Staff_College) und das US Army War College (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_War_College) ein. Er ist verheiratet und hat zwei Töchter und zwei Söhne.

Seine Auszeichnungen (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orden_und_Ehrenzeichen_der_US-Streitkr%C3%A4fte) umfassen u.a.: die Defense Distinguished Service Medal, die Distinguished Service Medal, die Defense Superior Service Medal, das Legion of Merit (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legion_of_Merit), den Bronze Star (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Star) mit Eichenlaub und Tapferkeitsauszeichnung, die Meritorious Service Medal (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritorious_Service_Medal) mit zweifachem Eichenlaub, die Joint Service Commendation Medal, die National Defense Service Medal mit zwei Silbersternen, sowei die United Nations Medal.

[bradclark1]

Sanchez - He's a simple tank commander, nothing more. This is the guy speaking out in the article. You don't become a lieutenant general in todays army by being just a simple tank commander. Then again they made Rick Lynch a major general and I thought he sucked when he was a lieutenant colonel. And there is no 'simple' to being a tank commander.

Yes you do. He was not, nor has ever had any training or experience to deal with what he had to deal with. His former commanders did, but thought the job was done. His boss said he made a mistake by putting him in charge and takes full blame for it.

Don't get me wrong, Sanchez is a good tank commander, and he is exceptional at tank warfare, but he is not good at urban combat and has never had any real training or experience in it. Tack on an insurgency, and you have a brewing pot of mistakes - one right after the other.

-S
You would have to provide a link to this interesting information you are getting. Your concept of army leadership is somewhat flawed. When you make colonel and up you are commanding infantry and armor. On top of that you have have operations officers who by position is a registered hotty who is tracked for higher things, and when you are at Corps level also have two or more division commanders who won't hesitate to tell you your thinking is screwed up. At Corps level you are not going to micromanage any Division, Brigade or Battalion operations. A Corps commander oversees the overall battle and will issue operations orders to the Division commanders and will not tell him how to do that job. I have no idea how anybody would know if a lieutenant general is any good at urban warfare because the army has not trained for that environment until the Iraq invasion was well on the way. The last major urban combat was Hue IIRC.

As far as his boss, I have utter disdain for Franks because if he was worth a s#!t he would have looked pass the taking of Baghdad and take control of the country after the battle. Not have units standing around with their fingers up their arse unsure of what do and have the commander say "Oh well guess I'll retire now". Or if you are talking about Gen. John Abizaid I don't remember him doing any stellar job worthy of mention. Abizaids claim to fame was that he had an Arab heritage. That more then anything put him in a commander position. Lets be clear on something. Sanchez was relieved for the prison debacle not for tactical reasons. I will grant that no Iraq commander until general Petraeus knew how to deal with the insurgency properly and Petraeus is what the fourth commander.

[bradclark1]

And what other choices are there, really. There's "simple" infantry commander and "simple" artillery commander. That's it. There are other specialties, sure, but as you get further away from the combat arms, your chances of promotion to the top levels fall rapidly.
I don't understand what you are trying to say.

[bradclark1]

I wonder why in 2005, when he was in command of the Vth Corps in Germany, and the corps was moving to Iraq to become the headquarter for operations there, commanded by another general than Sanchez, I wonder why the unit flag remained with Sanchez in Germany?

In this regard when you are talking Corps you are talking the command structure only. The Corps as a fighting unit did not go to Iraq. That remained in Germany. The best way I can call it is symbolic. To do any different would have been to make an entirely new corps which by law couldn't be done. It's just a paper shuffle.
Lets say in Iraq right now is the 1st Cavalry Division and 3rd Infantry Division, by virtue of being in Iraq they fall under V Corps. In reality they are stationed in the U.S. and are normally attached to III Corps. The home of V Corps is Germany. Normally V Corps would be say 2 Divisions plus support elements stationed in Germany but because of Iraq V Corps is actually the size of an Army. Have I utterly confused you?

[Skybird]

I wonder why in 2005, when he was in command of the Vth Corps in Germany, and the corps was moving to Iraq to become the headquarter for operations there, commanded by another general than Sanchez, I wonder why the unit flag remained with Sanchez in Germany?

In this regard when you are talking Corps you are talking the command structure only. The Corps as a fighting unit did not go to Iraq. That remained in Germany. The best way I can call it is symbolic. To do any different would have been to make an entirely new corps which by law couldn't be done. It's just a paper shuffle.
Lets say in Iraq right now is the 1st Cavalry Division and 3rd Infantry Division, by virtue of being in Iraq they fall under V Corps. In reality they are stationed in the U.S. and are normally attached to III Corps. The home of V Corps is Germany. Normally V Corps would be say 2 Divisions plus support elements stationed in Germany but because of Iraq V Corps is actually the size of an Army. Have I utterly confused you?

:huh: :doh: :dead:
Men and their toys! :D

[SUBMAN1]

Sanchez - He's a simple tank commander, nothing more. This is the guy speaking out in the article. You don't become a lieutenant general in todays army by being just a simple tank commander. Then again they made Rick Lynch a major general and I thought he sucked when he was a lieutenant colonel. And there is no 'simple' to being a tank commander.
Yes you do. He was not, nor has ever had any training or experience to deal with what he had to deal with. His former commanders did, but thought the job was done. His boss said he made a mistake by putting him in charge and takes full blame for it.

Don't get me wrong, Sanchez is a good tank commander, and he is exceptional at tank warfare, but he is not good at urban combat and has never had any real training or experience in it. Tack on an insurgency, and you have a brewing pot of mistakes - one right after the other.

-S You would have to provide a link to this interesting information you are getting. Your concept of army leadership is somewhat flawed. When you make colonel and up you are commanding infantry and armor. On top of that you have have operations officers who by position is a registered hotty who is tracked for higher things, and when you are at Corps level also have two or more division commanders who won't hesitate to tell you your thinking is screwed up. At Corps level you are not going to micromanage any Division, Brigade or Battalion operations. A Corps commander oversees the overall battle and will issue operations orders to the Division commanders and will not tell him how to do that job. I have no idea how anybody would know if a lieutenant general is any good at urban warfare because the army has not trained for that environment until the Iraq invasion was well on the way. The last major urban combat was Hue IIRC.

As far as his boss, I have utter disdain for Franks because if he was worth a s#!t he would have looked pass the taking of Baghdad and take control of the country after the battle. Not have units standing around with their fingers up their arse unsure of what do and have the commander say "Oh well guess I'll retire now". Or if you are talking about Gen. John Abizaid I don't remember him doing any stellar job worthy of mention. Abizaids claim to fame was that he had an Arab heritage. That more then anything put him in a commander position. Lets be clear on something. Sanchez was relieved for the prison debacle not for tactical reasons. I will grant that no Iraq commander until general Petraeus knew how to deal with the insurgency properly and Petraeus is what the fourth commander.Watch the show called Frontline. It is their episode called End Game. I'm sure their is a transcript online somewhere. Sanchez boss has a lot to say about Sanchez, and how he takes responsibility for putting him in charge of soemthing he was not able to handle.

-S

PS. Here is the home page - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/endgame/

[SUBMAN1]

Matter of fact, you can watch the whole thing on line - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/endgame/view/

In it, you will find much that Sanchez screwed up.

-S

[bradclark1]

Matter of fact, you can watch the whole thing on line - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/endgame/view/

In it, you will find much that Sanchez screwed up.

-S
Good show. Made me angry at our unpreparedness, but good show. You need to re-watch part one and reassess your thoughts.