Originally Posted by Ishmael

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.

Originally Posted by 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

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

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

Originally Posted by waste gate

Was that what was said? Link please.

Originally Posted by bradclark1

Who are you talking about?

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Sanchez - He's a simple tank commander, nothing more. This is the guy speaking out in the article.

Originally Posted by bradclark1

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.

Originally Posted by bradclark1

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.

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

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

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

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.

Originally Posted by 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?

Originally Posted by bradclark1

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?

Originally Posted by bradclark1

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.