I wondered last night what the response of the hardcore war/administration supporters was going to be to Sanchez’s speech (full text here). Apparently the tact is to be “hey, look: he criticized the press, too!”
This is the approach taken by Ed Morrissey, John Hinderaker, and Bruce Kesler.
First off, the fact that Sanchez also criticizes the press while heavily criticizing the administration (and, to be fair, the Congress) does not negate in any way the very significant, and dramatic, criticism that Sanchez levels at the administration.
Second, even if an antagonistic press makes things more difficult for policy-makers, the bottom line is that policy-makers make and execute the policy, not the press. As such, no matter what one says about the press, they are ultimately not culpable for what actually happens. Further, I long ago rejected the thesis that the press wasn’t reporting enough good news, for if there were reams of good news that were being suppressed, the administration could have found a way to get the word out. Instead, the administration has provided little hard data of true success, and instead has fed us platitudes about victory, fighting extremists and the like. Even the much vaunted Surge has not produced the promised results (as George Will rightly noted a few weeks back).
Third, it is worth remembering that the press corps was initially quite the booster of the war. Indeed, the NYT in particular (which is much maligned by the Right these days) published a number of stories that helped the administration make its case for war (we do remember Judith Miller, don’t we?). Further, the TV coverage (regardless of the network) was very positive in the early goings, indeed, well into the war.
Really, one could fit this latter point about Miller, et al, into Sanchez’s critique of the press, although it seems that he is talking solely about press criticism of the war rather than its initial support.
At the end of the day the administration got us into the war, not the press corps. Further, the mistakes in intelligence and planning were failures of the administration, not the press corps. The notion that blaming the press somehow creates a refuge from the real incompetence that has been demonstrated by this administration or even that it should somehow be considered equivalent to the criticism of the administration is really a rather desperate ploy. It is also rather absurd.
Now, it is fair to note that Sanchez criticized a lot of actors in that speech, but it is impossible to treat all criticism as equal, given that not all the responsibility is equal in these events, nor is the power of these actors to have effected the outcomes the same.
Sphere: Related Content
October 13th, 2024 at 5:32 pm
Woah… A General criticized the civilian leadership. Stop the presses.
In fact generals griping about the civilian leadership in wartime has a long history in this country. From Washington complaining to the continental congress about supplies (and General Harry Lee that they saddled him with) to McClellan savaging Lincoln through McArthur’s clashes with both FDR and Truman. Managing a conflict is a huge undertaking that always leaves the managers open to second guessing.
Looking through the speech I’m seeing a real sparcity of details. Generalities such as “neglect and incompetence” and “failed to employ and synchronize its political, economic and military power.” Generalized critiques are easy. Those given here (and other generalities in the speech) could be given in any conflict in the countries’ history.
General Sanchez was given a huge responsibility, one that a good outcome would be difficult if not impossible. In the end he left with things in worse shape than he would have intended. It’s not surprising that he thinks the fault lies elsewhere. Undoubtedly he’s right to some degree, but it’s not evident that things would have been better in the best of cases. Satisfying an audience used to fast wars with successful outcomes was going to be difficult. General Sanchez wasn’t able to do that and pointing out that other people are at fault is understandable.
But it doesn’t mean the overall enterprise was a bad idea, or that the eventual outcome won’t be good.
October 13th, 2024 at 5:44 pm
I supported the war but like most, at this point, I really understand that we did not have either a plan or really good intelligence about what to do after the initial success in fighting. Sanchez is just repeating what McCain has said for years–We needed more troops and a better use of the troops. We should listen and learn. I was wrong and I hope others will admit when they are wrong. We need a good plan to get out and I hope with Rumsfeld gone we do find an honorable way to get out.
October 13th, 2024 at 5:46 pm
I really don’t think it is about the length of the engagement. I always thought that we would be involved in Iraq for a rather long time, but I though that it would be a competenty run engagement–and it hasn’t been, and at this point I am pretty much conivinced that the overall enterprise was a bad idea, and that the eventual outcome won’t be good. The empirical evidence suggests that I am probably right and that the anything else is based on hope an faith, which are nice and all, but are often far from enough.
And really, in re: Sanchez, I am more interested in the reaction to his speech than the speech itself. As we have recently gone through a political fight in which we were told we weren’t supposed to criticize military figures, as they know more than we do.
October 13th, 2024 at 10:57 pm
What the Media did not report from Sanchez’s Speech
If you read today’s Washington Post, NY Times, USA Today, or the LA Times you would see that Retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez was offering some harsh criticism on Iraq and the Administration for how it how it has conducted the War in Iraq. I…
October 13th, 2024 at 11:01 pm
I don’t see the General pointing to the media as a scapegoat for the strategy and planning failures. Instead the impression I get from the General’s speech and the criticism of the media as well as politicians from both sides of the aisle is that they have created or at least exasperated a political atmosphere to the point in which a bi-partisan solution in Iraq is next to impossible to develop.
That is criticism that they all very much deserve.
Darrell
October 14th, 2024 at 12:35 pm
Hi Steven,
It’s a variant on what I’ve called the Scooby-Doo Villain Excuse.
“”Our master plan would have worked if it wasn’t for those pesky…liberals who undermined us/propaganda defeats that were probably faked/lilly-livered politicians/cowardly generals who wouldn’t be cruel enough/terr’ists who wouldn’t fight the way we wanted them to.” (Delete as applicable)”
You’d think by now they would’ve worked some kind of solution to the “peskies” into their master plan. After all, they’ve failed to carry through on their promises in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Lebanon…
You know, a solution like a sitting President teamed with a massive congressional majority and an in fact tame media who swallowed all the crappy reasons for war wholesale, at least for the first three years…oh, wait.
But they haven’t and in fact are already pressing to apply their warmongering to Iran and to Syria. Next time, they say the plan will work for sure, no matter what the experts on fighting a fourth-generation enemy have to say about it. As long as those “peskies” don’t backstab them again…
Regards, C