wombat_socho (wombat_socho) wrote,

  • Mood:
  • Music:

Reasons for silence

D-Ring wants to know why everyone but the milbloggers is talking about retired LGen Ricardo Sanchez' recent speech in San Antonio. Perhaps the answer lies in his take on the general's speech:
One would think that when a former commander of troops in Iraq publicly says that the U.S. has lost the war and should cut its losses...
Problem is, I don't see how you can interpret the speech that way. On the one hand, General Sanchez talks about "staving off defeat", but on the other hand he pops off with this line:
"It's also kind of important for us to answer the question, 'What is victory?', and at this point I'm not sure America really knows what victory is."

Now, God knows I'm no general, but it seems pretty obvious to me that like Korea and Vietnam, victory in Iraq is defined as not losing.

Right now the place is a manpower and money sink for Al Qaida, which has screwed up its own side of the war to the point where even former Baathists are making quiet inquiries about joining the tribesmen of Anbar and Diyala provinces so they can get rid of these foreign assholes. The longer we stay in Iraq, the better the Iraqis get at doing the kind of counterinsurgency work we used to do for them, the better the infrastructure gets, and the more people have faith that the new government will actually hold together once the last American solider climbs on the Freedom Bird to come back to the World.

I'm also bemused by Sanchez' comments about W's failure to "mobilize the nation" after 9/11. Well, WTF was he supposed to do? Reinstitute a draft that the generals didn't want and the Army couldn't handle anyway? This was never supposed to be World War II, or even Vietnam. I keep using the analogy of the Philippine Insurrection, because I think it fits a lot better than any of the other analogies out there, and it's useful to remember that in that particular unpleasantness we didn't mobilize the country either. The war was fought by a small army of professionals and a handful of volunteer regiments, and was widely derided by the press and the opposition party as being wrong, inhumane, etc., etc. Same shit, different day, and there's even a bunch of insane Muslims in the mix.

So when you come right down to it, the reason none of the milbloggers are talking about the speech is because there's really nothing to talk about. Not that D-Ring ever provides a link to prove his point about milbloggers avoiding the topic, mind you.
Tags: history, military stuff
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.