What's the Big Deal About Sanchez?

Did those touting Lt. Gen. Richardo Sanchez (ret) and his recent remarks at the Military Reporters and Editors annual meeting actually see his remarks? I did this weekend, a re-broadcast on C-SPAN, and all I came away with was, what's the big deal?

Sanchez made these remarks on Friday and you would think some kind of new territory was covered. Why? Well, you may have heard all about his criticisms of the military planning, or lack of planning in his opinion and his criticisms of political leadership in D.C., both in Congress and the White House, the State Department and the Pentagon, but I am willing to bet your local newspaper didn't bother to cover the first half of his speech. Mine didn't here in Houston, no small town or readership.

Let's do a bit of background here. Lt. General Richardo Sanchez, now retired, was the Commander of Coalition Forces in Iraq from June 15, 2003 until he was relieved of duty in 2004, after a year's service in that position. He retired from the service after he was relieved of his duty and denied a promotion. He was the commander, you may remember, in charge during the Abu Gharib scandal. You may be interested to know he is still involved in a law suit brought by the ACLU, so occasionally he noted he was being guarded in his remarks due to the pending legal issues.

The first part of his speech concerned his relationship with the press and media during his duty in Iraq. He was a division commander in country before the promotion to Commander. He makes clear he was not a part of any strategy or decision making in the war plans before his command began. It was a bit like, hey, don't blame me. He made the point that the political rhetoric and partisanship in the press and in Congress is killing the soldiers in battle. It serves no purpose to try to score points on the back of the military. He said he completely stopped talking to Stars and Stripes, European edition, because they were completely agenda driven and their agenda is a defeat for the U.S. He said this is perfectly clear to him.

Do you find it interesting that when the audience was shown as he was speaking, absolutely no one was taking notes, except one man on a laptop computer? Do you find it interesting they were stone faced and looked to be in shock at the criticism? Do you find it interesting that once the second part of his speech began, when he was speaking of his criticism of the decision makers and Congress that suddenly all pens and pencils were up and writing away?

I thought it was interesting.

Sanchez stressed that the press doesn't seem to understand that the military commanders obey orders of the President. It is an oath the military take and it ensures we are a nation under civilian rule, not military rule. This was in response to a 'journalist' asking why more military doesn't speak openly to the press about problems that arise.

Sanchez was asked if he thought whistle blowers in the military would be a good thing, to shed light on problems. Can you believe that, the arrogance and ignorance all wrapped up into one? Sanchez didn't take the bait. He said he will be more open as the law suit allows and will name names of those he is unhappy with at a later time. Yes, he was asked to name names. His quote was "more to follow". I assume this means he's planning on a book deal. Who knows.

The question I have remains to be: Since when did it become acceptable for one political party to openly work for the defeat of our country in war? Since when did it become acceptable for the opposition party of the President to hate him more than love our country and support the military operations of our country?

That's what I came away with. The shock of the 'journalists' at being criticised on their performance, which travels the world and leaves no doubt that only bad news will be reported, and that the defeatists will not let success get in the way of their determination to report defeat. Sanchez complained that he gave reporters good news stories, stories of accomplishment and success, at each press briefing. Yet, those were not what the reporters were interested in and they didn't bother to report any of them.

It must truly be a Maalox moment now that even the Washington Post reports that the strategy of Gen. Petraus is working and success is now visible in Iraq. It must truly be a Maalox moment for hacks like Barbara Starr of CNN and her co-horts who just last week stated they couldn't report about a decrease in deaths of soldiers and Iraqis over the last two months as it is evident in statistics. Starr claimed she had no way of knowing if the success in less deaths would hold. Funny, she never expressed any doubts on deaths reported, just non-deaths.

But, they support the troops.

The web site for this organization is www.militaryreporters.org.

Sanchez is not the first former military officer to come out and criticise the administration or policies. Sanchez is not the first to be bitter about blame he doesn't think he should be labeled with over something like Abu Ghraib. Sanchez is not the first to be bitter over a lost promotion. He is the first, however, to come back for his Commander designation in Iraq and publicly criticise the press in this country.

Was that the real story?