From VoteVets.org today:
Today I’m writing with some exciting news. We have a chance to send a veteran to the Senate, from Texas. Not only that, but this veteran also happens to be a retired Lieutenant General who commanded forces in Iraq. Today, we’re endorsing Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez (USA, Ret.) for Senate. He needs your help.
But I don't have the memory of a goldfish.
Today I’m writing with some exciting news. We have a chance to send a veteran to the Senate, from Texas. Not only that, but this veteran also happens to be a retired Lieutenant General who commanded forces in Iraq. Today, we’re endorsing Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez (USA, Ret.) for Senate. He needs your help.
General Sanchez has a compelling story and honorably served our country in uniform. He’ll make an outstanding Senator for the people of Texas. We're always happy to see veterans entering politics as a way to continue their public service, but it's especially encouraging to see one of our military's finest minds, General Sanchez, look to continue that service as a public servant. General Sanchez knows what this generation of warriors has gone through, and how Washington can best serve them. For the people of the state of Texas, they will have a Senator who is committed to America’s security, and just as committed to the state he loves
General Sanchez graduated from Texas A&I University in Kingsville, Texas, and was commissioned as a second lieutenant in 1973. After decades of service, following nomination to Lieutenant General, he assumed command in Baghdad, Iraq, of the Army’s Fifth Corps and became the commander of one of the largest combat forces deployed in US military history. Upon the reorganization of command-and-control structures in Iraq, he commanded Headquarters, Multi-National Forces (Iraq) from 14 May 2004 to 1 July 2004. After 33 years of service, he retired in 2006.
Texas is a huge state, and running for office there isn’t cheap. But any donation you can afford will go a long way towards sending Ric Sanchez to the Senate. This is an open seat, because Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson is stepping down, so it is an excellent opportunity for a candidate with strong credentials – like General Sanchez – to win. Please click the link above, and help get him to the finish line!
Sincerely,
Ashwin Madia
Iraq War Veteran
Interim Chairman, VoteVets.org
Maybe this is insulting. I get it, I should vote with my interests. And a fellow vet elected to public office is more likely to take an interest in my interests. The guy has a long record of service, which is admirable. But LTG Sanchez was in command following the fall of Saddam Hussein, when the worst post-invasion policy decisions were made, the decisions to disband the Iraqi army and de-Baathify the post-war government. Together, these ensured that the chaos would intensify a multi-year US military presence, and all the casualties that followed. There were three separate decision points that ultimately caused the eight-year and counting US military presence in Iraq.
The first was the decision to invade in the first place. It’s pretty obvious that if the US never invaded, it would not have bought itself an ongoing war.
The second point, on or about April 2003, is a bit harder to pin down. But on April 9, Baghdad fell. This was the high point of Iraqi goodwill towards coalition forces (not terribly high, since anti-Hussein and anti-Bush demonstrations occurred concurrently), the high point of region-wide fear of US military power, and the moment Saddam Hussein fell from power (arguably the chief objective of the invasion. I am perfectly aware that this particular statement will inflame all sorts of counter arguments, which I am happy to debate, but the fact remains that had the coalition forces merely removed him from power, everyone could have walked away at that point satisfied. Except the Iraqis). But after April, the US mission transitioned from defeat of Iraqi forces to nation building. If the US had defeated the Iraqi army, ousted Saddam Hussein, and walked away wishing the Iraqi people the best of luck with the whole self-governance gig, it would have changed the entire face of the world today. There would likely be a Republican in the White House today. Donald Rumsfeld’s lighter-meaner-high tech concept would’ve taken root, possibly even had enough momentum to shake up the wedded-to-the-past-and-the-way-we’ve-always-done-it Pentagon culture. The Middle East utterly terrified of US military might, and the will to use it (along with all the attendant results of that, like the ability of the US to push its goals, backed by the threat of invasion, but countered by the utter hatred of the US for its military might and resulting leverage. And other possibilities, like an added impetus to China to modernize and westernize its military more rapidly to counter). The US existing as a real power player in the Middle East because of the fear of Saddam’s fate (think Libya unilaterally giving up a WMD program no one really knew or seemed to care about, out of fear of the several hundred thousand US troops that had just systematically dismantled the Iraqis and were not terribly far away). Complete chaos and violent sectarian bloodshed in Iraq, but the US at the height of power and influence in the rest of the region.
The last point, the last choice that ensured the post-invasion chaos would degenerate into civil war and a continuing US military presence. Just in case a nation with deep sectarian divides, previously held together by the violence of a strongman and his cronies, recently decapitated by the fall of its government, and with a fearful populace already rioting and looting and acting on old tribal vendettas wasn’t enough. The decisions were made to shred the last remaining Iraqi institutions that might have held on to order, that might have averted the worst of the violence. The Iraqi military was disbanded, flooding the streets with armed, unemployed, disaffected men of military age with no remaining loyalties except tribe and family, a readymade pool of labor for the insurgency to recruit from. And, the de-Baathification policy effectively killed the last of the Iraqi government, without any attempt to separate bad actors from the essentially harmless members, whose membership in the Baath party was due solely to the fact that they had to join the party to have a job as a government bureaucrat at all.
The rest is history, as it has unfolded in front of the world. A long, bloody, costly occupation with no clear conditions for victory. Obviously President Bush, not LTG Sanchez, ordered the invasion of Iraq. The Bush administration chose to pursue nation building in lieu of a quick military victory and quick exit. Bremer sent the army and bureaucrats home. LTG Sanchez is not responsible for these. But if the captain of a ship is asleep while his Officer of the Deck runs the ship aground, the CO, Navigator, and OOD will all be fired, their careers over. ADM Kimmel was relieved after Pearl Harbor. The US military has a long tradition of holding leaders accountable for failure. LTG Sanchez was in command during the initial phase of the Iraqi occupation. He was in command when the Abu Ghraib scandal broke. If he is not responsible, he should be accountable.
And so comes the VoteVets pitch. I am supposed to support him as a candidate because we’re both vets, because of the political importance of Texas and its seat, because of the letter that comes after his name. But since I don’t have the memory of a goldfish, I remember 2003 and 2004. I remember how we got to the point we are. Maybe he couldn’t stop or slow any of the decisions that brought the slide to the bottom. Maybe he could have done nothing more but resign in protest. But I will not support him. We served under the same flag. He would be an advocate for my interests. He has a long career of service. But the year following the invasion of Iraq was the pinnacle of his power and influence, and I saw the results of his leadership. I will not support him.
Luckily for him, I vote in California, not Texas.