Upon actually reading the whole speech ( http://www.militaryreporters.org/sanchez_101207.html ), it looks to me as though it consists of:

(1) Whining about the criticism he got for presiding over the Abu Ghraib fiasco.

(2) Calling for a draft, without ever quite having the nerve to explicitly use the word. (“AMERICA’S ABILITY TO SUSTAIN A FORCE LEVEL OF 150,000-PLUS IS NONEXISTENT WITHOUT DRASTIC MEASURES THAT HAVE BEEN POLITICALLY UNACCEPTABLE TO DATE.”) Now, THAT’S courage.

(3) Urging both US political parties to come together to construct a new international coalition of allies massively militarily involved in Iraq -- in some totally unspecified way, possibly by waving a Hogwarts wand.

(4) Saying that if we DON’T get both a draft and that magical new international alliance, we had better bail out fast. (“GIVEN THE LACK OF A GRAND STRATEGY, WE MUST MOVE RAPIDLY TO MINIMIZE THAT FORCE PRESENCE AND ALLOW THE IRAQIS MAXIMUM ABILITY TO EXERCISE THEIR SOVEREIGNTY IN ACHIEVING A SOLUTION.”)

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at October 13, 2007 05:01 PM | Permalink to this comment

Interesting related New York Times article about the debate on the appropriate/acceptable forms of dissent for military officers....

and here is a piece from the San Diego Union-Tribune that looks at the phenomenon of retired generals who have been speaking out against the war...

to me, the most interesting thing is the reluctance of these generals to say "President Bush". They will use phrases like 'the failure of civilian leadership', and will even name Rumsfeld, but the ultimate decision was always Bush's, but there is a reluctance to put the blame on him.

Posted by: p_lukasiak at October 13, 2007 06:11 PM | Permalink to this comment

Gee, thanks, General, for telling us something some of us have known for about 4 years now. I understand it's gotta be tough to be the military guys in charge of a clusterf**k planned by the geniuses in the White House, but I gotta wonder, how hard did military people try to talk them out of it? When you can see, before someone even starts the car, that they're gonna drive it straight into a wall, should you buckle up and hope for the best or say "Screw this" and get the hell out? Absent any evidence to the contrary, I kind of assume that most of the military were all "Hoo-ha" and "Halls of Montezuma" and whatnot, thinking that no force on earth could defeat the mighty US military (even though at least one force I can think of has defeated us, in the last century), so it's hard to appreciate their "candor" now. Where was all this sage advice in 2003, when it could have done some good? I'm not saying generals should just shut up, but their telling us stuff we already know is just not very helpful at this point.

Posted by: LL at October 13, 2007 11:46 PM | Permalink to this comment

To defend them a bit, LL, it is rather ingrained in the US officer corps not to make waves -- to advance one needs a pristine record. Also, it is rather ingrained in the Bush Administration and inherited downwards that obedience is everything, and any dissent (or god forbid, whistle-blowing) will be punished severely. So all forces conspire to produce silence -- see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

Posted by: Jay Fordstrom at October 14, 2007 05:06 PM | Permalink to this comment

I know (RE "it is rather ingrained in the US officer corps not to make waves"), but if they're gonna shut up when they really should be speaking their mind (when Bushco and the Pentagon had their "so which country should we shock and awe next?" meeting), I think they'd be doing us all a favor to stay shut up. As a citizen, it doesn't really make me feel better about the military when they tell us all what a disaster the war planning and execution was, especially when they were in charge of that cruddy planning and execution. It's just kinda weenie-ish. Either say something when it counts and let the chips fall where they may (Shinseki, unless there are details there that I don't know about, and that's very possible) or just go along to get along and shut the hell up. But it seems that some of these guys are trying to have it both ways: go along to preserve their unblemished careers and then talk shit about Bushco after helping them because they're afraid they'll look like idiots by association.

Posted by: LL at October 15, 2007 02:02 AM | Permalink to this comment

So I guess I am saying the generals should just shut up.

Posted by: LL at October 15, 2007 02:04 AM | Permalink to this comment

> As a citizen, it doesn't really make me feel better about the military
> when they tell us all what a disaster the war planning and execution
> was, especially when they were in charge of that cruddy planning and
> execution

Well-phrased :)

But, as a citizen, I'd rather hear the truth than not. Sadly, I really don't often get my druthers with this...

Posted by: Jay Fordstrom at October 15, 2007 04:12 AM | Permalink to this comment

LL;

It's pretty typical that folks who blow the whistle are not very attractive characters. But I'd rather have them blowing the whistle (however belatedly) than not, if only for history's sake. It isn't too hard to ignore these guy's policy ideas.

Posted by: Appalled Moderate at October 15, 2007 10:14 AM | Permalink to this comment

RE truth, for the record: sure, agreed. We're clearly never gonna hear it from the civilians, so I guess it has to come from the military, and I guess better late than never (kind of; it's hard to believe "better late than never" when waiting till after it does any real good results in what we have now).

Still, I wonder what would happen if every general refused to tell Bushco what they want to hear and instead told them the truth in their ultra secret meetings where they actually discuss invading other countries before they do it. I wonder if anyone in the Pentagon now is telling them what an unmitigated disaster an invasion of Iran would be. I hope enough people are. But I'm not gonna hold my breath. Their track record on timely candor is not looking so good. I'm tired of people just now "realizing" what their unthinking participation helped to create (war in Iraq, a second Bush term, etc.). It sure would be nice if these people had exercised an ounce of skepticism when it really mattered instead of assuming that Bushco knew what it was doing, long after it became clear that Bushco had no clue whatsoever and never really did.

Posted by: LL at October 15, 2007 01:39 PM | Permalink to this comment

Blame the zionists. Only Israel benefits from these endless Middle East wars. Iraq is the beginning. As we commit war-crimes in Baghdad, the US gov't commits treason at home by opening mail, eliminating habeas corpus, using the judiciary to steal private lands, banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon and Wikipedia, conducting warrantless wiretaps and engaging in illegal wars on behalf of AIPAC's 'money-men'. Soon, another US false-flag operation will occur (sinking of an Aircraft Carrier by Mossad) and the US will invade Iran.. Then we'll invade Syria, then Saudi Arabia, then Lebanon (again) then ....
Final link (before Google Books bends to gov't demands and censors the title):
America Deceived (book)

Posted by: Norman at October 15, 2007 06:13 PM | Permalink to this comment