Yeah, I've used the pic before (I think?) - again, thanks to the ink-slingers at TownHall.com - but it's just too appropriate to leave it out of this post.
First, I always make a point to own up to my mistakes when I get something wrong, and - regarding the previous post - I need to make a correction.
I actually broke one of my own rules - blogging about something before checking it for accuracy and context.
I hate it when I do that....
I blew that rule all to hell and gone with LTG sanchez, and have since read through the text of his entire speech - http://www.militaryreporters.org/sanchez_101207.html - (thanks again, Deb, for sending me the link) and I did NOT provide the proper context for his comments, nor did I even mention (because I didn't know about it) the FIRST half of his speech, where he rips the lib-media a new orifice.
I'm still of the opinion that he's got a whole lotta "command envy" happening, since he doesn't give proper credit to GEN Petraeus (who helped WRITE the new COIN - counterinsergency - manual, which has been such a pivotal part of the Iraq turn-around).
It's also possible that sanchez still has some major regrets for NOT pushing to alter the concept of operations WHILE he was in command.....IF that's the case. That sort of thing usually doesn't make it "outside the wire" when "discussions" like that take place in the command structure.
If he truly feels that Iraq is an "intractable situation" (translation: "quagmire") then how much DID he try to influence the "national security council level" people to make changes (if at all)?
I've got a hunch that if he did try, then even HE knows that he didn't try hard enough....or if he actually felt that the war was being fought the "best" it could be at the time of his command, then he's got to be hating the fact that Petraeus is having more success than he had.
I'm not psychic, but I can read some real obvious tea leaves. By sanchez laying the blame on "higher" - instead of the customary (and honorable) "I was in command, so it's my fault" - that tells me that he's got more than just a hint of guilty conscience happening - deserved or not.
Which makes his blame-dumping - publically - on his former bosses somewhat LESS than honorable.
True, he DID preface his blame-the-Administration shit-fest by telling some VERY uncomfortable truths about the liberalite media - you have GOT to read the first half of that transcript! - which they, of course, have buried as deep as they can ...which ain't enough in this Internet Age...evidence this blog.
Still, the fact remains that he spunked all over a sitting President (his former boss!) for no good reason.
Methinks he hath shat upon his own boots.
My estimate of where history will place him remains pretty much the same, below McClellan, but at least some small ways above Benedict Arnold.
Unless I'm overestimating his role, and sanchez ends up rating nothing more than becoming a really tough extra credit question on an obscure history test....worth ten points, and forgotten before school is out for the day.