 |
|
Group(s): Benicia ProgressivesAdd to My Group
|
October 15, 2007 at 14:31:11
by Michael Roberts Page 1 of 2 page(s) |
|
 
|
Recently, the United States media ran with a statement blaming the George Bush Administration for the military failures of the war in Iraq. Retired Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez delivered an angry, militaristic and deeply disturbing tirade to participants at the Military Reporters and Editors annual conference in Arlington, Virginia. Sanchez chose this setting to spew venom at the Bush Administration, the media and what he believed was hindering the successful prosecution of the war in Iraq. While the mainstream media cherry-picked the “Iraq is a nightmare” sound-bite to play over and over again, it failed to analyze the deep anti-democratic and pronounced authoritarianism that was the very essence of the speech. Sanchez covered up his call for an America that is dominated and controlled by the military by blaming the failures in Iraq on the media saying that it was driven to “unscrupulous reporting” and “agenda-driven biases.” Sanchez, who commanded US forces in Iraq from June 2003 – 2004, and was forced to resign over allegations that he sanctioned and was aware of methods of interrogation of prisoners at Iraq’s notorious Abu Ghraib prison that ran counter to the Geneva Convention on the Rules of War. His rant was thus all the more bitter since he and his former boss, Donald Rumsfeld, fell on their swords in order to preserve the reputation of the erstwhile Commander in Chief, King George II. And just like the King, Sanchez took no blame for the Iraqi cesspool but was quite liberal with this castigations and criticisms of everyone else. He started by blaming what he called “the corrosive partisan politics that was destroying and killing our service members who are at war that along with the media was making things in Iraq very difficult.” While Sanchez speaks about American democracy this statement clearly points to his belief that war and democracy – even at home - cannot operate together.
Continuing down this militaristic authoritarian path Sanchez all but called for more press censorship than what already occurs by saying, “as I assess various media entities, some are unquestionably engaged in political propaganda that is uncontrolled.” He seemed to suggest that the only basis for waging a successful war in Iraq and beyond was some form of military rule at home, declaring, “as we all know, war is an extension of politics, and when a nation goes to war it must bring to bear all elements of power in order to win. War-fighting is not solely the responsibility of the military commander, unless he has been given the responsibility and resources to synchronize the political, economic and informational power of the nation.”
Justifiably attacking the Bush Administration, but for all the wrong reasons, Sanchez called the Administration’s war strategy a “nightmare with no end in sight.” For those in both the Republican and Democratic parties that have been clamoring for a more “get tough” policy in Iraq this was great news and the 2008 Presidential hopefuls immediately pounced on this as “proof” that “we need a change of course” in Iraq.
They also chortled with glee when Sanchez leveled a broadside against the “surge” saying that “the latest ‘revised strategy’ is a desperate attempt by an administration that has not accepted the political and economic realities of this war, and they have definitely not communicated that reality to the American people.”
Of course, everyone conveniently ignored the other parts of the speech preferring to focus only on the criticisms of the Bush Administration. He chided the media for being unpatriotic when he commented on the Abu Ghraib debacle where the media exposed torture methods banned by the Geneva Convention that cost Sanchez another command and ultimately having to retire from the army. This is how he put it:
“Over the course of this war tactically insignificant events have become strategic defeats for America because of the tremendous power and impact of the media and, by extension, you the journalist. In many cases the media has unjustly destroyed the individual reputations and careers of those involved.”
These “insignificant events,” according to Sanchez, included a list of interrogation and other practices that are illegal in the conduct of modern warfare. Such arrogance and “might is always right” is indicative of the Republican and Bush Administration’s approach to international laws and procedures. Sanchez does not want to be encumbered by such “insignificant things.”
His rant also brought to the fore the smoldering conflicts within the top military brass and the civilian leadership. Sanchez’s hard-line; right wing speech demonstrated his alignment with the more dictatorial elements within the military now locked in a low-level friction with an increasingly small section of the officer corps who still believe in the United States Constitution and the subordination of the military to civilian authority.
Noteworthy in Sanchez’s speech is his broad carpet-bombing attack on the entire civilian Bush Administration, the State Department, the Congress, both political parties, and the media while saying very little about the Pentagon’s role in the war that he never criticized once. This is cause for pause because the very tone of Sanchez’s speech and the kind of language used reveals an even more sinister undertone. Here is what he said in criticizing the conduct of the Iraq war and the present state of affairs:
“Who will demand accountability for the failure of our national political leaders involved in the management this war? They have unquestionably been derelict in the performance of their duty. In my profession, these types of leaders would immediately be relieved or court-martialed.”
Such strong language, although it appears to be based on a righteous indignation of a legitimate situation could easily go unnoticed. But clearing away the emotions reveal the bitter, hard bent of a man whose words could easily be interpreted as obliquely calling for a coup d’etat because the only section of the American ruling class with the capability of running both the nation and waging war is the top brass of the United States military. And this is all the more alarming given the increased role that the military now plays in every day American life and its ever-growing importance in civilian matters under the Bush Administration.
Over the course of the Bush presidency the military has exerted more and more influence in the political sphere; it consumes a huge chunk of the national budget, and its leaders (past and present) occupy many key positions within the government and the corporate establishment. In fact, with the rise of the neoconservative element within the Bush Administration the military/industrial complex has never been stronger.
Correspondingly, civilian control and power have weakened as the military becomes more and more the key and pivotal player in US politics. Admittedly, this process started long before George Bush was crowned the new king but under him it has crystallized, become more pronounced and focused. And if anyone doubts this development then all that one has to do is look at the “public” domain speeches of King George II – almost all are on military bases or some college or school with ties to the military.
1 | 2
www.freewebs.com/robertsmedia2007
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 8 comments |
|
This analysis is exactly right, but will go over the heads
of most of those who may see it. To understand this analysis, one must have studied the nature of the US media, by reading (for example) critiques like those of Chomsky, Edw Herman, Robt McChesney, or others with a serious left perspective. The coverage of the Sanchez speech is a perfect example of our media in operation: it cherry-picks the aspects of the speech which fit easily into the permissible range of political thought in our society. This range is demarcated by the narrow little spectrum between Democrat & Republican. It is permitted to criticize the war in Iraq for its "botched execution" -- Democrats make this very limited criticism constantly. But it is not permitted to say that the war itself is a fundamentally criminal enterprise (no Democrat says anything that strong, not even Kucinich). However, the aspects of Sanchez's speech which are thinly-veiled calls for imposing a military dictatorship -- this is still outside the current limits of the "acceptable" range. The media know this would make people nervous, so they don't focus attention on it. But the fact that they are entirely silent about it, tells us that they're also not really opposed to it. Their silence is very ominous, indicating that there is no real constituency in US ruling circles, for defending democratic & constitutional rights. by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Tuesday, Oct 16, 2007 at 10:46:40 AM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: Thank You
Yes, I agree with you. Informed analyses are predicated upon an inquisitive mind and a penchant for looking at things from a particular perspective. Sadly, the vast majority of people make up their minds on everything from sex to what to eat by watching TV. They have become intellectually lazy and so miss the real sinsiter nature of rants like that delivered by Sanchez. But we cannot just give up. We, in our own way, must struggle to make people "see the light." In the final analysis this is what we must do. by Michael Roberts (55 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments) on Tuesday, Oct 16, 2007 at 11:08:52 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Here's an article making most of the same points that you
raise: "In an extraordinary speech delivered October 12, retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top US commander in Iraq from June 2003 to June 2004, gave vent to deeply anti-democratic sentiments emerging within growing sections of the US officer corps.... At one point, Sanchez all but called for systematic press censorship, saying, “As I assess various media entities, some are unquestionably engaged in political propaganda that is uncontrolled.” He seemed to suggest that the only basis for waging a successful war in Iraq and beyond was some form of military rule at home..." by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Tuesday, Oct 16, 2007 at 1:55:48 PM (0+)
|
|
The very best thing to do is READ IT YOURSELF!
Sanchez' MILITARY REPORTERS AND EDITORS ADDRESS WASHINGTON D.C. If one were to rely solely on MSM accounts (or pundits' reinterpretation of the MSM stories) you would think Sanchez was becoming a noble ally with the American people. No matter what the words said, that guy still gave me some very bad vibes. Reading his speech is quite enlightening. And what kind of nutcase says things like this? "PRAISE BE TO THE LORD MY ROCK WHO TRAINS MY FINGERS FOR BATTLE AND MY HANDS FOR WAR." by Kathlyn Stone (46 articles, 227 quicklinks, 27 diaries, 690 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Oct 16, 2007 at 1:13:24 PM (0+)
|
|
I listen to political talk radio.
I listen more to left leaning radio than to right leaning radio, but listen to both to hear how ridiculous the points and counterpoints are. In truth, both left leaning and right leaning hosts did exactly what you said. They cherry picked to fit their agendas. Just one example is the left leaning host who said (and I paraphrase), “Yet another retired US General blasts Bush and the war in Iraq.” As you say, Sanchez didn’t blast the war in Iraq at all. He basically said his hands were tied by an “uncontrolled” media. This was, no doubt, specifically aimed at coverage of Abu Ghraib, but was meant to include the military’s ability to determine how to “succeed” in Iraq, whatever that means. I thank you for the eye opening OpED. Michael Bonanno by Michael Bonanno (119 articles, 19 quicklinks, 24 diaries, 152 comments) on Tuesday, Oct 16, 2007 at 2:30:05 PM (0+)
|
|
Good article, but I disagree on the censorship point...
I enjoyed your article, and it's interesting that both Glenn Beck and Newt Gingrich agree with you on the potential danger of a military takeover - they indicate that this would best be precipitated by an attack on one or more American cities resulting in a police state and then a coup. On the other hand, you wrote that "Continuing down this militaristic authoritarian path Sanchez all but called for more press censorship than what already occurs by saying, “as I assess various media entities, some are unquestionably engaged in political propaganda that is uncontrolled.” I disagree that Sanchez was calling for more censorship. Rather, I think that he was actually calling for more ethical reporting and for the media to report fairly on itself as well as its chosen topics. Notably, none of the major media outlets was willing to report his negative remarks about the media for several days except Fox News. Isn't that a form of censorship in and of itself? Interestingly, after mulling things over long enough to figure out how to best spin it, Ted Turner then announced that the Iraq War was Rupert Murdoch's war and interpreted Sanchez to have critized Murdoch's media support of the war as cause for its implementation. I trust the media even less than I trust the government, and Turner's competition with Murdoch does not inspire me to lend any more credence to him or CNN than I do to Murdoch or Fox. The best indictment of the media I've seen lately is John Stewart's interview with Chris Matthews regarding Matthews' book "Life's a Campaign: What Politics Has Taught Me About Friendship, Rivalry, Reputation, and Success". Manila Ryce on AlterNet wrote that 'By over-emphasizing the capitalistic tendencies of advancement and self-interest as a respectable code of conduct, Stewart contends that Matthews simply tosses aside our innate moral principles which conflict with such a bankrupt philosophy. He even plainly states that Mathews' book is a Machiavellian roadmap on how to ruthlessly attain power and take strategic control of your opponents above any other consideration. What a wonderful lesson on how to be a complete a**hole.' I think that the media culture of "if it bleeds, it leads" has seduced and morally bankrupted the vast majority of so-called "journalists". I see a similar danger in pathological "passion" (aka rage, unlimited anger, and unbridled hostility) seducing bloggers on both the Right and Left as well. I'm with Stephen Colbert in his New York Times Op Ed, thoughtfully donated by Maureen Dowd today. I'd like to reverse current trends back to an America before forks in the road, before forks, and before roads for that matter. There is good and positivity in the world, but you'd never know it by reading any of today's print media or watching any news channel. It's ironic to me that so many of us use our freedom of expression to focus solely on the negative, which is to embrace a kind of soulless death while pretending to be "alive". Maybe Sanchez was actually trying to expose a flawed media industry and improve the reporting process. I'd like to think so. by Lagomorph13 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Tuesday, Oct 16, 2007 at 3:47:29 PM (0+)
|
|
Michael Roberts,
This was the best analysis of the Sanchez affair that I have read to date, thank you, outstanding. by Marjorie Ann Drake (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Tuesday, Oct 16, 2007 at 11:50:57 PM (0+)
|
|
military mind? not very much
Tragically I think the Ex-General’s rant does illustrate three issues:He intended to show how badly he thought he was treated and was really a hunt for someone else to blame for his circumstances. · Firstly he resented the political arm of government gave the military ‘a bridge too far’. Both in a lack of military control, resources and finally it was always a political war. Political wars no longer resolved by military BFI (Brute Force and Ignorance lots of grunts with guns.). All this meant that the military was under trained, under resourced and under scrutiny fighting an unwinable asymmetric war. · The asymmetrical nature of the war simply meant that the enemy was able to use tactics they couldn’t. Part of the traditional military psyche is to do what has to be done even if it means borrowing from Genghis Khan’s song book. The constant and in their minds uncontrolled media scrutiny which seemed to emphasis the military’s failings. This then encouraged the people to question the militaries' tactic then the congress all leading to pressure and frustration. · Finally his speech actually gave insight to the traditional military mind. In this context the military’s prime purpose is to obediently and actively fight the nation’s enemies. The military doesn’t see the difference between imagined, political or real. The fight. To have any serious conviction to this task a right wing perspective is almost mandatory. The problem comes about when the military starts to see the government as being an enemy of their perspective of the nation. This separate view is enhanced by the military’s commander in chief is the president not the congress. It is easier to win the Presidency than the majority in both houses. by Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments) on Wednesday, Oct 17, 2007 at 3:27:29 AM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
