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
