General Attack, Specific Focus

(AP Photo)

Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez – the top military commander in Iraq from 2004-2006, who resigned after Abu Ghraib – pulled no punches in his speech to the Military Reporters and Editors conference Friday.

The New York Times coverage led off:

In a sweeping indictment of the four-year effort in Iraq, the former top commander of American forces there called the Bush administration's handling of the war "incompetent" and said the result was "a nightmare with no end in sight."

Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, who retired in 2006 after being replaced in Iraq after the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, blamed the Bush administration for a "catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan" and denounced the current addition of American forces as a "desperate" move that would not achieve long-term stability.

A former US military chief in Iraq has condemned the current strategy in the conflict, which he warned was "a nightmare with no end in sight".

Retired Lt Gen Ricardo Sanchez also labelled US political leaders as "incompetent" and "corrupted".

He said they would have faced courts martial for dereliction of duty had they been in the military.

The best the US could manage under the current approach in Iraq was to "stave off defeat", Gen Sanchez warned.

The U.S. mission in Iraq is a "nightmare with no end in sight" because of political misjudgments after the fall of Saddam Hussein that continue today, a former chief of U.S.-led forces said Friday. Retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who commanded coalition troops for a year beginning June 2003, cast a wide net of blame for both political and military shortcomings in Iraq that helped open the way for the insurgency — such as disbanding the Saddam-era military and failing to cement ties with tribal leaders and quickly establish civilian government after Saddam was toppled.

Retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, who led U.S. forces in Iraq for a year after the March 2003 invasion, accused the Bush administration yesterday of going to war with a "catastrophically flawed" plan and said the United States is "living a nightmare with no end in sight."

Sanchez also bluntly criticized the current troop increase in Iraq, describing it as "a desperate attempt by the administration that has not accepted the political and economic realities of this war."

Sanchez opened by criticizing the U.S. news media, saying he was unfairly labeled "a liar" and "a torturer" because of the Abu Ghraib scandal, and he alleged that the media have lost their sense of ethics. He said that members of the media blow stories out of proportion and are unwilling to correct mistakes, and that the "media environment is doing a great disservice to the nation."

Curious, I went to the Military Reporters and Editors website to see the text of his speech. While it's true that he blasted America's political leaders and the architects of our effort in Iraq, he led off with both barrels blazing -- for nearly the entire first half of his speech -- against the press corps, including this excerpt:

In some cases I have never even met you, yet you feel qualified to make character judgments that are communicated to the world. My experience is not unique and we can find other examples such as the treatment of Secretary Brown during Katrina. This is the worst display of journalism imaginable by those of us that are bound by a strict value system of selfless service, honor and integrity.

Almost invariably, my perception is that the sensationalistic value of these assessments is what provided the edge that you seek for self-aggrandizement or to advance your individual quest for getting on the front page with your stories! As I understand it, your measure of worth is how many front page stories you have written and unfortunately some of you will compromise your integrity and display questionable ethics as you seek to keep America informed.

This is much like the intelligence analysts whose effectiveness was measured by the number of intelligence reports he produced. It seems that as long as you get a front page story there is little or no regard for the "collateral damage" you will cause. Personal reputations have no value and you report with total impunity and are rarely held accountable for unethical conduct.

I can intuit why a reporter wouldn't consider these comments – a military man railing against the media ain't exactly earth-shattering news—to be the focus of an article itself, but it still warranted a mention in a piece about his "attack on all sides" speech. If you're going to write about the Lt. General's comments about the military effort and political leaders, it wouldn't be hard to write "… and the military leader also took aim at the media, accusing it of …" or something. (As exemplified by the Military Reporters and Editors reporting of the speech.)

And while some (and have) seen this as further proof of media bias, I think it's far more likely a symptom of the media -- having heard how horrible they are day in and day out -- not considering another batch of criticisms as 'news.'

Of course, Sanchez didn't quite hit the right note by comparing his treatment to the abuse of former FEMA head Michael Brown – that's roughly the equivalent of telling the media to give O.J. Simpson a break. But if you're going to hang a story on his harsh words towards some, you should include all the targets.

Even when you're the media and even when you're one of them.