I'm with EdA; why didn't Gen. Sanchez speak out when it might have made a difference.

I was screeming loud and often about the poor quality of Generalship in Iraq for years. The Generals were all more concerned about their next promotion than they were about conditions in the field, hence they all just clicked their heels and carried the Bush administration's water. That certainly applied to Gen. Sanchez as well. They knew what they were doing was wrong but were afraid to speak out for fear of not getting that next star, ala. Gen. Shinsecki. Regret at this late stage does not redeemed their failed careers. Sorry Gen. Sanchez.

The recent information on the new policy implemented by Petreaus keeps emphasizing that it was developed in Iraq and then adopted by the Bush administration as things got worse.

The book "Angler" points out that much of what went wrong appears to have come out of Dick Cheney's office. Angler suggests to me that his only monitoring of how people were following his orders was geared towards finding opposition to following orders and removing or neutralizing that opposition. Cheney certainly had no staff to do much more than that. Yet no one else could interfere. Bush was letting Cheney have his head.

Then you look at Rumsfeld who recent reports point out "knew" what should be done and slow-walked anything he was directed to do that did not fit his preconceived notions. His "military" experience had been as a technician - a navey fighter pilot whose personal responsibility never went beyond flying a single aircraft or later being an instructor pilot who passed on his expertise. Also as Sec Def he "knew" that the top generals were still fighting the old wars and had to be beat into shape to fit Rummy's vision of lean light high-tech fighters. Any surprise for a fighter pilot technician to react that way? He was a classic example of why West Pointers call the Naval Academy the "Trade School." He was no leader. (West Point tranins leaders before technicians.) Politician and political bureaucrat, yes, that's what Rummy was but leader no. He spent a couple of years denying that we were fighting an insurgency when even non-military correspondents clearly understood and reported that we were. Leaders listen to their subordinates. Not Rummy.

All the above were imbued with the same ideology pushed by Kristol and the PNAC. Would it be any surprise to find that they refused to listen or to support the requirements provided by the generals on the ground? Besides, in conservative ideology the leader knows all. Remember, the Bush administration appointed political appointees who were intended to beat the Civil Service and the Military commanders into doing things the conservative way.

As to why Sanchez did not blow the whistle when he left, that simply is not the American military tradition. It's America's great protection against military takeover of government, going back to the time of George Washington and the Founders. All the military academy's and military cultures heavily emphasize two things. Civilian control of the military and don't rock the boat during a war. I suspect that the history of Douglas MacArthur's hot-dogging in Korea and his relief by Truman heavily reemphasized that tradition. So did the propaganda against the Vietnam War protesters. They were demonized for opposing the war, and no military officer wants to be that kind of person. I don't recall any top military leaders coming out against the errors in Viet Nam, either.

Should he have come out during heavy combat and reported that the top brass directing the war was completely incompetent? The effects of that on the morale of the troops in combat would have been nothing short of disastrous. Such statements very likely would result in American deaths.

Now that the disastrous phase of Iraq appears over and others are reporting on the flat incompetence of the Bush administration officials, I have no doubt that Sanchez feels a lot more free to describe his experiences. He probably could only express such things once the war was proceeding in a competent manner. Not before. Since he was effectively relieved and passed over for promotion, to have spoken out earlier would easily have been dismissed as sour grapes and it is clear that it would have been so portrayed. Now he has support from all the other reports we have been getting. His statements are much harder to dismiss. Shinsecki also has not gone public with reservations beyond what he told a Congressional committee.

The Inquiry into the treatment of detainees in US custody report from Nov,08 is a detailed account of the goings on at each facility and where the orders for harsh treatment eminated.

None of this excuses LTG Sanchez, but his first document was dated 9-14-03 and was then amended on 10-12-03, which did enforce the Army Field Manual, (but gave wiggle room for dogs). According to this report...any of the other techniques required approval....and here is where everything gets fuzzy and the "Combined Joint Task Force" in Iraq had a separate wing call the Special Mission Unit (which is more aligned with the torture techniques used in Gitmo by CIA and contract workers). The unresolved question is who knew what was going in the SMU interrogations by the CIA and hired contractors? As each foreign US prison seems to have sections where only certain individuals are allowed...we know they exist at GTMO and now Iraq and fair to assume in Afganistan (Baghram AFB)...but because they are so restricted, they are likely to be sites of torturing detainees. As these are outside the oversight of US Army and FBI refused to be a part of them...should the "military" as a whole be attacked or just the "bad apples" who authorized and used the techniques?

The "bad apples" that Cheney likes to point out makes it look like "enlisted soldiers", when in fact, he may have just pointed to them to distract the public from seeing the truth...the bad apples were in DC and top tiers of military/CIA/contracted employees.

It is all terrible and yes, investigations need to occur and if the investigations prove that War Crimes were committed, then that needs to be clearly and loudly announced...including NAMES of individuals who authorized and carried out these crimes (directly or indirectly)...but does the US have the will power to actually prosecute the War Criminals..is this an "all or none" issue.