Happy Thanksgiving and Some Retired Generals have really pissed me off....

For anyone wasting their perfectly good time reading this, I hope you had a wonderful Thanksgiving. Also forgive my lack of writing discipline for this post. I am just seeing red.

This post is a rant. The opinions expressed on this blog are mine they DO NOT REFLECT any official policy or statement of the DOD/DOA/ or any military unit. Once again the opinions expressed belong to me.

Frankly, I am pissed and a little sick of these retired Generals who have found their 'opinions' and have decided to enlighten us with them. Especially in a manner that does not 'drip of politics.'

Lt. Gen.(retired) Ricardo Sanchez gave the Democratic response to President Bush's weekly radio address. Transcript found at: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312735,00.html

Who is he? He was the commander of MNF-Iraq. He was the guy in charge of everything in Iraq, during the whole Abu Gharib scandal. He retired as a LTG (3 star).

Is this guy using this means of communication as a nonpartisan former soldier? Is he addressing his his own mistakes and or perceptions of his time in command? Or is he trying to to really affect positive change in the military and in the political situation? In short I question the motivation for his statement.

What he says is interesting, but is it really different than the agenda put forth from the administration? I read it and said, "well, duh!"

I have a feeling it is to shift blame from situations that happened under his command to a higher power. It is a shame and sad that he uses this pedestal to make himself appear relevant. Maybe some old soldiers should just fade away. Sorry, this guy just pisses me off.

Some of these retired Generals who have come out and spoke against the administration were actually heroes of mine as I 'grew up' in the Army. But I now question their motives and the manner in which their criticisms have been embraced by the media. Why didn't these questions come out while they were still wearing the uniform?

Ok so these guys are all retired right? They are speaking as citizens to their fellow Americans. Why then did General Sanchez use his former rank to introduce himself if he wasn't trying to lean on his career for credibility? Why didn't he do something about it when he was the boss?

Mr. Sanchez, Sir, I thank you for your years of service to our nation. I am disappointed that you have decided to use this medium to express your displeasure about the current situation. I fully appreciate your right to free speech as guaranteed by the 1st Amendment, but you know full well how your actions can affect perceptions. I expect better from a leader who was privileged enough to lead soldiers throughout such a distinguished career. Sir, you let us all down.


For those too lazy to follow link here is transcript:

Transcript: Democratic Response to President Bush's Radio AddressSunday , November 25, 2007

ADVERTISEMENT The following is a transcript of the Democratic response by Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez to President Bush's radio address:
RICARDO SANCHEZ: Good morning, this is Lieutenant General Ricardo S. Sanchez, U.S. Army, retired.
I speak to you today, not as a representative of the Democratic Party, but as a retired military officer who is a former commander of the Multi-National Force-Iraq.
In that capacity, I saw firsthand the consequences of the administration's failure to devise a strategy for victory in Iraq that employed, in a coordinated manner, the political, economic, diplomatic and military power of the United States. That failure continues today. At its base is the mistaken belief, despite years of evidence to the contrary, that victory can be achieved through the application of military power alone.
Our Army and Marine Corps will execute as directed, perform magnificently and never complain. That is the ethic of our warriors and that is what America expects of them. They will not disappoint us.
The keys to securing the future of Iraq are aggressive regional diplomacy, political reconciliation and economic hope. Yet, as our current commanders in Iraq have recently noted, the improvements in security produced by the courage and blood of our troops have not been matched by a willingness on the part of Iraqi leaders to make the hard choices necessary to bring peace to their country. There is no evidence that the Iraqis will choose to do so in the near future or that we have an ability to force that result. America lost that ability upon the transfer of sovereignty back in June of 2004.
Under the administration's recently announced plan, U.S. force levels in Iraq in July 2008 will be at about the same level they were in November 2006, when the American people demanded a change in direction in our Iraq policy.
Our Army and Marine Corps are struggling with changing deployment schedules that are disrupting combat readiness training and straining the patience and daily lives of military families. It will take the Army at least a decade to repair the damage done to its full-spectrum readiness, which is at its lowest level since the Vietnam War. In the meantime, the ability of our military to fully execute our national security strategy will be called into doubt, producing what is, in my judgment, unacceptable strategic risk.
Although we cannot withdraw precipitously from Iraq, we must move rapidly to minimize our force presence. Shifting the primary mission of our troops away from combat will lead to a smaller U.S. military presence, and a greater obligation on the part of the Iraqis to take the lead in solving their country's problems. Having fewer American troops in Iraq will also allow us to devote more resources to refit our ground forces to respond to different contingencies in other parts of the world. However, for as long as we have troops in Iraq, the American people must insist that our deploying men and women are properly trained and properly equipped for the missions they will be asked to perform.
The funding bill passed by the House of Representatives last week, with a bipartisan vote, makes the proper preparation of our deploying troops a priority and requires the type of shift in their mission that will allow their numbers to be reduced substantially. Furthermore, the bill puts America on the path to regaining our moral authority by requiring all government employees to abide by the Army Field Manual on interrogations, which is in compliance with the Geneva Conventions. America must accept nothing less.
It is well past time to adopt a new approach in Iraq that will improve chances to produce stability in the Middle East. I urge our political leaders to put aside partisan considerations and unite to lessen the burden our troops and their families have been under for nearly five years now. Strengthening America's security is a burden that must be shared by all Americans.
America must mobilize our diplomatic, political and economic power to achieve the reconciliation necessary to roll back de- Baathification and to advance the political progress in Iraq. Anything less is a dereliction of duty.
This is retired Lieutenant General Ricardo S. Sanchez, and thank you for listening.

If I was a candidate for office....

What issues would I support, may surprise you.

The issues in no particular order.

Smaller government and accountability to the people.

Abortion. Personally I oppose it, but I don't understand how a government or a group of people can dictate to a person what they should do with their body. I don't believe that it should be used as a routine 'birth control' method. I guess you can say I am pro-choice.

Immigration. We need to have a better, more realistic path to citizenship. There also needs to be a guest worker plan that makes sense. People should be able to come into the country and work to provide a living for their family.

Border security. We address the above but we must control our borders. That means no one comes in or leaves in an uncontrolled manner. Fences, virtual or real must be made and border security must receive funding to make this happen.

Drugs. Tough one. If cornered I would say marijuana is ok except for people in certain professions (airlines, docs, anything where actions may put others at risk)

Religion and Government. The Pledge of Allegiance did not include the phrase 'Under God' until 1920. ( I need to reference this) There should be a separation, but not a ridiculous persecution. We need to be more inclusive in our documents. We are a melting pot society that must include all religions.

Gay marriage. If 2 people love each other and commit to themselves for the rest of their lives, then why not celebrate with them? I support it.

War on terror. We must fight this amongst many more fronts than just military. I believe in the end we will see that Iraq and Afghanistan were just causes. There were some mistakes made but history will vindicate the decision.

The first Blog and "Who the hell is Lucien"

Ok, whoever might read this.....A person that I know and respect talked to a group of us about Blogs and how they are changing the way people view the world. Blogs give an outlet for personal opinions and creativity. While I have many opinions I do not claim to be creative. Anyway that same person said we should all try this blogging thing, so here I am.

This Blog will serve as a repository for my thoughts on a whole bunch of subjects.

Introduction:

Who am I?

My name is Lucien Campillo. I am a husband and a father. My wife is Donna and my son is Gavin.

I have served my country as a career soldier. I enlisted in 1989 in the Florida Army National Guard and transferred to the Active Army in 1991. I was selected for Officer's Candidate School in 1995 and currently I serve the Army as a Major and an Infantryman.

Education: I graduated from Tampa Jesuit High in 1988, SUNY Empire State College in 2001 with a BA in American History, and will graduate from University of North Alabama with a MBA in 2007.

I have one Brother, Emil and a sister, Claudia.

Political leanings: I consider myself a conservative, but not necessarily Republican.

My life is pretty good. I am happy. I am fortunate.