Hagel: Iraq War destablized Middle East, resembles Vietnam

[unosdostres14]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A leading Republican senator and decorated Vietnam War veteran said Sunday the Iraq war has destabilized the Mideast and is looking more like the Vietnam conflict a generation ago.

Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, who received two Purple Hearts and other military honors for his service in Vietnam, reiterated his position that the United States needs to develop a strategy to leave Iraq.

Hagel scoffed at the idea that U.S. troops could be in Iraq four years from now at levels above 100,000, a contingency for which the Pentagon is preparing.

"We should start figuring out how we get out of there," Hagel said on "This Week" on ABC. "But with this understanding, we cannot leave a vacuum that further destabilizes the Middle East. I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur."

Hagel said "stay the course" is not a policy. "By any standard, when you analyze 2 1/2 years in Iraq ... we're not winning," he said.

President Bush was preparing separate speeches this week to reaffirm his plan to help Iraq train its security forces while its leaders build a democratic government. In his weekly Saturday radio address, Bush said the fighting there protected Americans at home.

Polls show the public growing more skeptical about Bush's handling of the war.

In Iraq, officials continued to craft a new constitution in the face of a Monday night deadline for parliamentary approval. They missed the initial deadline last week.

Other Republican senators appearing on Sunday news shows advocated remaining in Iraq until the mission set by Bush is completed, but they also noted that the public is becoming more and more concerned and needs to be reassured.

Sen. George Allen, R-Virginia, disagreed that the U.S. is losing in Iraq. He said a constitution guaranteeing basic freedoms would provide a rallying point for Iraqis.

"I think this is a very crucial time for the future of Iraq," said Allen, also on ABC. "The terrorists don't have anything to win the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq. All they care to do is disrupt."

Hagel, who was among those who advocated sending two to three times as many troops to Iraq when the war began in March 2003, said a stronger military presence by the U.S. is not the solution today.

"We're past that stage now because now we are locked into a bogged-down problem not unsimilar, dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam," Hagel said. "The longer we stay, the more problems we're going to have."

Allen said that unlike the communist-guided North Vietnamese who fought the U.S., the insurgents in Iraq have no guiding political philosophy or organization. Still, Hagel argued, the similarities are growing.

"What I think the White House does not yet understand -- and some of my colleagues -- the dam has broke on this policy," Hagel said. "The longer we stay there, the more similarities (to Vietnam) are going to come together."

The Army's top general, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, said Saturday in an interview with The Associated Press that the Army is planning for the possibility of keeping the current number of soldiers in Iraq -- well over 100,000 -- for four more years as part of preparations for a worst-case scenario.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said U.S. security is tied to success in Iraq, and he counseled people to be patient.

"The worst-case scenario is not staying four years. The worst-case scenario is leaving a dysfunctional, repressive government behind that becomes part of the problem in the war on terror and not the solution," Graham said on "Fox News Sunday."

Allen said the military would be strained at such levels in four years yet could handle that difficult assignment. Hagel described the Army contingency plan as "complete folly."

"I don't know where he's going to get these troops," Hagel said. "There won't be any National Guard left ... no Army Reserve left ... there is no way America is going to have 100,000 troops in Iraq, nor should it, in four years."

Hagel added: "It would bog us down, it would further destabilize the Middle East, it would give Iran more influence, it would hurt Israel, it would put our allies over there in Saudi Arabia and Jordan in a terrible position. It won't be four years. We need to be out."

Sen. Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, said the U.S. is winning in Iraq but has "a way to go" before it meets its goals there. Meanwhile, more needs to be done to lay out the strategy, Lott said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"I do think we, the president, all of us need to do a better job, do more," Lott said, by telling people "why we have made this commitment, what is being done now, what we do expect in the process and, yes, why it's going to take more time."

It seems like lots of Republican have been coming out and criticizing the war. Now a Vietnam vet compares it to Vietnam. NOT GOOD.

 

[DaveC]

The man is absolutely correct. It's a quagmire. You can't stay because people are dying for no reason every day, but you can't leave because it will cause even bigger problems.

It's starting to get disturbing that even Republicans, who were so staunchly supportive of the war beforehand, are now starting to come out against it.

 

[Irvine511]

come on guys, Iraq is NOT vietnam.

it's America, circa 1784!!!

it is.

no, it is.

really.

 

[pax]

:: starts stopwatch to count down the seconds until Hagel is Swift Boated ::

 

[Se7en]

purple hearts??? PURPLE HEARTS?!?!?!?!?!

the man cut his finger on the sharp edge of a ration can and went crying to his c.o.

fraud!

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Good for him for having the integrity to speak out

Bush will be out of office before things ever change in Iraq. Unless he starts to panic about his legacy, well it will just be up to the next President to clean up the mess

 

[U2democrat]

Sen. Hagel is a republican that I have always respected.

 

[STING2]

It seems like lots of Republican have been coming out and criticizing the war. Now a Vietnam vet compares it to Vietnam. NOT GOOD.

Senator Chuck Hagel is a Republican senator with a career that is litered with attacking and criticizing nearly every military action the United States has been involved in since he joined the Senate. He is essentially Pat Buchanan light.

Senator Chuck Hagel at the start of the Kosovo war stated that the United States needed to immediately withdraw from that conflict or face a Nuclear War with Russia.

He claims the United States should have gone into Iraq with 3 times as many troops, yet does not realize that would have required mobilizing nearly every National Guard Unit, and then there would be no way to rotate such a large force for breaks in and out of the theater because there simply would be no units to replace them.

The Army can easily maintain a force of over 100,000 in Iraq indefinitely given the current force structure now which is actually expanding. The active Army is currently expanding from 33 combat Brigades to 48 combat brigades.

As far as using the National Guard, by 2007, only one National Guard Brigade out of 39 will be spending that year on deployment in Iraq under current Army plans.

Making claims that the Kosovo war would lead to World War III with the Russians as well as other claims above clearly show that Hagel has poor judgement on these matters and is often ignorant of the facts.

 

[unosdostres14]

Re: Re: Hagel: Iraq War destablized Middle East, resembles Vietnam

Senator Chuck Hagel is a Republican senator with a career that is litered with attacking and criticizing nearly every military action the United States has been involved in since he joined the Senate. He is essentially Pat Buchanan light.

Senator Chuck Hagel at the start of the Kosovo war stated that the United States needed to immediately withdraw from that conflict or face a Nuclear War with Russia.

He claims the United States should have gone into Iraq with 3 times as many troops, yet does not realize that would have required mobilizing nearly every National Guard Unit, and then there would be no way to rotate such a large force for breaks in and out of the theater because there simply would be no units to replace them.

The Army can easily maintain a force of over 100,000 in Iraq indefinitely given the current force structure now which is actually expanding. The active Army is currently expanding from 33 combat Brigades to 48 combat brigades.

As far as using the National Guard, by 2007, only one National Guard Brigade out of 39 will be spending that year on deployment in Iraq under current Army plans.

Making claims that the Kosovo war would lead to World War III with the Russians as well as other claims above clearly show that Hagel has poor judgement on these matters and is often ignorant of the facts.

Eh...doesn't change the fact that another member of the Grand Ole Party is seeing that the Iraq war is a quagmire.

It's gonna be hard to refute the credibility of EVERY SINGLE Republican that speaks out against the war.

 

[Scarletwine]

You don't know Sting2

 

[Dreadsox]

:: starts stopwatch to count down the seconds until Hagel is Swift Boated ::

Ahhh yes...the new liberal mantra

Now if it were a sex act...I'd be all into it.....according to Mrs. Springer....

 

[Scarletwine]

Isn't that the same as "slam bam thank you mam"?

 

[U2democrat]

sex act? politicians? i'm there!

 

[Scarletwine]

Terrible to be such a wonk, isn't it

 

[Dreadsox]

Isn't that the same as "slam bam thank you mam"?

By the way my friend.....You should be looking in your mail end of the week!!!!!

 

[Scarletwine]

That will be wonderful. Thanks.

 

[Lemonfix]

I appreciate Hagel speaking his mind and going off party line. In hindsite though I personally would not have used the Vietnam analogy--there are many differences and his critics will have an incredibly easy time picking those out and basically saying his argument is moot. Then again, hindsite is 20/20.

 

[STING2]

Re: Re: Re: Hagel: Iraq War destablized Middle East, resembles Vietnam

Eh...doesn't change the fact that another member of the Grand Ole Party is seeing that the Iraq war is a quagmire.

It's gonna be hard to refute the credibility of EVERY SINGLE Republican that speaks out against the war.

Its not a surprise to see Chuck Hagel doing this since he does it all the time. Also, it is not the Republican Party that is having a difficult time supporting the war, its the Democratic Party which is split down the middle. Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden and other Democratic Senators still support the war. The Republicans are generally united in their support for the President while the Democrats are divided. Such division if continued could help insure Republican control of the White House and Congress for years to come.

 

[unosdostres14]

So.....Republicans generally are loyal to ideas of those in charge, while the Democrats actually speak out for what they themselves believe.

 

[DaveC]

So.....Republicans generally are loyal to ideas of those in charge, while the Democrats actually speak out for what they themselves believe.

 

[A_Wanderer]

So.....Republicans generally are loyal to ideas of those in charge, while the Democrats actually speak out for what they themselves believe.

Nope, because all of them are partisans it is all dependent on who rules.

 

[unosdostres14]

Nope, because all of them are partisans it is all dependent on who rules.

I don't disagree with that. I was just summarizing what Sting said

 

[STING2]

So.....Republicans generally are loyal to ideas of those in charge, while the Democrats actually speak out for what they themselves believe.

No the Republicans tend to have more similar views on a variety of issues, while the Democrats these days look like three different parties unable to form a consensus on the major issues which would apeal to most voters.

 

[BVS]

No the Republicans tend to have more similar views on a variety of issues, while the Democrats these days look like three different parties unable to form a consensus on the major issues which would apeal to most voters.

Actually Republicans just make outkast of those that have minority views so that it appears they have similar views on a variety of issues.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Who Will Say 'No More'?

By Gary Hart

Wednesday, August 24, 2005

"Waist deep in the Big Muddy and the big fool said to push on," warned an anti-Vietnam war song those many years ago. The McGovern presidential campaign, in those days, which I know something about, is widely viewed as a cause for the decline of the Democratic Party, a gateway through which a new conservative era entered.

Like the cat that jumped on a hot stove and thereafter wouldn't jump on any stove, hot or cold, today's Democratic leaders didn't want to make that mistake again. Many supported the Iraq war resolution and -- as the Big Muddy is rising yet again -- now find themselves tongue-tied or trying to trump a war president by calling for deployment of more troops. Thus does good money follow bad and bad politics get even worse.


History will deal with George W. Bush and the neoconservatives who misled a mighty nation into a flawed war that is draining the finest military in the world, diverting Guard and reserve forces that should be on the front line of homeland defense, shredding international alliances that prevailed in two world wars and the Cold War, accumulating staggering deficits, misdirecting revenue from education to rebuilding Iraqi buildings we've blown up, and weakening America's national security.

But what will history say about an opposition party that stands silent while all this goes on? My generation of Democrats jumped on the hot stove of Vietnam and now, with its members in positions of responsibility, it is afraid of jumping on any political stove. In their leaders, the American people look for strength, determination and self-confidence, but they also look for courage, wisdom, judgment and, in times of moral crisis, the willingness to say: "I was wrong."

To stay silent during such a crisis, and particularly to harbor the thought that the administration's misfortune is the Democrats' fortune, is cowardly. In 2008 I want a leader who is willing now to say: "I made a mistake, and for my mistake I am going to Iraq and accompanying the next planeload of flag-draped coffins back to Dover Air Force Base. And I am going to ask forgiveness for my mistake from every parent who will talk to me."

Further, this leader should say: "I am now going to give a series of speeches across the country documenting how the administration did not tell the American people the truth, why this war is making our country more vulnerable and less secure, how we can drive a wedge between Iraqi insurgents and outside jihadists and leave Iraq for the Iraqis to govern, how we can repair the damage done to our military, what we and our allies can do to dry up the jihadists' swamp, and what dramatic steps we must take to become energy-secure and prevent Gulf Wars III, IV and so on."

At stake is not just the leadership of the Democratic Party and the nation but our nation's honor, our nobility and our principles. Franklin D. Roosevelt established a national community based on social justice. Harry Truman created international networks that repaired the damage of World War II and defeated communism. John F. Kennedy recaptured the ideal of the republic and the sense of civic duty. To expect to enter this pantheon, the next Democratic leader must now undertake all three tasks.

But this cannot be done while the water is rising in the Big Muddy of the Middle East. No Democrat, especially one now silent, should expect election by default. The public trust must be earned, and speaking clearly, candidly and forcefully now about the mess in Iraq is the place to begin.

The real defeatists today are not those protesting the war. The real defeatists are those in power and their silent supporters in the opposition party who are reduced to repeating "Stay the course" even when the course, whatever it now is, is light years away from the one originally undertaken. The truth is we're way off course. We've stumbled into a hornet's nest. We've weakened ourselves at home and in the world. We are less secure today than before this war began.

Who now has the courage to say this?

 

[financeguy]

Ahhh yes...the new liberal mantra

Now if it were a sex act...I'd be all into it.....according to Mrs. Springer....

The new liberal mantra could soon be "Impeach the bastards" if things keep swinging the way they have been of late.

 

[Dreadsox]

Right....

Just out of curiousity.....have you found a violation of the constitution that would justify impeachment?

 

[starvinmarvin]

Right....

Just out of curiousity.....have you found a violation of the constitution that would justify impeachment?

Willfully building a false case to justify the war in Iraq springs to mind.....is that not a serious crime?

 

[financeguy]

Willfully building a false case to justify the war in Iraq springs to mind.....is that not a serious crime?

I believe so.

But it appears the other side has the monopoly on 'facts'.

 

[Dreadsox]

Willfully building a false case to justify the war in Iraq springs to mind.....is that not a serious crime?

So the UN, Germany, France, Russia, Bill Clinton, and the Democrats that wrote letters urging the President to take action against Iraq....

They were all willfully building a flase case too......

I feel like I am in a time warp in FYM......

Do we all want to just ERASE the fact that PRESIDENT CLINTON when he was in the White House believed there were WMD.

GERMANY believed they would have the BOMB by 2006-2007....

That FRANCE never doubted there was WMD., but wanted time,,.


My God, have people forgotten that if Saddam's son inlaw had not ratted him out in the mid 90's he WOULD HAVE HAD THE BOMB?

Nope...


Let's rewrite history....and claim we were deceived...

TIME WARP