NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/21/hagel.iraq.ap/index.html

The newest wrinkle in the Iraq War. A leading Republican Senator and Vietnam war vet says we did more harm than good. Wants exit strategy and not more troops like he wanted at the start of the war. Cheers.

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."

Duh.

since we haven't heard from the righties yet...

Conservative: That Hegel is a liberal in disguise. He hates freedom, he hates the troops and he wants us to faill. How dare he question our fearless leaders. This isn't Vietnam and is nothing like Vietnam - only a Vietnam vet would have the authority to make that comparison... erm... except this one.

From the point of view of an european...

The whole europe supported war on Afghanistan.

Half of europe supported war on Iraq.

Everything has gone worse in the zone, and Bush doesnt dicard the use of Force on Iran.

Nobody, except the UK, in Europe, will support that war.

Duh.

Yo.

since we haven't heard from the righties yet...

Conservative: That Hegel is a liberal in disguise. He hates freedom, he hates the troops and he wants us to faill. How dare he question our fearless leaders. This isn't Vietnam and is nothing like Vietnam - only a Vietnam vet would have the authority to make that comparison... erm... except this one.
Aw, now that's unfair negative stereotyping! :p nice job.

Yo.

Precisely.

Aw, now that's unfair negative stereotyping! :p nice job.


thanks - I should havve said that will come form a sample of the right eh? :D

Precisely.

I'm glad we agree.

It's amazing how an interesting thread is destroyed.

By the radicals.

thanks - I should havve said that will come form a sample of the right eh? :D
Perhaps, but you're the one spewing it; pick your poison! :D

*yawns*

Yet one more fool who is trying to link this to Vietnam when everyone can see that it isn't.

*yawns*

Yet one more fool who is trying to link this to Vietnam when everyone can see that it isn't.
I bow to your in-depth analysis and explanation.

*yawns*

Yet one more fool who is trying to link this to Vietnam when everyone can see that it isn't.

What are the differences? The progressions the army is making? A country more secure? The war on terrorism is won?

No, no, and no. Only more deaths everyday.

What are the differences? The progressions the army is making? A country more secure? The war on terrorism is won?

No, no, and no. Only more deaths everyday.

I suggest you really study vietnam. Iraq is most definitely NOT vietnam.

1) Vietnam was 2 countries, Iraq was one

2) The army of Iraq was beaten, disbanded and now being rebuilty. That didn't happen in Vietnam.

3) Iraq is currently in discussion of a New Constitution. That didn't happen in Vietnam.

4) The death rate is far below that of Vietnam.

5) It is quiet in 14 out of 18 provinces in Iraq

6) Sunni Imams are now getting the Sunnis to register to vote after those same imams told them not to leading up to thier first democratic vote.

So now how does Iraq resemble Vietnam? Simple answer is, it doesn't.

*yawns*

Yet one more fool who is trying to link this to Vietnam when everyone can see that it isn't.

Well, no shit. Veit Nam is like, several thousand miles to the left. Pretty hard not to notice that. Plus, Americans stopped sending young men over there to be killed some time ago. These days, it finds entirely new places to send it's young men to be killed. Like, say... Iraq.

But no, no similarities. At all. Not one. *cough*

Well, no shit. Veit Nam is like, several thousand miles to the left. Pretty hard not to notice that. Plus, Americans stopped sending young men over there to be killed some time ago. These days, it finds entirely new places to send it's young men to be killed. Like, say... Iraq.

But no, no similarities. At all. Not one. *cough*


Because it's not like a Vietnam vet would know anything about Nam, he must be an idiot or something to be trying to make comparisons.

Because it's not like a Vietnam vet would know anything about Nam, he must be an idiot or something to be trying to make comparisons.


But of course. I mean Viet Nam was all about propping up a corrupt "democracy" to further the ends of right-wing whack-jobs who subscribe to an unrealistic ideology, where as Iraq is all about propping up a corrupt.... hmmmm...

Something fishy, here.

Sen. Hagel is just saying what he is because he wants to get into the White House. He may or may not believe what he is saying himself. All he is doing is trying to get elected. He knows how few people support the war, now. It's what I least like about politics: it's mob rule, and it's always been like that.

Sen. Hagel is just saying what he is because he wants to get into the White House. He may or may not believe what he is saying himself. All he is doing is trying to get elected. He knows how few people support the war, now. It's what I least like about politics: it's mob rule, and it's always been like that.

Would you prefer the Divine Right of Kings?

Sen HAGel is a RHINO, just like John Mccain and Dewine. All three are losers and won't strike a base in the Republican voting sea.

Hagel needs to STFU and keep brown-nosing Teddy "Dunkin' drunk" Kennedy.

Sen HAGel is a RHINO, just like John Mccain and Dewine. All three are losers and won't strike a base in the Republican voting sea.

Hagel needs to STFU and keep brown-nosing Teddy "Dunkin' drunk" Kennedy.
I applaud your in-depth analysis of the issues. :rolleyes:

I'll say it again--when Hagel steps up and actually does something instead of just talking shit, then I'll care what he says. Until then, he's just another Republican hack who puts party over country, and he can go fuck himself as far as I'm concerned.

Would you prefer the Divine Right of Kings?
I'd prefer individual thought, and not the uneducated slobs that we see today. Everyone has a right to vote, and iit should be kept that way. But not everyone deserves to vote.

I'd prefer individual thought, and not the uneducated slobs that we see today. Everyone has a right to vote, and iit should be kept that way. But not everyone deserves to vote.

So what do you propose? A meritocacy? By what standard would you set the right to franchise? I agree that it shouldn't be a popularity contest (which it currently is), but who gets the vote and who doesn't?

So what do you propose? A meritocacy? By what standard would you set the right to franchise? I agree that it shouldn't be a popularity contest (which it currently is), but who gets the vote and who doesn't?
We leave it as is. The system can be fixed, but not by government action. The system can only be fixed by people who give the authority to the government, ei, everyone. It will take lots of time, but in the end, the tall, cute guy with the giant biceps will find another job, and it won't be as a lobbyist or a political spokesperson.

We leave it as is. The system can be fixed, but not by government action. The system can only be fixed by people who give the authority to the government, ei, everyone. It will take lots of time, but in the end, the tall, cute guy with the giant biceps will find another job, and it won't be as a lobbyist or a political spokesperson.

It isn't looks that makes it in politics, you know. It's the person who's the biggest bastard among bastards that succeeds, so long as he hides his shit-eating grin from the public when he gets away with it.

It isn't looks that makes it in politics, you know. It's the person who's the biggest bastard among bastards that succeeds, so long as he hides his shit-eating grin from the public when he gets away with it.
Do the specifics matter? No. All that matters is that some guy or gal says something, and everyone runs with it for lack of a better thing to believe.

Do the specifics matter? No. All that matters is that some guy or gal says something, and everyone runs with it for lack of a better thing to believe.

Not always, but sometimes they do. Politicians often go with people want hear, rather than what should be done. And remember, just because they said it, doesn't mean they'll do it.

1) Vietnam was 2 countries, Iraq was one

Really? So the fact that Iraq was divded into 3 parts by the no-fly zones for over 10 years means nothing? That the Kurds live in their own enclaves, have their own government, have just about everything seperated from the rest of the Iraqi nation (other than political recognition) doesn't suggest any seperation of national identity?

2) The army of Iraq was beaten, disbanded and now being rebuilt. That didn't happen in Vietnam.

True...But seeing as how the native forces are demoralized, disorganized and green instead of whole, demoralized and corrupt, it doesn't sound ALL that different to me.

3) Iraq is currently in discussion of a New Constitution. That didn't happen in Vietnam.

True, the barely functional, corrupt government in Vietnam was complete when we got there. Iraq's government is an incomplete, barely fuctional, and corrupt model. And that's not to mention its political power is not centralized, but rather split three ways (okay two, as not that many Sunni's are taking part in it), so they're actually worse off than Vietnam was.

4) The death rate is far below that of Vietnam.

True...for American soldiers. How are the Iraqi's doing? Not all that well.

5) It is quiet in 14 out of 18 provinces in Iraq

A relative term in some cases. Some of those 14 have sporadic violence. But yes, a few have been spared heavy fighting. Vietnam's battlefields were kind of spread out, but there were still "safe" areas around.

6) Sunni Imams are now getting the Sunnis to register to vote after those same imams told them not to leading up to thier first democratic vote.

So you see political instability in a society directed by rather fickle Imams rather than political instability with centralized government leading a dissastisfied people with little say in governmental affairs. Different yes...but better off?

So yeah, its not Vietnam...It has more Muslims to begin with, more sand and less rice. The political and military situation RESEMBLES Vietnam, its not IDENTICAL to it. The similarities that are there are also very disturbing too.

since we haven't heard from the righties yet...

Conservative: That Hegel is a liberal in disguise. He hates freedom, he hates the troops and he wants us to faill. How dare he question our fearless leaders. This isn't Vietnam and is nothing like Vietnam - only a Vietnam vet would have the authority to make that comparison... erm... except this one.

Hold on a second. Let me see if I'm hearing you and the poster correctly:

Liberal: A conservative said it, so it must be true!

;)

3) Iraq is currently in discussion of a New Constitution. That didn't happen in Vietnam.

True, the barely functional, corrupt government in Vietnam was complete when we got there. Iraq's government is an incomplete, barely fuctional, and corrupt model. And that's not to mention its political power is not centralized, but rather split three ways (okay two, as not that many Sunni's are taking part in it), so they're actually worse off than Vietnam was.

That'a'boy: when the facts don't go your way, simply resort to subjectivity. I suppose you're right, though, the constitution is barely functional and the government is corrupt when compared to how well they used to have it. :rolleyes:

4) The death rate is far below that of Vietnam.

True...for American soldiers. How are the Iraqi's doing? Not all that well.

You're right, freedom and equality are for losers anyway.

5) It is quiet in 14 out of 18 provinces in Iraq

A relative term in some cases. Some of those 14 have sporadic violence. But yes, a few have been spared heavy fighting. Vietnam's battlefields were kind of spread out, but there were still "safe" areas around.

Gee, you want to tell me that 78% of the provinces in Vietnam were designated safe zones? Iraq's much better off.

Oh, and you almost forgot:

7) Iraq has a city which is illegal to affect militarily and in which it holds stockpiles of weapons that petty politics prevent us from destroying.

8) Insurgents attack us from a helpful trail running along the border of Iran that we aren't allowed to bomb due to the fact that it is within the boundaries of another country.

There's a lot of talk about the drafting of the constitution. I have my own idea how it needed to be done. The occupation should have been longer, and the drafting should have began immediately. Its only ratification would be approval by the CPA. It'd make for easy amendment, and that would've left the Iraqis plenty of time to form a different government.
That's sorta what happened with the American government. The Articles of Confederation were meant to last forever. No interim government was there. The Constitution we know today came out of disastifaction, not a desire to make a pernament government after the Revolution. The Iraqis should've just tried an American one, and if they didn't like it, they could always change it.
Personally, if I were in the CPA, I'd get rid of all the layers of federalism, and had just provinces and a central government. The provinces would have greater autonomy of internal affairsi than under Hussein, and negotiate their own brand of federalism. Otherwise, they'd form a federal government for a common defense, and a common regulator of commerce. Oil wouldn't be mentioned, because hey, oil may not be important in years to come. The US Constitution hardly even made references to geography. The document would still be good if only the West coast existed, despite the US having no West coast during the drafting.

4) The death rate is far below that of Vietnam.

Depends on the info we look at.

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/US_War_Dead_111403.htm

Sounds like we are actually ahead of Vietnam in deaths by the same time frame.

Hagel is foolish. We cannot set a timetable on this, and we shouldn't. In fact it would be incredibly idiotic if we left in six months.

Oh and Veteransforpeace is not a valid source.

There are several problems with Hagels assments and opinions.. (unfounded as they are)

One. He claims the middle east is distabalized by the Iraq conflict.
I would ask, in what way and in whose favor is this distabalization he claims. Lebonan has held democratic elections, The peace process is now able to move forward in Palestine and Israel as jihadist have taken aim in Iraq, Saudi Arabia is cracking down on the now ever aparent terrorist problem, Kwait is Kwait, Iran is playing global politics as usual, Pakistan is on our side for a change, Afganistan happend before Iraq and is democratic now, and finally we see Seria as the ever growing threat that it should be considered as they do nothing but compound the problems for Iraq.

Has the Iraqi conflict disabalized the Middle east ? From the previous bastion of Dictatorial rule that it once was... perhaps indeed. I but fear this only works to our advantage as most experts 5 years ago would have thought democracy in the middle east impossible.

Two. He supported and still belives more troops in Iraq would have been the answer. Of course heinsight is always 20/20 however, one position few critics of the current strategy fail to consider is. Would having 200 or even 300 thousand troops (or a soldier on every street corner) have made the US look even MORE like an occupying power? (perhaps insighting a larger insurgency). Perhaps the US could have been in more places.. but these are places we may well not have wanted to be in. And 200,000 more troops would do little to have helped seal the boarder... after all, We can't even seal our own boarders, how can we ever hope to seal another countries ?

Three. The comparison to Vietnam is a farse at best. EVEN if you accept the idea (highly suspect) that the two are comparable as Iraq surpasses deaths of early Vietnam... the circumstances are on the ground today are in our favor. We (though lacking stability) control the country to a large extent, and there are no expectations on an explosion in the death rate of American soldiers as would be needed to meet the levels of deaths in vietnam who at their peak reached an excess of 500 soldiers a month.

I belive this senator as good willed as his intentions are, to be a classic example of someone out of touch with the events on the ground and the harsh realities of life. War is war, people die... but dying for the ideal of freedom is better then, saying dying for blatent profit.

I might ask a simple question. How racist can some American war protestors be... touting humanitarian ideals calling for the withdrawl of all american troops while disreguarding the reality that if American forces were to be withdrawn today even more innocent lives would be lost. Not American of course but Iraqi. So are American lives really worth more then Iraqi lives? And are these the ideals these war protestors really want America to be displaying to the world at large ?

Oh and Veteransforpeace is not a valid source.How about Reuters? :rolleyes: The analysis was conducted by them.

1) Vietnam was 2 countries, Iraq was one

Really? So the fact that Iraq was divded into 3 parts by the no-fly zones for over 10 years means nothing? That the Kurds live in their own enclaves, have their own government, have just about everything seperated from the rest of the Iraqi nation (other than political recognition) doesn't suggest any seperation of national identity?

To question number 1, yes. They were still under the Iraqi flag.They didn't have seperate flags though you can make a case regarding the Kurds up north since they did have semi-autonomy. However, since they were still part of Iraq, they aren't a seperate nation.

2) The army of Iraq was beaten, disbanded and now being rebuilt. That didn't happen in Vietnam.

True...But seeing as how the native forces are demoralized, disorganized and green instead of whole, demoralized and corrupt, it doesn't sound ALL that different to me.

Apparently, you've been listening to the news to much. There are fulll Iraqi Army units doing operations without coalition support. Border patrol are starting to do their thing and the Police forces are patroling the streets. Sounds like a big difference to me.

3) Iraq is currently in discussion of a New Constitution. That didn't happen in Vietnam.

True, the barely functional, corrupt government in Vietnam was complete when we got there. Iraq's government is an incomplete, barely fuctional, and corrupt model.

Corrupt how? Incomplete because the Sunnis aren't there? Sunni Imams are rectifying that as we speak. They are telling their people to register to vote so that they can be a part of the political process and that they don't get left out.

And that's not to mention its political power is not centralized, but rather split three ways (okay two, as not that many Sunni's are taking part in it), so they're actually worse off than Vietnam was.

Actually, the sunnis are becoming more involved now. All three sides are forming this constitution. That is why they can't decide on having a federation or having a centralized government.

4) The death rate is far below that of Vietnam.

True...for American soldiers. How are the Iraqi's doing? Not all that well

Considering that the terrorists are the ones blowing them up and not us.

5) It is quiet in 14 out of 18 provinces in Iraq

A relative term in some cases. Some of those 14 have sporadic violence. But yes, a few have been spared heavy fighting. Vietnam's battlefields were kind of spread out, but there were still "safe" areas around.

Big difference in geography between Vietnam and Iraq. In Iraq, the trouble is centered in the Sunni Triangle. That is where the bulk of terror attacks have occured. The terrorists want a civil war but it looks like they aren't going to get it.

6) Sunni Imams are now getting the Sunnis to register to vote after those same imams told them not to leading up to thier first democratic vote.

So you see political instability in a society directed by rather fickle Imams rather than political instability with centralized government leading a dissastisfied people with little say in governmental affairs. Different yes...but better off?

We'll have to wait and see what the new constitution says. Then I'll give you my answer on it.

So yeah, its not Vietnam...It has more Muslims to begin with, more sand and less rice. The political and military situation RESEMBLES Vietnam, its not IDENTICAL to it. The similarities that are there are also very disturbing too.

Even militarily it really doesn't sound like vietnam. The Insurgency is starting to go down. There money is beginning to dry up. They are getting squeezed from all sides and now we have iraqis turning these people in. Why? Because they know that they are hampering the rebuilding effort.

Depends on the info we look at.

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/US_War_Dead_111403.htm

Sounds like we are actually ahead of Vietnam in deaths by the same time frame.

Misleading actually!

If you really study vietnam, most major combat operations didn't start till 1964. When Vietnam really got going, we were losing far more people than what we are losing now.