Hagel: “The Longer We Stay, The More Problems We Are Going To Haveâ€
Hagel: “The Longer We Stay, The More Problems We Are Going To Haveâ€
This morning on ABC’s This Week, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) explains the problems with Bush’s policies in Iraq:
Stay the course is not a policy. Part of the problem that we have as Henry Kissinger pointed out here in the last few days in an op-ed in The Washington Post is we have no measurement for progress, for success.
And so I think by any standard when you analyze two and a half years in Iraq where we have put in over a third of a trillion dollars, where we have lost over 1,900
Americans, over 14,000 wounded. Electricity production down, oil production down.
Any measurement, any standard you apply to this, we’re not winning.
Hagel also explains why we need a fundamental shift in our policy:
The reason that I don’t think more troops is the answer now is 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.
The longer we stay, the more problems we’re going to have, the more occupying force dynamics flow into this, the more influence of the outside people, as well as the inside people are going to hurt this country.
Looks like the wheels are coming off.
UPDATE: Crooks and Liars has the video.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Nice feeling to see a Republican Senator talk SENSE. Excellent work Hagel. Hat Tip.
August 21st, 2005 at 10:51 amwell duh.
August 21st, 2005 at 11:02 amMemo from K. Rove:
August 21st, 2005 at 11:19 amChuck, you’re off script and it ain’t helping “The Cause” You must stay on script. Repeat after me 100 times: “Freedom is on the March” “Freedom is on the March” “Freedom is on the March” “Freedom is on the March” “Freedom is on the March” “Freedom is on the March”
“Stay the course.” “We’re making progress.” “Stay the course.” “We’re making progress.” “Stay the course.” “We’re making progress.”
August 21st, 2005 at 11:28 am[...] Think Progress quotes Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) on President Munchausen’s Excellent Adventure: Stay the course is not a policy. Part of the problem that we have as Henry Kissinger pointed out here in the last few days in an op-ed in The Washington Post is we have no measurement for progress, for success. [...]
August 21st, 2005 at 11:29 amOh, baloney, Karl. Freedom ain’t “on the march”…it’s “on the run” and headed for daylight.
If you REALLY want to help me, round up the rest of those Pentagon coup-plotters and get the goddamn “nuke Charleston” plan back on track. I’m dancin’ as fast as I can out here. You need to make being a Republican look attractive again, pronto!
– Chuckie
August 21st, 2005 at 11:30 amWell, of course, there is no policy, no plan, as Hagel states. He is running for president, so he is looking out for numero uno. When Democrats say this, they are labeled obstructionists and defeatists, even unpatriotic.
August 21st, 2005 at 11:39 amIt’s unrealistic to demand Dems. submit a “plan” when those in power have none, but operate on slogans and talking point mantras.
By the way – where is the 9 billion dollars that have been lost in Iraq? As the costs of the war escalate this $$ becomes less important, but it does exemplify the total ineptitude and incompetence of the admin.
Sen. Chuck “DieBold Voting Machines” Hagel is correct.
August 21st, 2005 at 11:42 amThey do have a way of measuring progress and success in Iraq. Every new 200 billion dollar spending bill is called ‘progress’ and when that money gets funneled to Halliburton thru Brown & Root that is called a ’success’. ‘Staying the course’ is their policy because they dont want to leave. Stay being the operative word there.
August 21st, 2005 at 11:51 amLooks like the wheels are coming off.
but George probably likes the sparks that come off when you’re running on your rims.
Like World’s Greatest Police Chase Videos #4 on Spike.
August 21st, 2005 at 11:54 amI’m curious about the view of bloggers here regarding Hilary Clinton’s and Biden’s recent call for more troops in Iraq.
Alexander Coburn asks an interesting question of the Democrats regarding Cindy Sheehan’s vigil outside Bush ranch -
“would the MoveOn operation take the slightest interest in any vigils outside HRC’s offices, or those of any other prominent Democrat? Of course not.”
Where do thinkprogress bloggers stand regarding the growing debate between the Sheehan camp “pull out now” vs the Hilary/Biden camp “more troops”
August 21st, 2005 at 11:59 amyeah, Hagel is able to speak out like this because of all the help with the Diebold company.the Bush smear maching gives him some leeway for that help.
August 21st, 2005 at 12:01 pmIts good to see Hagel talking sense with an empirical (not Imperial) view. Now he should contact Conyers and get the impeachment ball rolling. Enough is enough already.
August 21st, 2005 at 12:04 pmcmw,
Both CLinton and Biden are out of touch with their base and if the polls are any indication, out of touch with the majority of the American people as well.
End the Iraq War now!
Bring the troops home!
Impeach Bush!
August 21st, 2005 at 12:07 pm#11,
Last I checked BushCo was in power, not Hillary or Biden. Dems/Libs have to ponder ALL options at this point in order to figure out how to fix BushCo’s mess. Go figure.
August 21st, 2005 at 12:10 pmDartanyon
August 21st, 2005 at 12:12 pmI am on the same page as you. But I am curious what the general views of a blog like thinkprogress is. Where do people here stand regarding this issue. The issue needs to be brought out and discussed I think.
If for no other reason than many of us would like to have someone to vote for in the next election, and I won’t vote for Hilary or Biden – nor any “more troops” or “stay the course” candidate whether they be Republican or Democrat
More US troops or more UN troops?
Whether we keep banging her or we use the withdrawal method, the seed of chaos has already been sown. We need new leadership with new ideas upon either more or less troops. The military’s already planning towards 2009, and when that deadline approaches, how many more years? What about those supposed permanent military bases being built? What a mess!
Where’s Wesley Clark?
August 21st, 2005 at 12:32 pm#16 CMW, I don’t pretend to know the answer to the Iraq quagmire; I expect our leaders to know more than I. I admire Biden – he always presents a logical case to me. I admire Clinton, but she is still a bit enigmatic to me. Having said all that — If an election were held today, with Iraq as it is, I don’t think I would vote for either of them because of their position that seems more like the Republican approach than one that reflects my own thoughts. I think I would prefer Feingold to them because he does more closely reflect my own views. I am not sure that a swift pull-out is correct, but I know that “staying the course” is not correct. Feingold seems thoughtful and and I would cast my lot with him. If Biden or Clinton were to be the eventual nominee, they had better do something to satisfy the growing number of Dems who believe as I.
August 21st, 2005 at 12:43 pmHere’s one proposal for an Iraq exit strategy:
“What Is to Be Done: A 10-Point Plan for Iraq.”
August 21st, 2005 at 12:44 pmHagel’s posing, same as Biden poses. Anyone whose politics are to the left of Attila the Hun can look reasonable and rational compared to Attila the Hun. This chump voted for this debacle, let’s see him field that question. Or perhaps he should talk about fraud and voting machines, since he is highly qualified there too: http://interactive.zogby.com/fuse/messageview.cfm?catid=22&threadid=3357
August 21st, 2005 at 1:13 pmThe “withdraw now” vs “more troops” will be the issue that divides the Democratic party in the next election, in my humble opinion.
Alexander Coburn makes an interesting point in his article Can Cindy Sheehan End the War? http://www.counterpunch.org/
“One of the greatest achievements of the antiwar movement in Viertnam era was to make it untenable for a Democrat, LBJ, to run again for the presidency, or for Hubert Humphrey to run and win on a prowar platform. ”
I personally think the Democrats need to pull themselves up short here and get off the fence, or the Republicans will win again due to a failure by the Dems to make the hard, real choices – I think it’s very clear to most that Iraq is a debacle that never should have occurred, and that the only sane, honorable thing to do is to acknowledge it and get out, and let the IRaqis sort it out, – and never do this again.
August 21st, 2005 at 1:25 pmI’m curious about the view of bloggers here regarding Hilary Clinton’s and Biden’s recent call for more troops in Iraq.
They are Republicans. Always have been. It’s called stealth technology. The use it on hot air balloons now, too. Remember, You’d have loved Bill if he had an R instead of a D.
“would the MoveOn operation take the slightest interest in any vigils outside HRC’s offices, or those of any other prominent Democrat? Of course not.â€
Put an R after her name. See what happens.
Where do thinkprogress bloggers stand regarding the growing debate between the Sheehan camp “pull out now†vs the Hilary/Biden camp “more troopsâ€
Troll.
August 21st, 2005 at 1:35 pm#16 CMW, I don’t pretend to know the answer to the Iraq quagmire; I expect our leaders to know more than I
That’s your first mistake. It causes all the others.
August 21st, 2005 at 1:39 pmcmw,
Not all of us agree with all of the Democrats. You see, we have a lot of Dems right now that play ball on the Republican’s courts. We need to run those assholes out of office along with the right wing whack jobs. They have been tainted by the NeoCons.
August 21st, 2005 at 1:39 pm“One of the greatest achievements of the antiwar movement in Viertnam era was to make it untenable for a Democrat, LBJ, to run again for the presidency, or for Hubert Humphrey to run and win on a prowar platform. â€
There is no “anti-war movement”. There is an “anti-illegal war movement” that is against all illegal wars predicated on lies and paranoia.
August 21st, 2005 at 1:42 pmHagel = RINO
August 21st, 2005 at 1:43 pmWe don’t have a post war plan for Iraq, because the Bush administrations plan was/is to stay there and occupy. Condi has already said that the war on terror “could last decades.†Iraq is to be our base of operations in the war on terror. That is the problem we are facing. These guys got us there under the assumtion they they will keep winning elections and keep our children (yes, 18 year olds are children, go talk to one) going to illegal wars.
They have no exit plan. Why do you need an exit plan, if you don’t plan on leaving.
August 21st, 2005 at 1:45 pmChuck is getting an earful from his constituents back there in Nebraska land. Enough is enough.
There were four more American soldiers killed yesterday. Seems to me it isn’t going so good since the mission was accomplished. Of course, if it’s ok for Americans to die in Iraq, then it’s going good. I beg to differ.
August 21st, 2005 at 1:47 pm#19, Jon
I just went to your link to read the 10 point plan –
I stopped at 1. OFfer an honest assessment and at the statement
“Despite the valiant efforts of an undermanned American military, the United States appears unable to head off civil war among Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis.”
I think there needs to be a step prior to 1, where we acknowledge that the idea that you can invade a country and NOT provoke civil war is an absurdity or the height of hubris, or something even darker. You can only invade and prevent civil war if you do as Hitler did – you have the support of a collaborative government and majority population, you kill anyone and everyone who resists, and you invoke utter stark terror.
I think the underlying assumption in the mainstream is that Bush really wanted to invade and then get out. If so, why didn’t he do it. Why did we stay far beyond “Mission Accomplished” celebration.
And that leads to the answer – He didn’t and doesn’t want to get out, regardless of civil war and needless deaths. THe goal is darker – something other than what we’ve been told. The answer lies somewhere in oil, in hegemony, in Saudi Arabia, in Zionism, in the fact that we are closing military bases in the US, and building several large ones in Iraq, in war for profit.
THe question is – where are the Dems on this. Does Hilary know what the hell she’s talking about when she says more troops. Does Biden? OR are they just more LBJs. Have they learnd nothing from history? I think they have learned nothing and are doomed to repeat it.
August 21st, 2005 at 1:47 pmI think any Dem that supports the war will not gain re-election. At least not from me. It puts them into the same category as Bush. In fact she is. The Clintons are part of the Carlyle Group just like the Bushes.
And I know the other side of the argument. “We need more troops to finish the job right.” I don’t care, we shouldn’t have been there in the first place. Bring my fellow Americans back home.
People say that Iraq will burst into a civil war. Guess what, they are having a civil war right now. Read the heaadlines.
August 21st, 2005 at 2:05 pmTHe question is – where are the Dems on this.
The question is… why are you even asking this question? Are you a troll? Or do you honestly believe the media has a liberal bias and Democrats and Republicans are bitter rivals with vast policy differences and agendas? Let me put it another way. Are you a troll? Or is it still possible, after all this country has been through since 2000, for any person (other than right wing nutbars) to be as naive as you appear?
August 21st, 2005 at 2:32 pmI will not vote for anyone who does not, within the next month, state publicly that he/she wants to bring the troops home very soon. I think that Feingold’s Dec. 2006 (with wiggle room) is too long. We don’t have the troops to get through another 16 months. Our Reserves and National Guard are doing a great job but are way overused. Many towns have lost a lot of police and firefighters to call-ups. We have very few first responders left here to handle any domestic catastrophe. Recruiting is down and some troops are on their THIRD rotation into Iraq. So, I want someone to call for a phased withdrawal to start in December, 2005 (whether the election happens or not), with all troops to be out by the end of June, 2006. NO permanent bases (or whatever they are calling them this week). I haven’t heard anyone say this yet, have you?
August 21st, 2005 at 2:42 pmLooks like the wheels are coming off.
There never were any wheels on the post-war Iraq plan. Not even training wheels. The wheels are coming off the right wing extremist faction of the one party system, the GOP and this maladministration.
NO permanent bases (or whatever they are calling them this week). I haven’t heard anyone say this yet, have you?
That would make Halliburton very angry.
August 21st, 2005 at 2:50 pmI second WilliamR. They Iraq are doing what they want to do now. They are not doing what the US wants them to do. They have stated (from all sides) that they want us out of their country, so let’s left the Iraqi people what they want.
That is another way for them to know they need to get there shit together. Tell them “We are leaving and will be fully gone by June 2006″ If they don’t have their shit together by then, oh well.
See, that is the other half of the problem here. The Iraqis are spending way to much time on whether Islam should be “the” main source for law or “a” main source for law. They are also arguing over who gets the oil rights. The Oil should be Iraqs (as a whole) and Islam should be “a” main source for their law.
They have the same problems there as we have here. We can’t solve our own problems, so how are we gonna solve theirs?
August 21st, 2005 at 2:50 pmFlying Pig Alert! High Alert! Warning! Terrorist Threat Imminent!
This comment just posted on Freep! It has yet to be scrubbed or the poster banned!
To: Capitalism2003
The current so called Compassionate Conservative republican sitting in the White House is a far cry from what Reagan, George Sr. and Richard Nixon were for their party. He is both inept and a follower being driven by the NEOCON warlords he mistakenly appointed. Little by little real conservative republicans are realizing they were duped by this man. These are the drops you are seeing in the polls.
Pat Buchanan was the first to see what GWB is really all about and what he would be doing to our country if elected. God help us, he was even re-elected.
10 posted on 08/21/2005 10:54:31 AM PDT by richwolo
What ever happened to CONSERVATISM?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1467744/posts
August 21st, 2005 at 3:01 pmJames Freeman Clark once said,”A politican thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation.”
Nebraska should be pround: Sen. Chuck Hagel is a true statesman.
August 21st, 2005 at 3:32 pmDoesn’t everyone know Hagel owns one of the voting machine companies? He stole NE.
August 21st, 2005 at 3:38 pmYeah, he owns ESS I think. That’s an issue, but his breaking with the party line is the point. The GOP is disintegrating. Keep hammering. Use a jackhammer, wrecking ball, explosives, (figuratively speaking, of course). Even though Frank Rich has called us the insurgency at home, in a good way. I’m a proud American insurgent. So are some of the folks at Freep. Pig are flying.
The current so called Compassionate Conservative republican sitting in the White House is a far
cry from what Reagan, George Sr. and Richard Nixon were for their party. He is both inept and a follower being driven by the NEOCON warlords he mistakenly appointed. Little by little real conservative republicans are realizing they were duped by this man. These are the drops you are seeing in the polls.
Pat Buchanan was the first to see what GWB is really all about and what he would be doing to our country if elected. God help us, he was even re-elected.
August 21st, 2005 at 3:44 pmI believe they are one-by-one stepping up against the war to save their own butt.
August 21st, 2005 at 3:54 pmSoon as they get the ‘06 re-election, its politics as usual.
Think back over the years, the lies etc…….
It’s awfully quiet here today. Are they not back from church?
:::::Crickets chirping::::
August 21st, 2005 at 4:31 pmProbably,…..Thats a ‘Whole ‘nother story’ LOL…
August 21st, 2005 at 4:35 pmThe US cannot afford to give up control of Middle East oil reserves. Well, i guess we could invade Venezuela and then reduce some of the troop numbers in Iraq, but that won’t go over well until the price of oil is well over $4/ gallon. It all really comes down to securing the flow of oil from Asia, the Middle East, and Africa(Sudan?) while shoring up our relations with South America(Ecuador sent troops into its Amazon basin to restart the flow of oil in the pipeline to the Pacific). China needs more oil and will need more oil than the US needs very soon. Who are we as a nation to compete economically w/ China for it? It is vastly easier to expand our military presence in the MIddle East and West/Central Asia than protect Taiwan and Japan from the oil exploration of the China Seas by China. China almost bought Unocal for a reason. They will not resist further opportunities to purchase and control reserves throughout the world. India has the economic, but not military resources to also compete for access. Thus our presence in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf, and dare i say too soon Iran.
The real question is how many US citizens are going to give up their wasteful fossil fuel use in order to make it more realistic to reduce the need for using military action to preserve a lifestyle????
August 21st, 2005 at 4:37 pmMaybe they actually paid attention in church this time?
August 21st, 2005 at 4:38 pmStop depending on fossil fuels and we don’t need to defend it in other countries. In the meantime, start making and promoting vehicles that are more fuel efficient. But I digress…
August 21st, 2005 at 4:42 pmAnne Outhouse,
August 21st, 2005 at 5:02 pmYou’re right #23, that expecting our leaders to be knowledgeable about what we have elected them to do may be somewhat naive, but what is our alternative?
You’re also right to differentiate between anti-war and anti-illegal war, but again, who will carry the message?
Get off it, Spyder! You moonbat! It’s about terrism and Democracy! Oil has nothing to do with it! Don’t you listen to Dear Leader?
August 21st, 2005 at 5:03 pmA little future insight never hurts;
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/21/iraq/main789043.shtml
August 21st, 2005 at 5:32 pmcmw,
I want to support Hillary, but I have reservations about her. Prior to the Iraq invasion, I worte her and pleaded that she not give Bush authority to begin a war. She wrote back and essentially sounded like the biggest Hawk on the planet. I was horrified.
Then, there’s the matter of gay marriage. As a gay man in a long term relationship (13 years) I would like to marry and have all the rights the straight majority take for granted. If Hillary pulls a John “Bush-lite” Kerry and says she’s against gay marriage but for separate, but equal, AKA, civil unions, then she can eat shit and die because I won’t vote for her.
August 21st, 2005 at 5:34 pmThe Bush administration and its amen corner in the conservative blogosphere claim that liberals have no plan of their own for Iraq.
Wrong.
“What Is to Be Done: A 10-Point Plan for Iraq.”
August 21st, 2005 at 7:19 pmA letter-to-the-editor I sent today to the Los Angeles Times:
“Within the past week the Times has published two guest editorials which smear Cindy Sheehan. The dishonesty of such propaganda is that it attacks a messenger, rather than the message, which is an unsuccessful, unpopular war begun under false pretenses. Cindy Sheehan is but one mother of a soldier slain in Iraq, joined in Crawford by many others such as Lynn Bradach, Michelle DeFord, Sue Niederer, Deann Farnan, and Nadia McCaffrey. Is the Right planning to smear ALL of them?”
August 21st, 2005 at 7:21 pmTAC, you betcha, they will smear their own mothers if necessary to win their argument.
August 21st, 2005 at 7:59 pmThis is so typical of the Right-Wing-nuts, when they can’t defend their point, they try to kill the messenger. They do it over and over – they are so predictable. The public is finally catching on — a little late to say the least, but they’re catching on.
They are going down, but look for them to get even more vile and ugly before they hit bottom.
I don’t support any of them yet. Hillary is not my first choice, although anything is an improvement, even if it is just applying the brakes to this madness and rollerskating towards extremism. We must act like the conservatives now, standing athwart history screaming, “STOP!” There isn’t one Republican I would vote for. Period.
August 21st, 2005 at 8:24 pmMarie,
New candidates are already in the pipeline. Col. Paul Hackett from Ohio. He will be the Senator from their soon. Real war vets, from Iraq will be retuning and running, as Democrats, and winning. You will see. The GOP is dead.
August 21st, 2005 at 8:27 pmCindy Sheehan,
She would get elected if she ran.
August 21st, 2005 at 8:27 pmHere are your Dems.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/beltway-dems-regurgitate-_b_5990.html
August 21st, 2005 at 8:39 pmYou mean the prez hasn’t been telling the truth? Heck, we are still fighting the war on poverty and drugs…now you tell me we’re losing the war on terror? Seems it’s time to pull back and reorganize. . . perhaps only one war at a time?
August 21st, 2005 at 8:53 pmcmw, I think your question on the Dems is valid and your comments regarding true reasons for Iraq in post #29 a dead on. The Democrats that are calling for more troops (aspiring 08 candidates Biden and Clinton) are going to argue that we broke it and not staying to clean it up will result in a failed state al la Afghanistan that morphs into a terrorist breeding ground, Shia aligning with Iran, deepens the anti-American sentiment of less extreme Muslims, etc. However, since the entire debacle was a lie and every likely outcome points to disaster at this point anyway, we have got to get out NOW! The sooner the Dems realize this and do the right thing, the better their chances of mobilizing the percentage of Amercians that voted for Bush and now realize they were suckered.
As for Biden, I think the man is a total phony. He’s been moving the goalposts on his Iraq opinions for over a year now, and he’s been one of the more prominent Democrat enablers of the GOP crimes of the last 5 years (see MBNA and the bankruptcy bill for starters). As far as Hillary goes, I think her stance on the war is wrong and she’s obviously moving to the middle to try to capture chunks of Independent voters or newly minted anti-Bush R’s. I do however believe (and I’m sure that the wingnuts believe it too) that if she ever won the Presidency that her Democratic true colors would shine through in her policies. I fear that the rightwing smear machine would Swift Boat Hillary worse than any candidate has ever been muddied before…and as we all know, there is a very large % of voters out there that aren’t the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree and would rather give up NASCAR than vote for a female for President. It pains me to say this, but I don’t think she stands a chance. Just my opinion.
August 21st, 2005 at 9:48 pmI’m a loyal Democrat. I’m also a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I hope many of you will read this and heed my advice.
Setting a timeline to withdraw troops from Iraq is absolutely moronic. And a suggestion such as this could only come from those who never have worn the uniform. It also plays directly into the hands of those who wish to portray our party as “weak on defense.”
The best course of action for Democrats is to adopt the message which the mother of a fallen marine in Iraq recently said, “We feel you either have to fight this war right or get out,” Rosemary Palmer (mother of Lance Cpl. Edward Schroeder II).
Folks, we’re at war. Now is not the time for appeasement or talk of withdrawal. Now is the time for action. We still have Osama and his cronies on the loose. We still face the threat of terrorists attacks, just ask our friends in London. If you think things are going bad in Iraq, fine, say so. But don’t tell our troops to just put down there arms, come home and let Iraq fall into chaos. We need to fight right, or get out – not just get out. And when we do leave, we need to take the fight to our enemy, wherever they may be hiding.
Where are those in the Democratic Party who believe in the best traditions and standards set forth by Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy?
And for my friends in the Party who agree with Moveon.org and the ultra-left wing of our party, ask yourselves this: Do you honestly believe our party has a chance at reelection if we follow your advice?? Let me be very direct. John Kerry lost the presidential election because of you. Take out Hollywood, Whoop Goldberg and Michael Moore, and we may have won the election.
If we continue to drift left we will be out of power for generations. We’re at war. It’s time to stand up, man a post, and fight. As this past election showed us, Americans would rather we “wrong and strong” than “weak and right.” Why not offer a solution which is “strong and right?”
August 21st, 2005 at 10:07 pmCactus Jack,
With all due respect, fighting a war based on lies is a fool’s errand. It took 58,000 deaths in Vietnam to realize that it was wrongheaded and we needed to get the fvck out. The Iraq invasion had nothing to do with terrorism and to say so is ignorant. The people you mention, on the far left are exactly right to stand against this President and this war. I think Afghanistan was the right thing to do, I think pursuing true threats to our safety and security are obviously the right thing to do, Iraq didn’t meet that requirement. Stop lying to yourself and try to support the troops by standing up and fighting for the truth. This is a time to stand up and speak truth to power before we lose one more American soldier. Nothing pisses me off more than being told that dissent and anti-war opinions embolden our enemy. Bullshit! Invading a country based on manufactured intelligence and lies and killing thousands of innocent civilians emboldens the enemy.
August 21st, 2005 at 10:22 pmJay,
I anticipated this type of response. You’re argument ignores the reality of the situation. What’s done is done. We’re at war. We must face this. Let’s walk this out for a minute and discuss. First, you are absolutely correct when you explain that this war was based on false information. I agree with you on this point. In fact, you may be surprised to learn that many of us who were in Iraq were very skeptical about the purpose and mission as defined by our Commander in Chief. But we had a duty to follow orders and we did so. For those who never served this may be hard to understand. Hillary Clinton actually spoke the most truth to power in 2004 when she was asked by Tim Russert about “knowing all that we know now could we have gone to war?” HRC explained that not only would we have not gone to war, it would not even have come up for a vote in Congress. And for our friends across the isle who still believe that we would have gone to war, knowing what we know now, they are living in another world. But, as we found during the presidential campaign, this ignores the larger problem of what we do now.
Of course we would not have gone to war. Of course it was the wrong the decision. Of course it’s not connected to 9/11, al Qaeda, Osama or anything else. GWB sent me and my friends into war without enough armor and bullets and with no plan for post-war Iraq. BUT, this is all history. The question, Jay, is what do we do now?
Again, let’s walk this out. I recall vividly a conversation I had with a Kuwaiti shop owner about 3 months after the invasion. He begged me, “please don’t cut and run, because if you do, we will be the ones to pay for this.” This conversation has been burned into my memory. Here’s the problem with simply pulling the troops out immediately: It will further destabilize the region, Iraq will fall into civil war and the world will be worse off for it.
Let’s also try and calm down the rhetoric. I’m not against you. I’m not calling you “anti-war” or unsupportive of the troops. I’m sure you support all of us in uniform and I’m glad to hear you supported what we did, and quite frankly, did not complete in Afghanistan. I’m not saying that if you are against the war in Iraq you are against the troops. You are entitled to your opinion.
Let’s break this down into 2 problems. First, the military problem, and, second, the political problem. From a military perspective, we are not doing what needs to be done to accomplish the mission (I define mission as creating a stable enough environment for a self-governing Iraq). To do this, we should follow the Powell doctrine of warfare. Overwhelm the enemy. We should dedicate enough resources (troops and equipment) to stand up the Iraqi army. We should also, as John Kerry argued, reach out the world community and get other troops in Iraq to accomplish this goal. Now, if the President is unwilling or unable to do this, than I agree with you, we should get out. But to simply say “get out” is the wrong message. As Rosemary Palmer said, “Fight it right our get out.” I like this message much better, and our troops will relate to what is being said.
Now let’s also look at the political angle to this problem. Since Vietnam, our beloved party has been portrayed by right-wing nuts as “weak, indecisive and anti-war.” This is a farce, but unfortunately, many Americans and most of the troops believe this. Just look at last year’s polling data. JK lost because more Americans believed GWB would keep them safe than would JK. Obviously, they were wrong. Mine the data even further. Approximately 80% of military officers claim to be Republicans, while more than 55% of enlisted troops claim to be Republican. This is a direct result of the right’s effective propaganda strategy against our party. My point is this: During a time of war, we need to communicate a message that is both strong and smart. “Fight the war right or get out.” Also, “it’s not just enough to be strong; we need to be smart as well.”
Jay, I bet you and I agree on a lot more than you might think. War is a horrible thing. I abhor the thought of putting any Americans, or anyone for that matter, at risk. War should always be the last resort. I believe we have a President who sought war as the first resort. Look at what it has done to us! I lost friends in Iraq, Jay. This is very personal for me. I promised my brothers who died in the deserts of Iraq that it would not be in vain. I’m fighting for them now.
My last point is this. The war on terror will not be fought or won in months or even years. I believe we’re in a war for the hearts and minds for upcoming generations. As JK said during the campaign, we must use all the tools of our arsenal, not just military power. But we must not appear weak. We Democrats have a proud military heritage. Let’s stand up for it! We support our troops. We support fighting the war on terror, and we agree that it’s not just enough to be strong; we must be smart as well. Challenge the President to “fight it right or get out.” If we take this to the American people, I assure they will embrace it, and so will the troops.
Appreciate your passion on the subject. As I said, you and I probably agree on more than we disagree. Thanks for being a Democrat. Let’s fight this one together.
August 21st, 2005 at 11:34 pmI’m a loyal Democrat. I’m also a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I hope many of you will read this and heed my advice.
No offense, Cactus Jack, you may well be what you claim. Then again, you may just be saying that. This is the internet after all. You might be a woman. I haven’t read your post and I probably won’t. There are many liberal hawks in the Democratic party. Your first line of argument makes your credibility somewhat suspect in my estimation.
Setting a timeline to withdraw troops from Iraq is absolutely moronic. And a suggestion such as this could only come from those who never have worn the uniform. It also plays directly into the hands of those who wish to portray our party as “weak on defense.â€
Many who wear the uniform disagree with you. What was your rank?
August 22nd, 2005 at 12:01 amThe war on terror will not be fought or won in months or even years. I believe we’re in a war for the hearts and minds for upcoming generations.
I’m sorry, I couldn’t help but glance at some of this. Even if you are what you claim, you are just misguided. This reeks of recycled Viet Nam era BS and propaganda. Your entire post reeks of propaganda and appeals to emotion. I’m going to hold my tongue rather than tell you what I glean from your post. We can agree to disagree, I suppose. I find it very suspicious and very encouraging.
August 22nd, 2005 at 12:10 amI define mission as creating a stable enough environment for a self-governing Iraq
This is not a military mission. Were you a Public Affairs officer?
August 22nd, 2005 at 12:15 am[...] The Poor Man Comments: Think Progress quotes Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) on President Munchausen’s Excellent Adventure: [...]
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:11 amIt is time for the Democratic party to unify on Iraq, and take a stand.
John Kerry and Joe Biden are two of my favorite guys in the DNC. Both of them are correct about needing more troops in Iraq. However there is a problem with that…IT WON’T HAPPEN.
The President is NOT going to up troop levels, and Americans wouldn’t except it anyways.
The President has messed this thing up so bad, that at this point if we don’t win in Iraq, we are going to have a terrorist base in Iraq that will make Afghanistan look like a picnic.
I served four years as a Force Recon Marine. I served in Kosovo and Sierra Leone. That is hardly the same thing as serving in Iraq or Afghanistan, but serving in ANY warzone is enough to learn a few things about combating insurgents (Especially in Sieera leone, where he guarded the embassy from rebel Militias).
The best plan I can see is what Biden has reccommended. namely sending Iraqi soldiers to places like Jordan and Egypt where they can be trained in relitive safety. It does no good to train Iraqi police and soldiers when they get blown up at the recruiting station.
Second, we need to do anything and everything we can to get other countries to help with troops.
Now, that may not be possible, but if we don’t at least try, we won’t know will we.
If none of those things are possible, then we need to figure out a way to get our soldiers home.
Four more years of US Soldiers dying in a pointless war is four years that Americans just won’t support. And what happens if a REAL crisis comes up in four years that we REALLY have to counter, we won;t have the ability to do it with 100,000 soldiers in Iraq (unless we reinstate the draft, which I don’t think is an option).
If Democrats want to take back this country, the Senate, House, and Prsidency…they are going to have to sit down and come up with an alternate strategy or a better one. We have a real chance here, let’s not blow it.
PS. The one think Democrates need to do this week, is counter what the President will say about Iraq being akin to Sept. 11th.
August 22nd, 2005 at 8:39 amIraq nor anyone in Iraq had anything to do with Sept 11th. In fact the two guys most responsible for that atrocity are still running around Afghanistan, thanks to George Bush not finishing the job there.
Iraq is the way it is now, cause Bush invaded the country without knowing how to do the mission…Democrates need to make sure America knows that Iraq is a problem Bush gave us, Sept. 11th is a problem Bin Laden gave us, two different things.
It is time for the Democratic party to unify on Iraq, and take a stand.
John Kerry and Joe Biden are two of my favorite guys in the DNC. Both of them are correct about needing more troops in Iraq. However there is a problem with that…IT WON’T HAPPEN.
The President is NOT going to up troop levels, and Americans wouldn’t except it anyways.
The President has messed this thing up so bad, that at this point if we don’t win in Iraq, we are going to have a terrorist base in Iraq that will make Afghanistan look like a picnic.
I served four years as a Force Recon Marine. I served in Kosovo and Sierra Leone. That is hardly the same thing as serving in Iraq or Afghanistan, but serving in ANY warzone is enough to learn a few things about combating insurgents (Especially in Sierra leone, where we guarded the embassy from rebel Militias).
The best plan I can see is what Biden has reccommended. namely sending Iraqi soldiers to places like Jordan and Egypt where they can be trained in relitive safety. It does no good to train Iraqi police and soldiers when they get blown up at the recruiting station.
Second, we need to do anything and everything we can to get other countries to help with troops.
Now, that may not be possible, but if we don’t at least try, we won’t know will we.
If none of those things are possible, then we need to figure out a way to get our soldiers home.
Four more years of US Soldiers dying in a pointless war is four years that Americans just won’t support. And what happens if a REAL crisis comes up in four years that we REALLY have to counter, we won;t have the ability to do it with 100,000 soldiers in Iraq (unless we reinstate the draft, which I don’t think is an option).
If Democrats want to take back this country, the Senate, House, and Prsidency…they are going to have to sit down and come up with an alternate strategy or a better one. We have a real chance here, let’s not blow it.
PS. The one think Democrates need to do this week, is counter what the President will say about Iraq being akin to Sept. 11th.
August 22nd, 2005 at 8:40 amIraq nor anyone in Iraq had anything to do with Sept 11th. In fact the two guys most responsible for that atrocity are still running around Afghanistan, thanks to George Bush not finishing the job there.
Iraq is the way it is now, cause Bush invaded the country without knowing how to do the mission…Democrates need to make sure America knows that Iraq is a problem Bush gave us, Sept. 11th is a problem Bin Laden gave us, two different things.
It may come down to the classic “lesser of two evils.” Vote for Jebby or vote for Hillary. Then, it’s a no brainer.
August 22nd, 2005 at 9:32 amDifficult as it may be, I think it is time for ALL Democrats to unite (yes, unite!) and admit that those who voted for the war were MISLED – put the blame on Bushie, who gave years-old intel to the committees, as well as false info to the entire congress and the world. Admit it was wrong, apologize for being gullible, vow never to fall for anything like that again, and then declare that a Democratic congress elected in 2006, will get the troops out, and begin to repair the damage done to our name in the world. A little humility goes a long way.
August 22nd, 2005 at 10:00 amAnyone see “Dead Wrong†last night?
Cactus Jack,
First off thanks for the response and you are correct, as I re-read my last post, I need to tone down the overblown rhetoric, I am passionate about this issue and to be frank I’m angry about where we stand as a nation under our current “leadership”. We do, in fact, need to figure out how we move forward and I’m not sure that either political party has enough courage or integrity to admit their mistakes and implement viable solutions. I am not a Democrat but a registered Independent and have always voted accordingly, but I wouldn’t vote GOP if my life depended on it (and it might) at this point.
Your rational argument about “fighting right or getting out” has merit but more for the latter half than the former.
Let’s move past the argument that the decision to invade Iraq may be the most reprehensible decision an American President has ever made and imagine for a moment that Bush is removed from power tomorrow. What next. Your support for the “Powell Doctrine of overwhelming the enemy” is a recipe for disaster in my opinion. You know we weren’t justified in invading Iraq and in killing 10’s of thousands of innocent people and yet you support a strategy of continuing the cycle of violence? The Iraqi resistance is not comprised solely of “terrorists”, “Baathist remnants” and “radical elements”. These people are defending their land and their resources and their families just as you or I would if the U.S. were invaded and occupied. Our government is responsible for the deaths , the chaos, the downright imperialistic grab for a foothold in the region (building massive bases there and closing them here?) and your answer is to inflict more damage…..drop more bombs? That is an insane approach.
Why are we there? If you argue that we’re in Iraq for the same reasons that I believe (hegemony, natural resources, war-profiteering, PNAC) then our presence is WRONG and it cannot stand. Attempts to stay and quell the violence as Iraqi militia are trained and ready to fend for themsleves will be open-ended. The Iraqi people see those bases being built, they understand that we are controlling their resources and that foreign companies are rebuilding their nation in a more Western image and they resent it. Ultimately, they will fight us forever. A lose-lose propostion unless you’re an executive at KBR, Halliburton or Exxon/Mobil et. al
On the other hand, if you believe that we invaded Iraq to rid its oppressed people of a brutal dictator, to find and secure WMD, fight the terrorists “over there” and to bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people, I say you’re badly misguided….yet this is what we are told is the noble cause. Hussein is gone, there were no WMD, freedom and democracy brought to you at the point of a gun is neither free nor is it democratic and the current “terrorist” element in Babylon, while clearly created by our very presence, is the new reality in the Muslim world, and nothing can change that now.
An expedient withdrawal would prove that some of the Bush administration’s arguments for invading had some validity, but we both know that they didn’t. So we stay and thousands more die. Insanity.
People like you need to step up and oppose this nonsense instead of burying your head in the sand and pretending further occupation is going to make things better for either Iraqis or Americans in the long-term. It won’t. It needs to stop, now.
August 22nd, 2005 at 10:13 amCactus Jack
Your arrogance puts me off to reading your posts in their lengthy entirety.
I’ll make my point short and sweet. Voting for Hilary, Biden or Kerry, would be like voting for LBJ in ‘64.
August 22nd, 2005 at 10:31 amLBJ intensified the war instead of withdrawing. He did what you are proposing. And it failed. You can’t fight and win against people who are fighting for THEIR land. You may call them insurgents, or freedom fighters. Regardless, they are fighting for THEIR land. We are invaders. It could never, and will never work. The only intelligent, honorable, rational thing to do is to get out now.
what does it matter if the democrats win if they are just going to be republican light? we need a true liberal in the white house.not Hilary, she used to have strong liberal values but has shown she would rather be president than be true to herself.
August 22nd, 2005 at 10:59 amHi everyone,
I saw “Dead Wrong” last night and was very impressed with the show. I am saddened to think about how we were all so misled about going to war. And what’s worse, no one is held accountable.
Here’s what makes me even sadder: Those of you in our party who choose to attack each other because you disagree. I have seen this before. During Vietnam. It was ugly then and is growing uglier by the day now.
We have a choice. We can choose to debate one another with respect or we can resort to name-calling. I think Blogs were created as places where people who disagree can have a civil debate, and not resort to name calling or questioning someone else’s motives. I do not think we should be in Iraq and I think we were misled and I want our troops home now. But I respect those who disagree with me. And if someone has a different point of view it should be expressed and debated.
August 22nd, 2005 at 12:49 pmMartha,
You might find it hard to believe but this thread is one of the least attack-filled, vitriolic debates I’ve seen in some time. Where is the uncivilized namecalling in this thread?
August 22nd, 2005 at 1:01 pmHey Martha – grab a clue. this is the internet and a lively debate is welcome! if you can’t handle it, go somewhere else!
These so called “Iraq war veterans” who are posting on this blog are a total joke. If they are who they say they are I’m worried about our military. Their logic is the same propaganda crap used during Vietnam. Perhaps they should consider switching political party’s so they can support a president who believes in murder and lies. We’re better off without them.
August 22nd, 2005 at 1:01 pmIt is time for the Democratic party to unify on Iraq, and take a stand.
John Kerry and Joe Biden are two of my favorite guys in the DNC
Huh?
August 22nd, 2005 at 1:13 pmAnti-Illegal War is much better than Anti-War but the real term is Anti-Illegal Invasion and Colonial Rule. The only way to get out is to involve the United Nations and other International Tribunals but that is probably impossible because this admin. has no interest in nor ability to practice Diplomacy – this is the horrifying truth.
August 22nd, 2005 at 1:38 pmSo true azulie, so true. Their credo is “to the victor goes the spoils” and they refuse to play nice with the other kids in the global schoolyard. Hey, Putin and Chirac and Schroeder warned us before BushCo plunged headfirst into the abyss that is Iraq……I wonder what they’re thinking now?
August 22nd, 2005 at 1:52 pmI hate to think about all the lives wasted on a lie (WMD). However it seems to me more lives will be spent on this lie if something in’t done to get us out of this mess. Every time I hear about another person whose life is lost in Iraq my skin crawls. To think that this country has done such a crime is inexcusable. We should never have gone there.We should have “stayed the course” in Afganistan. The real other criminal (Bin Laden) is still out there wreaking havoc. The only thing that we have gained from our misguided Iraq adventure is more people who want to do us harm. I don’t think that history will be very kind to George Bush for what he has done to this country financially, spiritually and to our reputation.
August 22nd, 2005 at 10:17 pmIs it time yet for Party Chairman Howard Dean to start cranking up his campaign for President in 2008?
August 22nd, 2005 at 11:03 pm[...] So… which hate-America-first, lefty, lunatic-fringe wacko gave this devastating critique of the war in Iraq? Um… Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, who received two Purple Hearts and other military honors for his service in Vietnam, and who sits on both the Foreign Relations Committee and the Select Committee on Intelligence. He continues: “We should start figuring out how we get out of there … I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur.” [...]
August 23rd, 2005 at 2:19 amThere is plenty passionate thought of what to do about Iraq posted above. If the Democrats were to win the next election what would they do? By the time the elections roll around the war in Iraq will be escalating. The debt for the war in terms of life and monies spend will also be up there- there will be talk about how we are going to pay back the debt, and the price of gas at the pump will be closer to $4 dollars a gallon. Interest rates will be creeping up busting the so called real estate bubble. The babyboomers will be retiring, medical costs will keep soaring, and still no handle on the immigration problem. the Rapture vs the Jihadist will be in full play. Wow! are the Democrats sure they want to take this on yet again? I say let this country really get what has happened, let the Republican wear the full mantle of what they have sowed, and let them stay in office! – let the right win let the rapture begin.. then and only then will this country and this world get it- then perhaps there will be change that will last for centuries… i say true people of Democracy save your breathe and your money stand aside and let the shit really hit the fan. There is tremedous power in not doing but standing firm, not judging, but praying that all this too shall pass. Dinasaurs-Republicans tarpits- oilwells we are all compassionate being.
August 23rd, 2005 at 6:40 amfin, you might get a kick out of this article from Molly Ivins a while back:
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=18028
August 23rd, 2005 at 9:09 amJay thanks for the link. article in Salon “Rich liberals, fed up with losing, are spending big bucks to create think tanks and training programs. Their goal isn’t just to beat Bush, but to remake the American political landscape.
August 23rd, 2005 at 4:05 pmBy Michael Scherer They can start now by taking out full page ads in all the major papers in this country and show the PHOTO’s of the death and destruction that is taking place in Iraq everyday. On a DAILY basis.. no words just pictures- i am sure many papers will refuse to print the photo’s- then they should start their own paper and call it “US PHOTO TODAY.” the photo’s of the young six year old girl, and the one of the bomber whose body parts lay akimbo found in SALON today are sure to get the attention of those that back this admin. – that would be just a start.. but if they are serious about changing the political landscape then there needs to be compassion and love somehow in their agenda the politics of LOVE and Compassion.. this rules out fear.. no need for standing armies.. HA! Miracles do happen we have the capacity to consciously change our world now. Yet as one of my teachers said to me “The world is like the tail of a pig, you try to straighten it out and it curls right back up again” hows about genetics? Or you could opt for another world outthere, funny how we limit ourselves to only this existence. Oh yes i can see it and feel it so it must be real.
It IS nice to hear Hagel talk sense, but we have to ask why? Answer: his own political ends. If he were truely interested in making a difference, he’d use his clout to gather like-minded senators and reps or persuade unlike-minded politicos to present a coherent plan that can be acted on NOW. Then we will know what his true motives are. Action is louder than words.
September 15th, 2005 at 2:17 pm