Hagel disputes McCain’s claim we can ‘win’ in Iraq: ‘Then we’ll be there forever.’
Filed Under: Iraq
By on Mar 28th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Hagel disputes McCain’s claim we can ‘win’ in Iraq: ‘Then we’ll be there forever.’
In an interview with CNN, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) took issue with John McCain’s frequent declarations that we must “win” in Iraq. “This isn’t a win or lose,” Hagel said, adding:
We shouldn’t frame this up as a win-or-lose because, when we do that – and this is where I have a major disagreement with McCain, then on that basis we’ll be there forever.
Watch a video compilation of McCain and Hagel’s remarks:
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
91 Responses to “Hagel disputes McCain’s claim we can ‘win’ in Iraq: ‘Then we’ll be there forever.’”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register
RSSLogin
View Most Popular
Visit Our Affiliated Site
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Beck
Big Oil
Bolton
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Dobbs
Drudge
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Feith
Fox News
GI Bill
Global Warming
Gore
Guantanamo
Hagee
Health Care
Immigration
Impeachment
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
McCain
McClellan
Media
Military
O'Hanlon
O'Reilly
Obama
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Terrorism
Torture
Veterans
Wiretapping
Women's Rights
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
Hey Chuck …quit the Repugs already!!
March 28th, 2008 at 1:57 pmGotta Wonder what Hagel is fishing for this all of this
March 28th, 2008 at 1:59 pmThey can have Lieberman. We’ll take Hagel…. and a diplomat to be named later.
March 28th, 2008 at 1:59 pmCome to think of it, why isn’t Hagel called a maverick?
March 28th, 2008 at 2:00 pmTo be there forever is what McCain wants…..
March 28th, 2008 at 2:01 pmphred42 Says:
March 28th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Gotta Wonder what Hagel is fishing for this all of this
Secretary of Defense under President Obama.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:01 pmNot forever, just till the oil runs out.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:03 pmGiven that a vote for Clinton = a vote for McCain and a vote against downticket Dems as well, she should drop out sooner than later.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:04 pmNevar Says:
March 28th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
“To be there forever is what McCain wants…..”
So that we can have perpetual war, ala 1984, and keep gathering powers for the State. Convenient.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:04 pmRUCerious Says:
March 28th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
“Not forever, just till the oil runs out.”
Amen.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:05 pmOT but the quote was too good.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:07 pmMaybe this is the start. Start of what? The start of politicians forgetting the party, and focusing on what is good for the nation. Please let this be the start.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:11 pmSo that we can have perpetual war, ala 1984, and keep gathering powers for the State. Convenient.
Add Karma Recommend (0) |
“Now c’mon Wall Street, don’t be slow,
let’s man this war a go-go,
There’s plenty good money to be made,
supplying the Army with the tools of the trade…”
From “The Fixin’ to Die Rag”
March 28th, 2008 at 2:11 pmCountry Joe McDonald and the Fish, circa 1969
just wait till shirllay bows out. obama is gonna have a field day with mcSENILE…
my god, this will be hands down the bltch slapping of a lifetime.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:11 pmthank god, someone with some credibility is out there debunking these friggin lies by mccain and his enablers.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:15 pmWow. A Republican I can almost respect.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:16 pmSouthern Man,
where is that defined? Where and when was war declared?
March 28th, 2008 at 2:18 pmSouthern Man Says:
March 28th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
This is a win or lose war. What don’t you understand about that? It’s very simple.
really? who wins? what do they win? who are the players? how come i was never taught this game as a kid? it sounds fun! no really.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:20 pmSouthern Man Says:
March 28th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
This is a win or lose war. What don’t you understand about that? It’s very simple.
Which is why the srongest military of the richest country in all human history is getting its ass kicked every day in Iraq. Very good, SM, you’re still an idiot.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:21 pmSouthern Man Says:
March 28th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
This is a win or lose war. What don’t you understand about that? It’s very simple.
If it’s so damn simple, explain what “winning” looks like.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:22 pmSouthern Idiot…
Please define “win.”
Against whom do we “win”? What do we “win”? Where? How? When?
Please define “lose.”
Otherwise, STFU.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:22 pm21 - want some lubricant with that?
March 28th, 2008 at 2:24 pmhttp://rasmussenreports.com/ public_content/ politics/ election_20082/ 2008_presidential_election/ daily_presidential_tracking_poll
rasmussen has always been a republican tool ,and is most often wrong, as it is now. Too bad for you and your cancer-ridden, lying thief of a corpse candidate.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:25 pmS&M how do we win an OCCUPATION?
March 28th, 2008 at 2:25 pmDo we nuke the whole country and let God or Allah sort them out?
Southern Man Says:
March 28th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
This is a win or lose war. What don’t you understand about that? It’s very simple.
No, it’s really not. It’s a lose-or-lose war. It’s not possible to “win” an occupation. Especially not an illegal one. We’ve already “lost” — over 4,100 soldiers, 1.2 million Iraqis, 4 trillion dollars, and most of our international friends. The only remaining question is whether we want to stop losing as soon as possible, or continue losing indefinitely.
What don’t you understand about that? It’s very simple.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:25 pmThe_Right_Stuff Says:
March 28th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Polls don’t vote. Nor do they debate. McCain flips more than the dolphins at Seaworld.
America is looking for true change and a 73yr old white republican male who has lived inside the beltway for the last 20+ yrs isn’t the answer.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:26 pmrasmussen? lol! dont they make those great noodles too? gotta have something going on in the “off” season.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:27 pmForget win - define “lose” Dixie.
Do you really think any band of 3rd world thugs can “take down” the USA???
Really?????
This “fight for our very existence” bullsh*t is the most utterly ridiculous propaganda nugget EVER.
You had been sounding almost sane there for a while, Dixie, but reapeating this kind of solipsistic drivel puts you right back in the idiot bucket.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:29 pmIT’S NOT EVEN A “WAR” FOR CHRIST’S SAKE!!!!!!
What does ANYONE not understand about that!!!!!
March 28th, 2008 at 2:31 pmSM-
March 28th, 2008 at 2:33 pmRead “Team of Rivals” to see how a real Republican and American deals with a wartime presidency…
Another hit and run republican apologist. Exley has a spine and will discuss. The others haven’t shown a spine or hair one between their legs and stood up to defend their viewpoint.
I’m glad to see Hagel has returned to be a fly in the ointment.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:34 pmSouthern Man Says:
March 28th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
This is a win or lose war. What don’t you understand about that? It’s very simple.
____________________________________________
In the first place, it’s not a war. It’s an occupation. If we are to speak in terms of “winning” an occupation — we’ve done it. We’re occupying Iraq. What you appear to define as “losing” is if we stop occupying Iraq. If this is the case, the only way we can hold onto our “win” is if we occupy Iraq forever. In which case, Hagel is correct.
Only, we really won’t be able to occupy Iraq forever, because eventually we will become bankrupt.
Now, if I’ve misinterpreted you and you have some other definitions of “winning” and “losing”, by all means — please elaborate.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:34 pmtombaker Says:
March 28th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Forget win - define “lose” Dixie.
Do you really think any band of 3rd world thugs can “take down” the USA???
Really?????
Well, a band of 3rd world thugs (aided by 1st world cash and arms) did manage to take down the USSR. And they did it by keeping them in a prolonged war in a country they illegally invaded.
So there is a teeny bit of precedent.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:36 pmIn the clip, Hagel says that the Iraqi people will decide which government to put in place and when. And that we can help them.
That’s not substantially different from the current U.S. policy.
I suggest that when McCain talks about winning, he is objecting to a premature withdrawl, that contradicts Hagel’s acknowledgement that ‘we can help them’ put their government in place.
I would hazard that we all want the same thing. We want to get out of Iraq, but we want to limit the amount of avoidable bloodshed in the vacuum we will create when we leave.
The debate, to me, seems to be: How ready are the Iraqi people to handle their secure and stable governence and how precipitous an exit do we make.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:37 pmWe lost this “war” before we invaded. Dumbya’s all about listening to his Commanders on the ground…as long as they say what he wants to hear.He was told Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11,didn’t care. He was told the info in the NIE was shaky at best,didn’t care. He was told he needed 400,000 troops to secure Iraq,didn’t care.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:40 pmNo chimpy has FUBARED everything since the beginning of this folly of his.
38 - would you care for a cigarette now? I mean since you’re indulging yourself and all…
March 28th, 2008 at 2:41 pmActual Iraqis say none of this will improve until we leave.
There is all manner of legitimate support we can provide, after our Army has left.
The sooner the better for all concerned, unless of course you’re a crooked defense contractor, in which case the anser is never, ever, ever.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:42 pmWar has never been declared. There is no war. There is the AUMF and the framing of this document and how it needs to be adjusted/ended should be the subject.
Southern man appears to avoid the larger, grayer issues in the world that don’t end with a happy ever after.
Calls those who won’t play his game children but won’t acknowledge the valid points many others have placed in front of him.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:43 pmSouthern Man:
How ya doing? Since you have never seen me make the claims of knowing what losing is, maybe you can tell me what winning and losing is. I get the sense that you are a little stuck on this and are looking to weasel out. That seems a lot like cutting and running from a reasonable question.
The_Right_Stuff Says:
March 28th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
So it sounds like we can get the hell out of there then. Correct?
March 28th, 2008 at 2:45 pmSouthern Man Says:
March 28th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Why should I have to explain what “WIN” means when you understand what “LOSE” means. Win is the opposite of lose!!! You throw around “we are losing this war” everyday. Children, if you understand what lose means, you understand what win means. We need to WIN this war! We need to WIN in Iraq.
Ohhhhhhh, thank you for the explanation. “Winning” is the opposite of “losing.” I get it.
So, in my definition, we “lost” when we invaded and occupied a country for no reason, created a power vacuum, imposed a neocon free-market kleptoparadise on Iraq, sold Iraq’s infrastructure and agricultural system to corporate interests, started a multi-front civil war, and wasted trillions of dollars on a catastrophic quagmire.
By your logic, “winning” means the opposite of all that — pulling our troops and contractors out of Iraq as soon as possible, repealing the Bremer-era “reforms” of Iraqi law, allowing Iraq’s government the right of self-determination and reconciliation, and getting back some of our money from corporate war profiteers.
Winning is starting to sound better and better, now that I think about it.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:46 pm35 - you really think the collapse of the Soviet Union was just Afghanistan, and not a thousand other things?
I see your point though - Thanks to 9/11-panic we’ve done more to damage ourselves than any terrorists could ever have hoped to, thanks to the complicity of hysterical and incoherent idiots and the people who use them as tools to maximize profits.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:46 pmThe defining reasons for invading Iraq have shifted more than the sands of the desert since Bush’s declaration of “Mission Accomplished”. Therefore there can be no definition of “winning”, because their is no legitimate reason to be there.
This conundrum is what happens when you deceive a nation. If ever there was a reason to have impeached Bush and Cheney their deception of the American people tops the list. Sen. Pelosi, you failed America.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:47 pmI mean Speaker Pelosi, Sorry.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:48 pmSouthern Man Says:
March 28th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Why should I have to explain what “WIN” means when you understand what “LOSE” means. Win is the opposite of lose!!! You throw around “we are losing this war” everyday. Children, if you understand what lose means, you understand what win means. We need to WIN this war! We need to WIN in Iraq.
_______________________________________________
Thank you very much for that non-explanation. You’ve just shown that you really don’t have a clue, either.
Unless, of course, this is a snarkpost. If it is, you’re better at parody than I thought.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:49 pmtombaker Says:
March 28th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
35 - you really think the collapse of the Soviet Union was just Afghanistan, and not a thousand other things?
Not just Afghanistan, but it was a major strain on the economy that exacerbated the thousand other things.
It’s the parallel with the current situation in Iraq that I find most ironic, that’s all.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:50 pmIt’s absolutely amazing, that there is “only one” United States Senator with the backbone to criticize this immoral, unjustifiable war on the republican side.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:51 pmI heard a great analogy for the Iraq occupation on the radio the other day…
The author- I can’t remember his name, sorry- was saying that for too long we’ve been comparing Iraq to a peice of china and applying the “you break it, you bought it” analogy when a better analogy would really be that of a botched plumbing job…
If you hire a plumber to fix a leaky faucet and when you get home you find your kitchen flooded and the plumber looking shame-faced you don’t say, “You’re going to stay until you fix this!” you say, “I’m calling a new plumber and you’re gonna pay to fix this!”
Iraq is ready for a new plumber…
March 28th, 2008 at 2:51 pmSouthern Man Says:
March 28th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Why should I have to explain what “WIN” means when you understand what “LOSE” means. Win is the opposite of lose!!! You throw around “we are losing this war” everyday. Children, if you understand what lose means, you understand what win means. We need to WIN this war! We need to WIN in Iraq.
You haven’t described either “win” or “lose”.
It might help to make a case for your “simple” dualistic view of Iraq, if you could explain simply what each of the terms mean.
In addition, it might help the American people to measure our level of success in Iraq, and whether the 12 billion dollars a day is worth it, if we know the real objective.
We realize, SM, that having a solid objective against which to measure success might not really suit the purposes of the president (and, by extension, you), since it raises the risk of exposing the failure of the whole concept, but it seems like that’s a risk that needs to be taken, if we’re going to be serious about “winning” this war, no?
March 28th, 2008 at 2:53 pmSouthern Man Says:
March 28th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
I hear, ” Bush has killed 1.2 million Iraq’s since the begining of the war” in here everyday. The U.S. hasn’t killed 1.2 million Iraqis. The enemy within Iraqs own country has killed them. Iraqis and Islamic insurents are killing Iraqis. The same ones that are killing and injuring our soldiers. THE ENEMY!
By this logic, it wasn’t the hijackers of the airplanes that killed 3,000 people on September 11th. It was the airplane fuel and the burning buildings and the concrete they hit after they leapt from the 80th floor. The hijackers can’t be held responsible for what happened after they crashed the airplanes, right?
March 28th, 2008 at 2:54 pmHow much should we pay for this “win” southern man? Why do you support someone that has continually pushed for this ultimate win at all costs but then puts discretionary spending proposals in that aren’t accounted for in any budget? Why can’t the republicans stand up and budget for .5 trillion more dollars since it’s pretty much agreed upon that we’ll certainly use that amount. What happened to the fiscal responsible party?
fear won’t be my guide. don’t let it be yours.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:56 pmThe_Right_Stuff Says:
March 28th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Yes, once the 10/18 is increased to 18/18.
—–
Who should we liberate then?
March 28th, 2008 at 2:56 pmyou mean those dead enders who are in the last throes?
March 28th, 2008 at 2:57 pmDixie’s paucity of imagination and lack of capacity for abstract thought force him to squeeze all this down to a fairly simple proposition, which it never, ever was (and never will be). At the same time, he is too chauvanistic to actually listen to and respect anything anyone who actually lives in and was born in, Iraq has to say.
The sick, sick part is that thousands more innocents will be needlessly slaughtered - in real life - real blood-and-guts-killed-dead-in-the-streets-men-women-childre-and-grandmas, all and only because there are enough Americans who are dumb enough to let it continue.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:59 pmTheRightStuff is about an inch away from qualifying as a member of either the Manson Family or the Fourth Reich, depending on which way he turns when he steps off the Kool-Aid Express.
You’re a sick, sick puppy, dude.
March 28th, 2008 at 3:01 pmDixie - Is that what was happening before we unnecessarily invaded Iraq??
No.
It’s called “cause-and-effect”. Read up on it.
March 28th, 2008 at 3:02 pmThe_Right_Stuff Says:
March 28th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
57. Who do you suggest?
March 28th, 2008 at 3:03 pm—-
Well it was I that asked you the question as you seem to be very interested in the “freedom” of others. To maximize our return, what do do you say about China?
The_Right_Stuff Says:
March 28th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
53. There are not 1.2 million dead Iraqi’s so there is no need to debate “who killed them.” That number is an absolute, unsupportable lie. Al Qaeda propaganda, and you are falling for it.
Al-Qa’ida publishes The Lancet now? Where did you read that?
March 28th, 2008 at 3:04 pmYou have victory when the Oil is gone.
The Corporations Supplying the Military want us to keep wasting money over there, they do have Cost Plus Contracts, you know.
Anyone for an embroidered KBR towel? Anyone?
March 28th, 2008 at 3:05 pmHey - blood and guts Hatriots - doesn’t matter who killed who or whether it was .2 million or 1.2 million - what matters is that you are completely oblivious to a GIANT PILE OF DEAD PEOPLE that WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR.
Nice mass-murderer morality you’ve got there fellas.
March 28th, 2008 at 3:05 pmSouthern Man Says:
Whose pulling the trigger that is killing the Iraqis toasterhead? Whose detinating the IED’s toasterhead? Who is killing our soldiers toasterhead? Come on, you can say it. The sad thing is, most of you can’t see who the enemy is. You believe we are the enemy. Who is killing our soldiers and the iraqi people? Very simple question.
Not simple, simplistic.
“The enemy” killing our soldiers is Sunni, or Shi’ite and is killing them because they view the soldiers as occupiers. “The enemy” killing Iraqis are (a) other Iraqis or (b) non-Iraqis who came to fight the American occupiers.
It is simple — simple-minded — to lump all the fighters into one category (”the enemy”) as if they all had a single goal, a single purpose or even a single belief system. Some are fighting for pan-Arabism, some for religious fanaticism, and a great many are fighting for nationalist or tribalist reasons.
March 28th, 2008 at 3:06 pmJohnR Says:
March 28th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
It’s absolutely amazing, that there is “only one” United States Senator with the backbone to criticize this immoral, unjustifiable war on the republican side.
My guess is that plenty of republican senators and congresspersons feel as Hagel does, but they fear the ballot box more than they respect their own convictions.
March 28th, 2008 at 3:08 pmThe_Right_Stuff Says:
March 28th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Badass wants to invade China. Wow, some progressives are strange.
—
March 28th, 2008 at 3:08 pmHow third grade of you
Southern Man Says:
March 28th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Whose pulling the trigger that is killing the Iraqis toasterhead? Whose detinating the IED’s toasterhead? Who is killing our soldiers toasterhead? Come on, you can say it. The sad thing is, most of you can’t see who the enemy is. You believe we are the enemy. Who is killing our soldiers and the iraqi people? Very simple question.
—
Who created the situation in the first place, by invading Iraq and creating the power vacuum that was filled by the tribal warlords and militias and foreign fighters who are now killing Iraqis and detonating IEDs and killing our soldiers?
Hmm?
Simple question.
March 28th, 2008 at 3:09 pmIt’s not the number of dumb Americans that keep Bush’s War going, it’s the veto proof number of Republican whores.
We will always have the dumb Americans. The 25% braindead will always be with us, unquestioning, incurious, licking up every crumb that Rush and Faux News throws them. But come this time next year the deciderer will be different and the Democratic majority in both houses will clean up this slimy pile of Bushit.
March 28th, 2008 at 3:10 pmThe enemy was originally AQ and OBL. Remember him Southern Man? He was never in Iraq. None of AQ was in Iraq. They were in Afghanistan and now in the hills of Pakistan.
That’s the enemy and you sit quitely by while our President goes against his own words and ignores this region while we create people who now become our enemy because we invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
You want to be angry, fine. But until you focus your anger on what is truly wrong here you will continue to look like you have the depth of a wading pool and the density of a brick.
March 28th, 2008 at 3:10 pmSouthern Man Says:
March 28th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
You didn’t answer the question. Who is killing our soldiers and the Iraqi people?
—-
Is it those scary Iranians?
March 28th, 2008 at 3:16 pmSouthern Man Says:
March 28th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
It is simple Tom. What do you think is going to happen if we were to leave today? If you care, as you say you do about the Iraqi people, you do understand that tens of thousands will be slaughtered if we leave today. Go ask the translaters that helped our millitary what is going to happen to them or their families if we leave today. Why don’t we poll all the Iraqis and ask them if they like voting. Over 90% of them showed up to vote, even though there were many threats to blow up polling stations, they risked their lives to vote. Yet here in America were lucky to get 50% to show up. Let’s ask them if they still want the right to vote. And then remind them who gave them that right.
People like you threatened the same disaster if we left Vietnam, and it didn’t happen. If you look around a little, you’ll find perfectly good scenarios from people with a whole lot more experience in the Middle East than you or the neocons who say that this is simply wrong, and that any “slaughter” will be much smaller — and, most importantly, it’s going to happen sooner or later. Period.
The Iraqis themselves have repeatedly said that we should leave, in overwhelming numbers. The translators? All of those people who could be viewed as collaborators should be given the option of immediately emigrating to the US with their families. Period.
March 28th, 2008 at 3:17 pmNo cure for stupid.
March 28th, 2008 at 3:18 pmSouthern Man Says:
March 28th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
It is simple Tom. What do you think is going to happen if we were to leave today? If you care, as you say you do about the Iraqi people, you do understand that tens of thousands will be slaughtered if we leave today. Go ask the translaters that helped our millitary what is going to happen to them or their families if we leave today.
Last I checked, the teleporter has not been invented. It still exists only in Star Trek and in low-budget Sci-Fi Channel knockoffs. It does not exist in the real world, and therefore it is impossible for 250,000 service members and contractors and thousands of tons of equipment and vehicles to leave Iraq today.
However, we can refocus the mission today. Even the more radical redeployment plans I’ve seen estimate a 12-18 month withdrawal period. That’s plenty of time to train up security forces in the remaining ten provinces, encourage negotiation between warring Shi’ite and Sunni factions over final status issues, and work with Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan to ensure their cooperation in leaving Iraq stable once we leave.
March 28th, 2008 at 3:18 pmThe_Right_Stuff Says:
March 28th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
FISH ON DECK!!
—
March 28th, 2008 at 3:19 pmNo problem, I am a professional. Just standback and I” have that gutted, gilled, filleted, and into sashima portions before you can get the hook out
The_Right_Stuff Says:
March 28th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
23. Evering defines it differently. To me, “winning” in Iraq includes many factors including: toppling the dictator Saddam Hussein and his two evil sons (done); having free Iraqi elections (done); and building and training Iraqi Security Forces until all 18 Iraqi provinces are under their primary control (10/18 done).
_____________________________________________
This means that over half of Iraqi provinces are under the control of Iraqi Security Forces. So why aren’t over half of our troops coming home?
March 28th, 2008 at 3:19 pmBush drew down forces in Afghanistan to concentrate on Iraq, and just now sees a need to beef up forces in Afghanistan. Soldiers will rotate out of Iraq and then back to Afghanistan. And fighting in Iraq is now at “defining moment” according to Bush. There will not be a draw down of military in combat.
March 28th, 2008 at 3:24 pmThis will eventually lead to a critical shortage of troops. The draft is more and more looking like it may be necessary.
Perhaps then there will be an awakening among the republican elitist when their Johnny and Mary are sent to war.
southern boy selects which ones to respond to. TRS is an antagonist troll.
I thank and appreciate all those here who have put up points and issues that put the entire invasion into Iraq up to question.
Both of them remind of the bully that pushes everyone around in the playground but can’t bring himself to discuss or use logic in an argument.
Will also run crying into the night when proven to be wrong.
March 28th, 2008 at 3:29 pmNot much blood but a whole lot of fish guts
March 28th, 2008 at 3:32 pmThe_Right_Stuff
You have two choices, troll:
(1) Either choke on your flag lapel pin, or
(2) Sign up at the nearest recruiting office. Request to replace a soldier in Iraq who’s been stuck there for multiple tours.
March 28th, 2008 at 3:34 pmhellinabucket, Yeah they are like bullies, but they also remind me of the zit faced punks who would rally around the rich kid in high school to protect him from insults.
Weak little punks who define themselves only by defending their God Bush.
I would have a smidgeon of respect for these trolls if they would admit that Bush’s War is and was a mistake. That we are creating the very enemies they so badly want to stamp out. How many of the insurgents are just dad’s and brothers of some kid killed by our occupation? Kill one and two more will avenge his death.
It’s like killing bees. Kill one and he emits a pheremone that attracts other bees to defend. The more you kill the more swarm to the attack.
But the trolls don’t show up to discuss, they are here to defend poor George. God knows he could use it.
Carry on TRS, one day Georgie will thank you for your blind allegiance. Or not.
March 28th, 2008 at 3:40 pm“very simple logic” indeed.
March 28th, 2008 at 3:47 pmSouthern Man Says:
March 28th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
I am using logic, very simple logic. You still want to debate why we are in Iraq; it’s done, we’re there. We f’ed up bad. We can debate why we are there in the first place over and over, but it doesn’t solve the most important problem; figuring out the best way to leave a stable Iraq so that we NEVER have to return.
First point, SM: try to experiment with the formatting tools. When you just copy-and-paste other comments in order to respond to them, it’s difficult to figure out where their comment ends and yours begins.
Next point, is you are using simplistic logic. You are oversimplifying a complex issue in order to make those who see things with complexity seem stupid. It’s not working.
In fact, if it WERE a simple question there would be a simple definition of “winning”. But there isn’t. A simple definition of winning would be: capture and control Baghdad. Something like that. But instead “winning” depends on political progress among a people very foreign to us. It is complex and very very difficult to measure (although, with no political progress at all, that simplifies the measuring part).
Your simplicity ignores history (Vietnam didn’t fall to pieces; the rest of SE Asia didn’t turn communist) and it ignores any authoritative voice that says anything out-of-step with Bush’s “legacy” vision. It even ignores public opinion, both here and in Iraq.
So tell us again how “simple” it all is.
March 28th, 2008 at 3:48 pmDixie - If we can’t guarantee that our own citizens can go see a Doctor when they’re sick, if we can’t guarantee that the airplanes we fly in have been safety-inspected, if we can’t guarantee that we know where our nuclear weapons are bring shipped, then how in the hell do you suppose we can force Iraq into a condition that “guarantees” we would bever have cause to return to it?????????
That is just completely un-realistic.
March 28th, 2008 at 3:52 pmSouthern Man,
You are right, to a point. The critical issue is how to get out, and an honest debate is what is needed. But as long as Bush and his minions insist that Bush’s War was the right thing to do, how can we have an honest debate?
It’s more than just wanting to be right. It’s a necessary part of the debate.
Picture this: Bush makes a speech and tells the whole world we made a mistake in invading Iraq. That we should have finished the real job in Afghanistan. Says he is sorry and asks for the world’s help to extricate us from Iraq.
It is hard to imagine, because that weak little coward is not man enough to do that. But until we as a country admit to the world that we f’ed up, we are in it alone.
It would go a long ways towards bridging the divide here at home too.
March 28th, 2008 at 3:52 pmThanks for at least acknowledging my last post southern man.
You have a valid point that whats going on now is vital and what to be done about it is most important.
Are you for a massive escalation of troops into Iraq? Because, militarily speaking, one sure way to squash an uprising is to use overwhelming force. Remember the amassing of 500,000 troops just to free Kuwait? Seems to me that if we put a similar amount of troops into Iraq (most likely more but 500,000 would certainly help) we could cut the violence down. Now those troops would have to be properly equipped and supplied. They would have to be given clear objectives so we don’t have them just standing around like traffic cops and targets. Although many more will become just that, targets.
To acheive this we’ll need to come up with some serious money because there is no way the rest of the world is going to give us more loans to cover an escalation that size. We’ll also need to have a draft to fill the boots that need to be on the ground.
This country has no stomach for any of that. Partly because of what you say is done and that we are there now.
There hasn’t been true guidance since before we entered Iraq. What makes you think the same drivers of this runaway bus will provide proper guidance now?
March 28th, 2008 at 3:55 pmSM, our comments passed in the night. Sorry. I type slowly and still poorly.
Iraq is a mess and I don’t see a positive exit strategy. I think it is ridiculous though to keep pouring blood and money down that black hole with no end in sight. At what point do you say that what we are doing isn’t cutting it and we need to try a different strategy?
Seriously, if you were the deciderer, what would you do?
March 28th, 2008 at 3:58 pmThis one sleeps in a bunker and wears combat boots to sleep. A supernationalist and truly the enemy of man.
It says the international figures for Iraqi’s killed can’t be relied on….only the US figures are reliable.
The international voices to stated that Iraq had no WMD’s was right…..the US statements about WMD’s was wrong.
Word of warning to this person. You are a danger to human life. please seek professional help.
March 28th, 2008 at 4:09 pmSouthern Man, what exactly do you think will happen if we lose in Iraq or just leave? Do you think the people of Iraq will fall into a theocracy instead of becoming a democratic country? Guess what, that is what will probably happen no matter what we do.
When you see a man physically abusing his wife do you ask him if it is for her own good? Or do you make him stop abusing her and let her decide her life for herself?
We are abusing the Iraqi people for our own greed…..time to stop the abuse.
March 28th, 2008 at 4:18 pmHaven’t we “won” Iraq already???
We certainly seem to own it.
Unfortunately it’s been a booby (trap) prize!!!!
Many in history have tried to wrestle with controlling (winning)what is called now called Iraq and almost all have failed (the Ottoman empire was succesful, Germans tried to control and influence the country for its oil during WWII and failed, British-twice invaded and failed, even Ghengis Kahn from way back raided but left).
Too bad all the neocons and war supporters never read any of the history of the region. They would have realized that the society is extremely complex and can’t be easily controlled
(Hussein’s repression probably made things worse).
They should have known that it will probably take generations to clean up the mess we’ve created.
March 28th, 2008 at 4:19 pm.
How does one “WIN” an occupation?
.
March 28th, 2008 at 4:52 pmMax-1 Says:
March 28th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
How does one “WIN” an occupation?
Near as I can tell from the chickenhawk rhetoric, you have to “kill all the bad guys”.
March 28th, 2008 at 5:05 pmwhy not try expressing it as a decimal or percentage?
March 28th, 2008 at 5:38 pmEvents currently happening Iraq would beg to differ with the rosey picture. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/186077.php
First, Maliki claimed that he would crush the Mahdi Army in Basra in 72 hours. Then April 8th. Finally, however long it takes, in his best impression of George W. Bush.
It looks more like he is being expelled than on a victory march, notwithstanding the American troops coming to the rescue. Been there, done that.
Next?
March 28th, 2008 at 7:35 pmdemagogue much, wingnut??
March 28th, 2008 at 8:59 pmCan one of your right wing idiots please explain to me if it counts as “victory” if Iraqis democraticly choose to be led by Islamic clerics, ally themselves with iran and the DEMOCRACTICALLY elected Hamas government of palestine, and sell thier oil in euros to russia and china?
Does this count as victory,righties? yes or no?
March 29th, 2008 at 1:35 am