Hagel sounds alarm over Iraq

Omaha World-Herald ^

[hipaatwo]

GRAND ISLAND, Neb. - More than 200 Nebraska American Legion members, who have seen war and conflict themselves, fell quiet here Saturday as Sen. Chuck Hagel bluntly explained why he believes that the United States is losing the war in Iraq.

Sen. Chuck Hagel addresses more than 200 Nebraska American Legion members in Grand Island on Saturday.

It took 20 minutes, but it boiled down to this:

The Bush team sent in too few troops to fight the war leading to today's chaos and rising deaths of Americans and Iraqis. Terrorists are "pouring in" to Iraq.

Basic living standards are worse than a year ago in Iraq. Civil war is perilously close to erupting there. Allies aren't helping much. The American public is losing its trust in President Bush's handling of the conflict.

And Hagel's deep fear is that it will all plunge into another Vietnam debacle, prompting Congress to force another abrupt pullout as it did in 1975.

"What we don't want to happen is for this to end up another Vietnam," Hagel told the legionnaires, "because the consequences would be catastrophic."

It would be far worse than Vietnam, says Hagel, a twice-wounded veteran of that conflict, which killed 58,000 Americans.

Failure in Iraq could lead to many more American deaths, disrupt U.S. oil supplies, damage the Middle East peace effort, spread terrorism and harm America's stature worldwide, Hagel said.

That's what keeps him on edge these days.

That's why he is again the most outspoken Republican in Congress about Iraq. His view that America is losing in Iraq, which first aired in a newsmagazine last week, prompted rebukes from conservatives such as talk show host Rush Limbaugh, concerns from others in his party and praise from anti-war advocates on the Internet.

But Saturday, he was unrepentant.

"The point is, we're going to have to make some changes or we will lose, we will lose in Iraq," he told the legionnaires.

At the same time, he said, he wants President Bush to win, and he believes that the United States cannot pull out anytime soon.

The legionnaires gave him a standing ovation at the end of his speech. Carl Marks of Omaha, a Korean War veteran, said: "It sounds like he's conflicted . . . like a lot of us."

Bennie Navratil of Hallam, Neb., whose son left last week for military duty in Afghanistan, said, "I feel he said the right thing: that we can't pull out and something's got to change."

Aboard a plane back to Omaha, Hagel was asked whether he thought Bush was aware that adjustments might be needed in his Iraq policy.

"I don't know," Hagel said.

The whole Iraqi situation makes him sick to his stomach, he said.

"It has tormented me, torn me more than any one thing," he said with a grim look on his face. "To see what these guys in Iraq are having to go through and knowing what I know here: that we didn't prepare for it, we didn't understand what we were getting into. And to put those guys in those positions, it makes me so angry."

He lays part of the blame on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who argued before the war that he needed only 150,000 American troops in Iraq. That caused more casualties than were needed, Hagel said.

"We still don't have enough troops," he said. "We should have had double or triple the number."

It has led to a bleak situation, Hagel said:

Insurgent attacks are more frequent than a year ago. Bombs used by insurgents are growing more deadly, piercing America's best protective clothing and equipment. Oil production is down. Electricity is less available than a year ago. Economic development is lagging. Ninety percent of the humanitarian and economic aid pledged by 60 nations hasn't reached Iraq because of the continuing violence. Only one Middle Eastern country has an ambassador in Iraq.

Bush has said America is fighting in Iraq with a "coalition of the willing," allies who have committed a relatively small number of troops and aid.

Hagel scoffed at that idea. "It's a joke to say there's a coalition of the willing," he said, adding that many are pulling out and the United States is fronting the bills for those who remain.

Meanwhile, U.S. troops are under severe strain. Troops are stationed in more than 100 countries, and their rapid tempo of deployments with little time off leaves them fatigued and in danger of making mistakes.

"We are destroying the finest military in the history of mankind, and the (National) Guard, too," he said. "We're stretching our Army to the breaking point."

Public pronouncements from the Bush administration also have gotten under Hagel's skin. Vice President Dick Cheney's recent comments that the insurgents in Iraq are in "the last throes" echo a refrain of the Vietnam era, he said.

Back then, officials saw "the light at the end of the tunnel" in Vietnam, Hagel said.

Toting up all those points, he said, leads him to conclude that the United States is losing in Iraq.

"That doesn't mean we have to lose," he said.

In his speech and in an interview, Hagel offered some ideas that he thinks could help in Iraq:

U.S. troops and others could work harder to train local militias in small Iraqi towns to help identify and take on insurgents. Allies who don't want to enter Iraq could help patrol its borders, blocking terrorists from entering the war-torn country. The training of Iraq's military and military police should be accelerated immediately.

Middle Eastern nations should become more engaged, he said, but it doesn't help when administration officials criticize Egypt and Saudi Arabia for not moving quickly enough toward democratic practices.

Hagel said he shaped his views after many talks recently with senior U.S. military officials; foreign policy experts; Brent Scowcroft, who was the first President Bush's national security adviser; and others. He plans to share his views with the current president and his team and says he feels an urgency he hopes they will share.

The United States has only about six more months to begin to turn things around in Iraq, he said.

"I believe that there can be a good outcome in Iraq," he said. "I also believe there could be a very bad outcome for Iraq. I believe we have a very limited time for that good outcome."

[rbg81]

While I can't stand Hagel (a McCain wannabe), I agree that we probably sent too few troops into Iraq.

The way this conflict is Vietnam like is that we are focused on not losing instead of winning. If we really want to win the WOT, we will probably have to institute a draft and raise the number of troops back to mid-80s levels.

It was a huge missed opportunity when, post 9/11, Bush urged people to "go shopping" instead of enlisting. It also didn't help that Rumsfeld wanted to keep the force small because (a) he wanted to free up resources for Modernization and (b) he believed the Army force structure was obsolete.

Fighting the war the way we are now is like trying to fight WWII with a 1930s force structure. Before all this is said and done, we'll probably need to occupy a large swath of the Middle East. Syria and Iran, definitely. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, perhaps. It would also help if we'd stop going soft on pseudo terrorist regimes (e.g., the PA, Hammas, and Hezbollah in Lebanon).

[MinuteGal]

Hagel has learned well what works for McPain.

He makes me want to puke.

"Grim face"?

A drama queen as well.

Leni

[Trteamer]

More than 200 Nebraska American Legion members, who have seen war and conflict themselves, fell quiet here Saturday as Sen. Chuck Hagel bluntly explained why he believes that the United States is losing the war in Iraq.

Sen. Chuck Hagel addresses more than 200 Nebraska American Legion members in Grand Island on Saturday.

The American Legion members should have brought duct tape for his mouth. I'm sure this will be on terrorist TV in no time. How could they sit there silently while this clown is encouraging our enemies?

[stevem]

Lstening to little men in high places is torture.

[jammer]

You may ask, but all you have to do is actually read the article. He does not advocate "wind[ing] down and depart[ing] from Iraq prematurely." Quite the opposite.

[rlmorel]

I disagree.

[MrBambaLaMamba]

Hagel's just using the FN John "How to form a policy" process -

Step 1: Stand in the breeze of a CBSNBCABC/CNN/NYT/WP poll
Step 2: Stick your finger into the wind
Step 3: Determine your opinion
Step 4: Find a platform to spew your deep cogitations
Step 5: In the event of a negative response feign outrage and dare anyone to question your patriotism

The best way to end war and ensure peace is to kill the enemy.

[Vor Lady]

He sounded a lot different when he was home stumping for election. There has to be something in the DC water that turns these guys into what they become.

[paul51]

Hagel sounds alarm over provides more encouragement for our enemies in Iraq

[Moonman62]

Hagel found out that being a "Ckicken Little" gets a lot of press.

Anything that undermines the US gets a lot of press.

[nathanbedford]

Vice President Cheney, a man whom I admire and respect as much as any living American, has expressed an entirely different view, the insurgents are "in their last throes." His assessment has been confirmed by Porter Goss, the Director of the CIA and a man also worthy of great respect, especially when he speaks within his area of responsibility and in a manner which leaves him little wiggle room if things go wrong.

There is no middle ground here, Cheney and Hagel cannot both be right. One must be wrong. But which?

One thing I know: We cannot find the truth of the matter, except by accident, by weighing the left or right wing tendencies of the advocates. A real democracy must decide matters of destiny not by resort to personality but by examination of the facts.

I have not read any replies to this thread yet, but I can bet that several have committed the sin which I warn against. Hagel might well be wrong, but he is not wrong, or even suspect because he is a RINO.

Let those who would persuade us to one side of another do so with facts.

Meanwhile, no matter what the consensus on Hagel's view of the war, no one is likely to argue with his prescription which offers commonsense if not new thinking:

U.S. troops and others could work harder to train local militias in small Iraqi towns to help identify and take on insurgents. Allies who don't want to enter Iraq could help patrol its borders, blocking terrorists from entering the war-torn country. The training of Iraq's military and military police should be accelerated immediately.

I would certainly add to this that we must bring the leaders in Iraq, not excluding the clergy, to accept that they have a stake in its stability and the success of the new government. Therefore, they should see to it that Iraqis themselves fight to preserve that stake and even their own lives.

[Moonman62]

Why do I get the feeling that Hagel has a girlfriend who opposes the war in Iraq?

[pointsal]

Campaign slogan....

Vote for Hagel the Hack

[68 grunt]

Hagel, you dumb son of a bitch, the terrorists are pouring into Iraq, and we're killing 'em. They are not coming here to kill us. Why didn't those damn terrorist crash one of their planes into the congress (in full session).

[LachlanMinnesota]

The report seems to indicate that he was well received in his comments. I. too, have heard many former military (Korea era) talk about not sending in enough troops. They are not oppoed to the effort, they just believe a greater force would be better in the long run. When I read of the high numbers of people coming in from other countries, I often wonder if more troops would not help to seal the border areas to prevent the influx from continuing. However, I am not military, so I don't know how I can judge these things except by hoping and praying that those in charge are not making a mistake on any of these issues.

[Modok]

I guess you never heard of a date of September 17, 1862 and a place called Antietam where 3600 were killed and now you want to declare defeat, reinstitute the draft, and reorganize the military. We have not seen the full face of the WOT yet, and some like you are already running for the hills.

[listenhillary]

Meanwhile, U.S. troops are under severe strain. Troops are stationed in more than 100 countries, and their rapid tempo of deployments with little time off leaves them fatigued and in danger of making mistakes.

Why are we still in 100 countries?

[yoe]

The Senator served in Vietnam and should really understand the propaganda better than most; the propaganda that was at the forefront then is what is happening now. Hagel should get behind his President and the fighting men and women - as it is he is helping lose the war in Iraq, not helping to win it. Hagel is playing right into the enemy’s hands.

[eatdust]

Well...I have to disagree with you on the troop numbers issue. Rumsfeld cut the original troop lists and retired any General who disagreed with him. There is love for the President, but Rumsfeld has lost his lustre for most of the officer corps.

[eatdust]

bingo