Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hagel says it's time to unwind from Iraq
Journalstar.com ^ | 5-2-2008 | Don Walton

Posted on 05/03/2008 10:09:22 AM PDT by stan_sipple

A lesson of Vietnam that applies to Iraq is “the deeper you bog down in a morass, the more difficult it is to get out,” Sen. Chuck Hagel said Friday.

“The more troops you put in, saying you need another six months or another year, a surge, five more combat brigades.”

All of that runs counter to the reality that “we’re going to have to unwind,” Hagel said.

“No foreign policy, no war policy can be sustained without the support of the American people,” he said.

“Most of them say (Iraq) was a mistake and we want out.”

Hagel’s remarks were sparked by a student’s question during a dialogue with eighth graders at St. Joseph Catholic School.

Responding to whether he sees some similarities between the wars in Vietnam and Iraq, Hagel also pointed to “the tremendous damage” being inflicted on the U.S. military force structure.

“It takes a generation to build back,” Hagel said.

In answer to other questions, Hagel said his combat service in Vietnam in 1968 was the most significant defining experience of his life and his 2002 vote on the Iraq war resolution was his toughest decision during 12 years in the Senate.

As a result of his year in Vietnam, Hagel said, “I see war not in abstractions. Not a day goes by that I don’t think about it.

“We were sending home young Americans in coffins at the rate of 150 a week,” he said.

Although he warned against a precipitate U.S. attack on Iraq without broad international support and planning for the aftermath, Hagel voted for the resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force.

In his recently published book, Hagel said he had been assured the administration would exhaust all international avenues and not use the resolution to rush to war.

“It was a tough call,” Hagel said.

Speaking with about 50 students, Hagel said the Bush administration and Congress have saddled their generation with a huge national debt that grew $3 trillion in the last seven years.

“This president did not veto one bill in his first term,” while criticizing deficit spending, Hagel said.

“The Democrats will at least tell you they want to spend more money,” the Republican senator said.

In response to other questions, Hagel said:

* The Senate is “the only political job I ever had any interest” in pursuing.

* Perhaps the best lesson he learned as a child was to “always value your friendships, be loyal to your friendships.”

* His mother probably was his best role model.

* A word of advice: “Whatever you do, do it the best you can do.”


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; US: Nebraska; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 110th; afghanistan; chuckhagel; cutandrun; defeatists; hagel; iraqwar; rino

1 posted on 05/03/2008 10:09:22 AM PDT by stan_sipple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: stan_sipple

2 posted on 05/03/2008 10:11:14 AM PDT by A. Morgan (VOTE FOR A LIBERAL N' WE'LL BE UP TO OUR NECKS IN ILLEGALS and OUTA' GAS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stan_sipple

Too bad you didn’t learn about “STFU, you stupid RINO”, ya hear that Hagel?


3 posted on 05/03/2008 10:11:30 AM PDT by mkjessup (Jimmy Carter is the skidmark in the panties of American history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stan_sipple

It’s time for Hagel to unwind from politics.


4 posted on 05/03/2008 10:13:13 AM PDT by A_Former_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A_Former_Democrat
It appears Hagel is just another of today's breed of politician.

Spending copious quantities of hot air decrying the “crisis” while providing no solutions. And heaven forbid he even look at answering the question of “If I get what i want, Then What???”

Such is the genesis of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

5 posted on 05/03/2008 10:16:36 AM PDT by MCCRon58 (Freedom does not mean you are free from the consequences of your own freely made decisions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: stan_sipple

Do the best you can, Bin Ladin don’t like a slacker. And he has NOT called off this war!!


6 posted on 05/03/2008 10:20:16 AM PDT by Waco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stan_sipple

Chuck Hagel: just one more example of why I quit giving money to the RNC. I do not trust party hacks to spend my donations, and only give to individual candidates.


7 posted on 05/03/2008 10:23:10 AM PDT by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MCCRon58

It’s comments like that they caused his presidential bid to implode before it even started.


8 posted on 05/03/2008 10:28:15 AM PDT by Dutch Boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: stan_sipple
Hagel’s remarks were sparked by a student’s question during a dialog with eighth graders at St. Joseph Catholic School.

Chuck finally discovers an audience not too intellectually advanced or politically mature for him. The girls thought his asking for dates at lunchtime, "a bit creepy" though.

9 posted on 05/03/2008 10:30:49 AM PDT by FredZarguna ("I want that crazy uncle institutionalized, pronto.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dutch Boy

Yes it was, but understand he is by no means close to being unique. The first thing I look for in a candidate is has he identified the issues. THEN I look to see if they have solutions for those self identified problems.


10 posted on 05/03/2008 10:42:11 AM PDT by MCCRon58 (Freedom does not mean you are free from the consequences of your own freely made decisions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: stan_sipple
A lesson of Vietnam that applies to Iraq is “the deeper you bog down in a morass, the more difficult it is to get out,” Sen. Chuck Hagel said Friday.

I am a retired Naval Officer and have strong respect for our military. I part ways with the FR knee-jerk support of Bush and his neo-cons on the conduct of the Iraq war, however, over a very very fundamental issue.

The issue is not pro/anti- conservative or pro/anti- war on terror, but rather what is our strategy? What would victory look like if we were to achieve it? How will we achieve that victory? What resources are required? Is the national sacrifice worth the goal defined in the strategy?

As has been abundantly clear, the neo-cons invated Iraq with no goal or strategy beyond "kill Sadam." That strategy takes one bullet or one noose. What then? Well we never looked beyond the noses of Feith and Wolfowitz and Bremer and Cheney and answered the "what then?" We are, however, dealing with the multi-trillion dollar aftermath of "what then."

Realistic military strategy begins with Sun Tsu.

The Art of War

By Sun Tzu

Translated by Lionel Giles

I. Laying Plans

1. Sun Tzu said: The art of war is of vital importance to the State.

2. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected.

3. The art of war, then, is governed by five constant factors, to be taken into account in one's deliberations, when seeking to determine the conditions obtaining in the field.

4. These are: (1) The Moral Law; (2) Heaven; (3) Earth; (4) The Commander; (5) Method and discipline.

5,6. The Moral Law causes the people to be in complete accord with their ruler, so that they will follow him regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger.

7. Heaven signifies night and day, cold and heat, times and seasons.

8. Earth comprises distances, great and small; danger and security; open ground and narrow passes; the chances of life and death.

9. The Commander stands for the virtues of wisdom, sincerely, benevolence, courage and strictness.

10. By method and discipline are to be understood the marshaling of the army in its proper subdivisions, the graduations of rank among the officers, the maintenance of roads by which supplies may reach the army, and the control of military expenditure.

11. These five heads should be familiar to every general: he who knows them will be victorious; he who knows them not will fail.

12. Therefore, in your deliberations, when seeking to determine the military conditions, let them be made the basis of a comparison, in this wise:--

13. (1) Which of the two sovereigns is imbued with the Moral law? (2) Which of the two generals has most ability? (3) With whom lie the advantages derived from Heaven and Earth? (4) On which side is discipline most rigorously enforced? (5) Which army is stronger? (6) On which side are officers and men more highly trained? (7) In which army is there the greater constancy both in reward and punishment?

14. By means of these seven considerations I can forecast victory or defeat.
....

II. Waging War

1. Sun Tzu said: In the operations of war, where there are in the field a thousand swift chariots, as many heavy chariots, and a hundred thousand mail-clad soldiers, with provisions enough to carry them a thousand li, the expenditure at home and at the front, including entertainment of guests, small items such as glue and paint, and sums spent on chariots and armor, will reach the total of a thousand ounces of silver per day. Such is the cost of raising an army of 100,000 men.

2. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength.

3. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain.

4. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.

5. Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays.

6. There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.

7. It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on.

8. The skillful soldier does not raise a second levy, neither are his supply-wagons loaded more than twice.

9. Bring war material with you from home, but forage on the enemy. Thus the army will have food enough for its needs.

10. Poverty of the State exchequer causes an army to be maintained by contributions from a distance. Contributing to maintain an army at a distance causes the people to be impoverished.


11 posted on 05/03/2008 10:44:07 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stan_sipple

Go away Chuck. You bore me.


12 posted on 05/03/2008 10:45:33 AM PDT by acapesket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stan_sipple
"As a result of his year in Vietnam, Hagel said, “I see war not in abstractions. Not a day goes by that I don’t think about it."

that is his problem right there, he keeps thinking this is viet nam all over and it's not! I'm so glad he is not running again!

13 posted on 05/03/2008 11:02:04 AM PDT by Jewels1091
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stan_sipple

Slouching towards irrelevancy.


14 posted on 05/03/2008 11:07:37 AM PDT by jgilbert63
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson

Agreed


15 posted on 05/03/2008 11:19:16 AM PDT by cowdog77 (Circle the Wagons)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jgilbert63

Maybe when all his sucking-up to Obama gets him a post in his administration the mid-stream media will start to ignore him.


16 posted on 05/03/2008 11:22:47 AM PDT by stan_sipple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson

What did General Douglas MacArthur mean when he quoted Napoleon: “give me allies as an enemy, so I may defeat them one by one?”


17 posted on 05/03/2008 11:24:34 AM PDT by stan_sipple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson

[What would victory look like if we were to achieve it? How will we achieve that victory? What resources are required? Is the national sacrifice worth the goal defined in the strategy?]

Good questions. If we examine all the wars in which the United States has engaged and we compare the ones with successful outcomes to the ones with unsuccessful outcomes, we see that in the successful ones we fought as hard as we could until the enemy was completely defeated. We made sure they were utterly beaten and all the fight had gone out of them. Only then did we extend the hand of friendship and try to rebuild. In contrast, our unsuccessful ventures in war have all been fought with reservation and even timidity, as if afraid that beating an enemy in battle will make them angry and will ruin any possible victory. It certainly describes Vietnam, and it looks very similar to what is happening in Iraq.


18 posted on 05/03/2008 11:34:38 AM PDT by spinestein (The answer is 42.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: stan_sipple

Gosh, at last my hero, Chuck Hagel, has given me my marching orders. I don’t even go to the bathroom to drop a “Hagel” unless I contact him first.


19 posted on 05/03/2008 11:54:09 AM PDT by Doc Savage ("Are you saying Jesus can't hit a curve ball? - Harris to Cerrano - Major League)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doc Savage
I don’t even go to the bathroom to drop a “Hagel” unless I contact him first.

LOL! Yes, that Chuck is something less than a deep thinker. Vietnam and the WOT, of which Iraq is a campaign, do not lend themselves to comparisons. Poor Hagel, he has somehow managed to not grasp the fact that the former was about containing the spread of a pernicious threat to the freedom of millions while the latter is about the more immediate concern of keeping mushroom clouds from forming over heavily populated areas of the US. To quote a great American character, and like Chuck- a Looney Tune, "What a maroon..."
20 posted on 05/03/2008 12:54:20 PM PDT by PerConPat (A politician is an animal which can sit on a fence and yet keep both ears to the ground.-- Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: stan_sipple

Hagel auditioning to become another Chris Matthews type of “Conservative” on MSDNC AKA DNC TV.


21 posted on 05/03/2008 1:05:16 PM PDT by Rosemont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rosemont

McCain has handed the torch to Hagel as the mid-stream media’s fave RINO


22 posted on 05/03/2008 2:51:54 PM PDT by stan_sipple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: spinestein
If we examine all the wars in which the United States has engaged and we compare the ones with successful outcomes to the ones with unsuccessful outcomes, we see that in the successful ones we fought as hard as we could until the enemy was completely defeated.....It certainly describes Vietnam, and it looks very similar to what is happening in Iraq.

First, I think you are begging the question. You are defining success as complete and utter defeat of the so-called enemy. Unquestionably unconditional surrender was the reasonable goal against Japan and Germany. But is that always the correct goal (hint Clausewitz parts company with you here.).

A goal is not a strategy. It is mere wishful thinking. Once the goal is defined you have to define the means to achieve it, assess the cost and decide whether achieving the goal is within your means and whether it is worth the cost, and the real cost is always some large multiplier on what you think the cost is going to be because the other side always figures out how to adapt to your strategy and raise your ultimate costs.

In this regard, even if the goal in Iraq were achieveable - and I will confess a lot of ignorance as to what anyone thinks the goal really is, its cost will have been a lot higher than anyone originally estimated. A number of blunders were made including a deba'athification and disbandment of the Iraqi army in a manner that did not subtract from our ultimate difficulties, but multiplied them beyond belief.

One of our goals is clearly something along the lines of a stable democratic government in Iraq. Is that something that we ever had a chance of achieving? I don't know.

Vietnam - one of the lessons learned by the professional military about Vietnam is never ever ever go to war without a clear strategy. Our goals seemed to be something along the lines of kill all the commie b'studs, commie being defined as anyone who was opposed to French absentee landlord colonialism. Hell, we fought our own revolution to oppose just such a regime in 1776. Why did we think we could prop up the proponents of such a regime on the other side of the Pacific Ocean. We should have been fight a counterinsurgency war there, which you don't execute through Arclight operations, which just create more resentment not less.

Petraeus appears to be getting Iraq more or less right, finally. But it is after many years of other commanders doing a lot of not very helpful things that only multiplied the number of folks against us rather than reduce it.

And the first rule of counterinsurgency war is to make your friends your friends at the beginning, and no allow them to become your enemy. You do that by showing that their daily lives are a whole lot better on your side than the other side. Otherwise, they just want you gone.

23 posted on 05/03/2008 3:06:56 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: PerConPat
Vietnam and the WOT, of which Iraq is a campaign, do not lend themselves to comparisons.

Funny, but a lot of what Petraeus is doing right he learned from how we did it wrong in Vietnam. They are not quite so different as they may appear on the surface, both ultimately being counterinsurgency operations.

24 posted on 05/03/2008 3:08:25 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson
Funny, but a lot of what Petraeus is doing right he learned from how we did it wrong in Vietnam.

Well, I don't see anything funny about it. Whatever, the South Vietnamese government never had the hearts and minds of its people. It seems to me that the Iraqi government is legitimate. Further, the large number of "insurgents" who roamed around South Vietnam had numerous sanctuaries in which to hide. As to the the day to day conduct of asymmetrical warfare, I certainly wouldn't deny that much was learned from the Vietnam experience.

The article of this thread deals with the existence of a quagmire. I personally do not believe that we are currently in one. At any rate, Sun Tzu does have much to say; but he is also far removed from a time when one skilled terrorist with portable technology of mass destruction can visit tremendous damage upon an enemy. That, of course, is another distinction between the backdrops of the Vietnam War and the WOT.
25 posted on 05/03/2008 4:08:32 PM PDT by PerConPat (A politician is an animal which can sit on a fence and yet keep both ears to the ground.-- Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: stan_sipple
Hagel says...

Who cares?

26 posted on 05/03/2008 4:14:44 PM PDT by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: facedown

Hagel??? who is he???? oh yeah .... just another stinking rino taking up breathing space.


27 posted on 05/03/2008 4:23:43 PM PDT by HiramQuick (work harder ... welfare recipients depend on you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson
Romney gave some hints that he understood the war that is coming. I was never a supporter of his but if he had more to back up what he hinted at, he would have made an excellent President (or VP).

Hagel is no RINO, in fact he may be the most Republican of Republicans. I think he won last time with 83% of the vote. To understand Hagel I think you need to attend a few Church services in Germanic areas of Nebraska. They are a truly pacific people. I have never felt more at ease in a Church in my life. They are not pacifist, they are not leftist, given a real reason to fight they are on the front lines and they will fight like a son of a bitch. George McGovern was nothing short of a hero. But they won't fight just because someone waved a flag and they won't fight just to fight.

28 posted on 05/03/2008 4:30:11 PM PDT by MARTIAL MONK (I'm waiting for the POP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: PerConPat
It is one thing to repeat history because you were too dumb or ignorant to learn from it. There has to be a special place in hell for folks who set out to repeat history in all deliberate fashion hoping that it will be different this time.

There is a long history of successful and unsuccessful counterinsurgency campaigns waged by the US and others. In most of these places the government has little legitimacy in the sense that the US government is to its citizens the legitimate government of the US, and anyone trying to assert otherwise would be considered a pretender. Few countries outside of western democracies have a way to hand power legitimately from one group of folks to the next.

So the local decision for most folks is, do I accept the powers that be or do I join the insurgency against it. That choice is a pretty simple one depending upon whether you think you are better of with the bastard in charge than the bastard who wants to be in charge. If the guys in charge were unable to feed your family, and keep others from stealing your home and raping and murdering your family, it is really an easy choice. This is why Petraeus has emphasized the issues of local security AND local economic development. The first step in counterinsurgency is ensuring that the people under your protection can live their lives more or less contentedly. That is why in counterinsurgency respect for local customs and culture comes at the top of the list of things you do, not at the bottom.

It is something that comes hard to many Americans, and our Army is made up of "many" Americans. It comes hard to a lot of the supposedly well educated and well informed denizens of Free Republic.

29 posted on 05/04/2008 6:14:35 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: PerConPat
I don't see anything funny about it.

Oh my God, I didn't know that I had a literalist who does not know that there are many meanings to the word "funny." I do not mean raucously hilarious. I meant something like one of it's other definitions "Strangely or suspiciously odd or curious." You know, these two juxtapositions of similar boggeddownness in a war of local anklebiters (biting with high powered rifles, mortars, and IED's) suggest a reflective person might inquire more deeply into the suspicious or curious similarity to discover whether lessons learned from mistakes in the one might be applied to the other.

30 posted on 05/04/2008 6:20:49 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: MARTIAL MONK
thanks for the insights into Hagel. I don't know him or much about him. I don't know whether or not his positions are defensible or not. But I do know that what is defensible is for any political leader of this country is a. to ask what are our goals in a military action and what blood and treasure are we expending to obtain it and b. is our strategy making reasonable progress or do we need to approach things in a different manner.

Our political leadership from Johnson down through most of the US congress - because of the American blind opposition to communism - failed to treat Vietnam as a serious strategic problem. Too many around here would do the same in Iraq. So far, I have yet to find anyone on FR who can tell me what success or failure in Iraq would look like. If Iraq were to be taken over by the Taliban or the Mahdi I would regard that as a failure. The implanting of a christian based liberal democracy (liberal in the traditional meaning of the word), on the other hand, is something beyond earthly powers, so I merely inquire where we plan to stop, and stir up a hornets nest of indignation at the question.

31 posted on 05/04/2008 6:29:44 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson

Hagel is a decorated Vietnam veteran and he is asking exactly the same things you are.


32 posted on 05/04/2008 6:40:14 AM PDT by MARTIAL MONK (I'm waiting for the POP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: PerConPat
The article of this thread deals with the existence of a quagmire. I personally do not believe that we are currently in one. At any rate, Sun Tzu does have much to say; but he is also far removed from a time when one skilled terrorist with portable technology of mass destruction can visit tremendous damage upon an enemy. That, of course, is another distinction between the backdrops of the Vietnam War and the WOT.

There is virtually nothing right in this statement. The reaon Sun Tzu is timeless is because the principles of strategy have not changed in 2500 years since the Warring States Period in China. Terrorism was not unknown in China at that time, and in fact the disappearance of private means of warfare is mostly a function of the modern wester bureaucratic centralized state. The Vietcong had plenty of firepower at its disposal. In fact, the quantity of destructive explosives an individual could carry on his back has not changed much in a century, there being only so much chemical energy you can get out of a pound of matter.

33 posted on 05/04/2008 6:41:00 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson
The Vietcong had plenty of firepower at its disposal. In fact, the quantity of destructive explosives an individual could carry on his back has not changed much in a century, there being only so much chemical energy you can get out of a pound of matter.

This comment indicates that we are discussing two different aspects of the issue. I get the impression that your concern is mostly centered around tactics, while I am concentrating on strategy. The chemical energy contained in a pound of matter a century ago versus now is not something that enters into my consideration that this nation was justified in getting at the question of whether terrorism is at a stage where it has WMD at its disposal.

I don't see an effective POTUS and Congress holding back on the grave necessity to address, and this includes dealing with Iraq, the threat made crystal clear on 911 even though some of the precepts of Sun Tzu might not have been in place.

I am always ready to admit that mistakes were made, but I believe that time was of the essence. It appears to me that we are making real progress and that we are not in a quagmire.

Sorry about the "funny" remark, but I thought you would recognize it for an attempt at the same type of irony you employed in your comment to me.
34 posted on 05/04/2008 7:52:52 AM PDT by PerConPat (A politician is an animal which can sit on a fence and yet keep both ears to the ground.-- Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MARTIAL MONK

Paying attention to the first two chapters of Sun Tsu will not make anyone a great military commander. Failing to heed them, however, is a certain road to disaster.


35 posted on 05/04/2008 8:14:11 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson