Posted on 06/26/2005 5:54:23 AM PDT by 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."
We're not losing the war in Iraq from Iraq, we're losing it from the U.S. thanks to people like Senator Hagel. He and others of his ilk are ammo handlers for terrorists as far as I'm concerned. Hagel is a useful idiot.
We have enough troops in Iraq? Is that why we have one Bn covering 380 miles of the Syrian border. If as you say we have enough then a serious look at force laydown needs to be done. So start flaming away on me but hurry up as I leave for the 3rd time.
In the north and in the south life has vastly improved. As well as we have finally done what Saddam did and moved in troops from other tribal areas to the sunni regions. They are rough but getting better, if only they would shi+ in the heads and not on the ground where ever they please.
But hey, Arab solutions to Arab problems.
Wish I could find the link.
This email being forwarded among some of us retired military folks is encouraging ( http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1430461/posts#43 ) and goes along with what Austin Bay has to say here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1430461/posts#9
Austin Bay has seen Iraq both as a soldier and a journalist.
You might read this for a little insight as to how hard the task is, however, Iraqis are taking back their country a little at a time. Making the WOT harder are the anti-American propagandists who bleat piteously about mistakes rather than the many successes in that country both by the Coalition and Iraqis themselves. It would seem that Hagel, Kennedy, Biden, Pelosi, Clinton, Reid etc. expect something akin to the sound bites we get daily from the news, immediate resolutions. The reality is that extraordinary efforts and successes are being made and not reported in the MSM or MSP. How long, for instance, did WWII take? Korea and Vietnam were actions literally trashed by Washington directing war from the comfort of their offices, our elected, not the military, lost those conflicts by their meddeling.
The Senator should read this and learn to exercise patience - the enemy is :
:
Excellent point. There is no doubt that Hagel knows the truth, but is purposely lying. Anyone in his position knows (or should know) there is more electricity in Iraq today than a year ago. Hagel purposely states a lie in order to willfully give aid and comfort to the enemy. Hagel's true desire is to see us defeated in Iraq. Hagel purposely lied about electricity in Iraq and Hagel is lying when he says he wants us to win in Iraq. Therefore true justice would demand to see that POS hanging from a lamp post. There should be absolutely no excuse for purposely putting the lives of our brave Warriors at risk.
We can't forget Hagel's comments when the insurgency peters out and Iraqis take over responsibility for their security.
Not me.
You're the guy (or gal) I'll want to pay attention to . . . even if I don't agree or don't think you have it right, because I might come to agree because you do have it right.
I think I'd do the same if I lived in Nebraska.
Hegel is a viper right up there iwth McCain and Voinovich.
Hegel is a viper right up there iwth McCain and Voinovich.
"I will trust Secretaty Rumsfield and the officers of our military to decide what and when we need to win in Iraq."
The people in the DOD who make the decisions have forgotten or never knew how to win a war. The United States has NEVER succeeded in a war unless they dealt a CRUSHING blow to the enemy. This did not occur in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and, now, Iraq. Each of these wars has, or will at some point in the future, come back to bite us in the butt.
The true military men in the DOD should have been allowed to run the war as they saw fit. Neither Bush nor Rumsfeld fits into this category. From whomever the general battle plans trickle down, be it Bush, Cheny, Rumsfeld; there lies the problem of why the war in Iraq is floundering. If the military were allowed to fight the war the way that they were taught, none of this would even be discussed right now.
Anyone who thinks the American people have no knowledge of the Middle East is definitely not working with a full deck.
there arew some legitimate criticisms such as too few troops.
but he is a defeatist. and no we're not losing.
hom many provices or privincial capitals have fallen to the "insurgents" recently?
the terrorists cannot defeat the US military or even the Iraqi military, that can only be done by people like Hagel
PS Hagel is far far worse than MCCain.
Ive noticed a pattern, like a tag team.
MCCain is mostly ok on foreign policy, while a real pain on domestic issues.
Hagel is ok on domestic issues while a real pain on foreign policy
The border area is a huge expanse of desert. At the same time there are traditional, well identified routes of travel through that desert.
The best way to deal with a desert border area is with airpower backed up with intense surveillance.
Hagel would like Iraq to seem Vietnam by 2007 and 2008. Then he would run for President as a moderate Republican opposed to President Bush's policy on Iraq. He's more interest in himself than in America's security. RINOs like him are a disgrace for the GOP.
interest=interested
Your kidding? Take a closer look at the ROEs.
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighting Troops
So Rumsfield and Bush are not a part of Washington? The military is not being allowed to execute this mission, it is and has been a politically run campaign.
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.