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."
I did not hear any such interview, so I must leave that intpretation to the transcript. But here is a news account which makes it clear that Cheney was speaking in military terms (emphasis suplied):
Cheney: Iraqi Insurgents Gone By 2009
U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney says the Iraqi insurgency will be put down and fizzle out before the end of President George Bush's second term in 2009.
"I think we may well have some kind of presence there over a period of time," Cheney said in an interview Monday night. "The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."
"He wants to be Sec of Def under McCain."
Well then maybe he's not just an idiot.
Maybe he's an imbecilic opportunist looking for a job as Humpti-dumpti's white flag boy.
You speak true, too much negotiating and thinking going on right now. Not enough killing and mayhem by our side.
Hagel:
Then please STFU and root for our side for a change!
I agree with your general sentiment, but make no mistake about it -- "Washington" has been making the military decisions on this one from the get-go.
Yeah, I got your link right here:
Last year Camp Victory (Baghdad's main base) was getting rocketed and mortared nearly every day. This year it's weekly or even monthy.
The Iraqi Sunnis are warming up to the Coalition and participation in the new government. The fighting which continues has coalesced into a core of highly trained and organized foreign elements planting bombs against the Coalition and terrorizing Iraqis. Usually, these attacks are cover for organized crime, strong-arm/mob-type behavior by regional thugs.
Someone please inform the Honorable Mr. Hagel there is no NVA in Iraq. There is a foreign-supported insurgency and that's about it.
The Iraqi Sunnis have greatly curtailed their attacks against the Coalition. They seem instead to prefer to attack Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), likely in deference to their ancient tribalism or responses to heavy-handedness by the ISF. Some of those police attacks and assasinations follow protests against police raids and disappearances.
Imo Iraqis as a whole are more distrustful of each other than the Coalition. They do like our chow halls and everyone seems to get along it would seem when they're chowing down.
The Sunnis are also starting to openly fight foreign insurgents. It's getting real bad for foreign insurgents in Central Iraq. They face being turned in or attacked by the locals more than from the Coalition. Little publicized by the MSM is the fact that when foreign insurgents are captured by the ISF they are tortured then executed. Word has obviously gotten out since their numbers have been dwindling. The areas of insurgent control are steadly shrinking. They really don't have too many places where they can operate in the open anymore, hence their reliance on bombs and suicide bombers.
Imo within a year it should be safe enough to travel in Baghdad outside of the IZ and the rest of Iraq with minimal escort. The Iraqis are coming around and the ISF are doing better all the time. We don't have to be at war with this culture.
Newbie?
WHERE do we get the troops?
What do they do other than ride around and get blown up by IED's?
Are they supposed to be going door to door to find the Saudi and Syrian terrorists?
That's a pretty meaningless statement on the part of Rumsfeld -- he can't hide behind the decisions of generals who he himself put in charge of this operation. Back in late 2002 and early 2003 there was a serious disagreement among military brass about the preparations for the war effort and the personnel levels that would be needed to maintain order in Iraq. The generals who supported the civilian leadership on this won out, so it's rather disingenuous for Rumsfeld to use "the generals" in his defense of the military effort in Iraq.
What military wouldn't want a half a million troops before they started?
Should we have waited?
Why not?
Thanks!
Because they believed the lies told to the Bush administration about WMD. This is the real travesty.
"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."
censure this yokel, too. Enough with Senators working against us during war. I have had it.
Got any documentation of the lies?
I would agree with you that we don't need forces in Europe.
As far as I know we are pulling out the smash'em and bash'em troops and sending over MP's that are accelerating the training of the Iraqi forces.
All of you back seat drivers. You take the helm, glacier field ahead, 300 million lives at risk. We're going to see how you do.
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.