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."
Save such comments for a time when you're fortunate enough to be conversing with a fool.
Save such comments for a time when you're fortunate enough to be conversing with a fool.
So "WE ARE LOSING" but we have a chance to win. The outcome in IRAQ will "DEFINITELY" either be a good one or a bad one. We have a chance to win, but we could lose.
FOR THIS........the legionnaires gave him a standing ovation??
I JUST DON'T GET IT!!
Replies #161 and #162
Double posts, interesting.
A mildly amusing comment when made by the little German character on the old Laugh In show.
I know that at least the first part is true. However Gen Shensiski (sp) was "fired" and stayed in place for over a year, and continually dissed. The other Generals were dissed and ignored, and left no choice but to retire. "Up or Out"
Gen Zinni (sp) is one who comes to mind.
Don't you believe it.
General Sheneski simply completed his full term as Chief of the Joint Chiefs and retired as he had announced and scheduled it in April 2002. His differences over troop levels did not occur until 2003.
The other Generals were dissed and ignored, and left no choice but to retire. "Up or Out"
Gen Zinni (sp) is one who comes to mind.
General Zinni delivered his retirement speech during March 2000. He was long gone from the scene.
What other General Officers do you think were purged?
I believe your dates are wrong re Shensiski. There was much reporting re troop numbers throughout 2002. Much of my info came frome NRO and The WS on this 'war of the numbers'.
That is wrong to say there was no disagreement about troop numbers until 2003. WE entered Iraq in 2003! There was a year long discussion on what was required.
I used quotes re "fired", because of course he was not fired. His replacement was announced aprox 15 months before his retirement date. I hold no brief for him of the black barrets, but he was at least more right than wrong on the numbers of troops required to provide security right after the 3 week war.
The disagreement I'm pointing to, and one I probably ascribed too quickly to you, was the public disagreement drawn out by Senator Levin (who else?) during an Armed Services Committee hearing in February 2003. This is the spectacle most people use to justify the claim Shinseki was forced to retire.
Levin led Shinseki into the trap with the question, "General Shinseki, could you give us some idea as to the magnitude of the Army's force requirement for an occupation of Iraq following a successful completion of the war?" Shinseki was not given much wiggle room.
Shinseki: In specific numbers, I would have to rely on combatant commander's exact requirements. But I think . . .
Levin: How about a range?
Shinseki: I would say that what's been mobilized to this point, something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers, are probably, you know, a figure that would be required.
But, the truth is there is always disagreement among the service chiefs, not only over how many troops are needed for any particular phase of an operation, but over how operations should be conceptualized and executed.
The working relationship between General Franks and the Joint Chiefs was set during his planning for Afghanistan. Shortly after the first briefing given the Chiefs, reeling from the service specific bickering, Franks bluntly told the Chiefs they had their input into the plan through their respective three stars who served on his CENTCOM staff. If the Service Chiefs did not trust their three stars, Franks told them, they should fire and replace them.
Whether Shinseki will be proven more right than wrong will be debated for a long time to come, and will probably never be decided. Like you, apparently, I have faith in the Powell Doctrine. Overwhelming, crushing force will always carry the day. But, will it?
No one really criticizes Franks' plan or its execution during the first three phases of the war. The major criticism comes from perceived deficiencies in the Phase IV plan, what we did the day after Saddam fell. Among the claims is that a better plan would have prevented or at least curtailed the rampant looting and lawlessness that went on, and would have undermined the sudden appearance of private militias.
But would better planning and a larger force have done that? I don't know and I have come across no recent defense by Franks or his staff concerning the execution of Phase IV. I do wonder whether any number of troops could have dealt with what happened. Here in the U.S., consider how much time and resources were required to control looting and violence during race riots in Detroit, Los Angeles, and Baltimore?
One thing is certain. We'll have plenty of time to talk about it.
(BTW, do you remember the link to the NRO article you mentioned?)
I have enjoyed our little talk. Please don't think bad thoughts about my not liking what is happening.
Thanks, Child, for reminding me of that episode in the war games, 2002!!! He was terrific! His part in this made me worry even more.
Racehorse, if you are still interested, check this post out. You'll fine it very interesting, though you may be aware of it from a few years ago.
Was it a Senator? Or was it House Member Barbara Lee, Democrat from California? I know she voted against the resolution in the House, and got a lot of attention for being the only one. I think some might have abstained. But I can't recall a Senator who did...
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.