“The United States must begin planning for a phased troop withdrawal from Iraq,” Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., wrote in a Washington Post op-ed piece. “The cost of combat in Iraq in terms of American lives, dollars and world standing has been devastating.” Hagel agrees with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger that “there will be no military victory or military solution for Iraq.” And as does many other politicians, Hagel hopes that the Iraq Study Group will provide the basis for a bipartisan consensus to get out of Iraq. “If the president fails to build a bipartisan foundation for an exit strategy,” Hagel wrote, “America will pay a high price for this blunder — one that we will have difficulty recovering from in the years ahead.”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Monkeyhawk on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- DorisKing on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
30 Comments
true
“there will be no military victory or military solution for Iraq.”
Too bad we didn’t think of this before Bush’s Shock & Awe. Think how many lives we would’ve saved on both side.
Until we learn from history and our mistakes, we will continue on these dead-end courses.
Hagel is one of the few conservatives that I like. This is because he knows the truth and isnt afraid to speak up about it.
That was an excellent op-ed by Senator Hagel and argued well that we should be leaving Iraq. There is no good solution left to us anymore.I hope Chuck Hagel runs for President. We could use his foreign policy sense in the White House.
garyc-Hagel is not conservative. That is why you like him.
Oh fleetwood – why must you label everyone?
There are only two solutions as I, a soldier in Iraq, see them.
1. AT LEAST double the troop levels, and sit on these people until we get things reigned in. This is easier said than done. First of all, the military is exhausted and resources will be very, very expensive. Also, public support for this effort would be almost impossible to achieve.
2. Pull out. If we pull out, the “civil war” will quickly turn into mass ethnic cleansing. Militias will become more organized and aligned Sunni against Shi’a. Since the Sunnis are outnumbered and the Shi’a have the financial and logistical support of Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah the Shi’a would most likely win. We could then expect another theocratic state that would be heavily Iranian influence if not outright control.
So in short, we are in a pickle. Now we have to ask ourselves how we got in this situation. We can’t blame it on a few scapegoats like Bush. I, like most of the nation, originally supported this war. It seemed as if we were on a mission to expunge “evil” from the world. But how many lives did we and the Iraqis trade (and continue to trade) to execute Saddam for killing 150 or so Kurds? Where is the logic in that?
In my view, we need to step back as a nation. We need to stick to our economic guns, the same guns that brought down the Soviets. We have to undermine the West’s dependence on oil. Imagine if we had thrown all of the hundreds of billions that went into Iraq into alternative energy research… If any of you saw “Syriana”, you may have heard Matt Damon’s character say, [to a Syrianian Prince] “You want to know what we think? We think that a hundred years ago you were all living in tents, and that is exactly where you will be in another hundred.” These oil-rich Islamic nations did not become wealthy from secularism, liberty, and capitalism as we did, but from controlling massive amounts of the world’s most precious resource. If we take away that preciousness of that research, they will have nothing. You can see this in that, other that a few small exceptions (UAE, Kuwait, and Qatar), these nations have not diversified their economies whatsoever.
This is the best long-term solution I can think of. It will require years to come to fruition. But in the end, there will be no more money for these backwards nations to claim legitimacy. They will have to face facts as the West has over the last two and a half centuries: The only way to true wealth and prosperity is a secular, liberal society.
Damn those cut and run Republicans. Hagel is nothing more than a Reaganite who cut and run from Lebanon.
Aren’t those the catchphrases we’re supposed to hear from the Republicans these days? I didn’t get my memo from Fox News today.
Heh, good one, Doug.
I guess we can start calling them “retreatoCONS” now, eh?
Andrew,
Good post. And God bless you for answering the call.
But, soldier, how can you say this: “Now we have to ask ourselves how we got in this situation. We can’t blame it on a few scapegoats like Bush.”
Hell, yes, we can blame it on Bush. Who demanded that we invade? Who said he would go in with or without the UN, and then proved it when the UN said “no way”? Who said that “we have to invade to get rid of Saddam” and then was asked if we would invade if Saddam fled the country and he said “YES”?
Bush. Bush. Bush.
There’s only ONE SOB that’s responsible for this debacle in Iraq–Worst. President. Ever.
Two million people marched in the streets across the US before the war EVEN STARTED. London and New York and San Francisco had ‘em marching fifteen across for 15 city blocks. People like me were writing letters to the editors and shouting on the street corners.
Don’t tell me Bush is a “scape goat.”
He was the prime mover from day one.
I know we (and history) are gonna blame him, and he DESERVES it. But you can’t deny that a lot of Americans were pro war before it was cool to be against it. We (the initial supporters) have some responsibility there.
Yup, sadly that’s true.
A lot of folks wanted to pretend like Vietnam was some weird 60’s thing, when it has become the standard model for invading Armies.
Even in WW2, you have to wonder how long the Nazis would have been able to hold on to their Empire given the bitter resistance they faced in France and would have had Russia.
The Nazis would have killed every Russian and French citizen before they gave that land up, because they did not value life.
Andrew, you have hit the nail on the head; hurt them (whoever “they” are) economically, by seeking to sever dependence on oil and petroleum-based resources.
Stay safe.
What if Bush had used all the billions he has spent on the Iraq war to actually help to develop alternative fuel for the US? We would not need the Middle East and their oil. Where then would their power be?
Instead, Bush has made alot of big oil executives very wealthy and has called everyone who disagrees with him ‘unpatriotic’. I have to wonder who is really the unpatriotic ones here?
That’s what I said!
As predicted before the invasion began it looks like the Kurds will be betrayed – AGAIN.
A 1991 Kurdish Betrayal Redux?
By Najmaldin KarimSpecial to washingtonpost.comSaturday, December 2, 2006; 12:00 AM
The media are building up the forthcoming report of the Iraq Study Group, led by former Secretary of State James Baker, and former Democratic Congressman, Lee Hamilton, as the solution to America’s problems in Iraq. Sadly, the report is unlikely to offer anything other than the same discredited policies that for 60 years created a dangerous illusion of stability in the Middle East, a “stability” bought with the blood of Middle Easterners and that produced such horrors as the massive 1991 bloodletting of Iraqis who sought to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101308.html?nav=hcmodule
Bush has deliberately initiated a bloodletting that might well claim a million victims before it is all over. May he rot in Hell – staring in perpetuity to a banner saying “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED”!
Bush will just see his own party turn on him with the impeachment, to be determined at a later date.He’d better start heeding what the populace wants.
With Pat Roberts no longer able to keep the Intel Comm report bottled up you just might be right steve. Then turn him over to the Hague.
There are good points in your article. I would like to supplement them with some information:
I am a 2 tour Vietnam Veteran who recently retired after 36 years of working in the Defense Industrial Complex on many of the weapons systems being used by our forces as we speak.
If you are interested in a view of the inside of the Pentagon procurement process from Vietnam to Iraq please check the posting at my blog entitled, “Odyssey of Armementsâ€
http://www.rosecoveredglasses.blogspot.com
The Pentagon is a giant,incredibly complex establishment,budgeted in excess of $500B per year. The Rumsfelds, the Adminisitrations and the Congressmen come and go but the real machinery of policy and procurement keeps grinding away, presenting the politicos who arrive with detail and alternatives slanted to perpetuate itself.
How can any newcomer, be he a President, a Congressman or even the Sec. Def. to be – Mr. Gates- understand such complexity, particulary if heretofore he has not had the clearance to get the full details?
Answer- he can’t. Therefor he accepts the alternatives provided by the career establishment that never goes away and he hopes he makes the right choices. Or he is influenced by a lobbyist or two representing companies in his district or special interest groups.
From a practical standpoint, policy and war decisions are made far below the levels of the talking heads who take the heat or the credit for the results.
This situation is unfortunate but it is ablsolute fact. Take it from one who has been to war and worked in the establishment.
This giant policy making and war machine will eventually come apart and have to be put back together to operate smaller, leaner and on less fuel. But that won’t happen unitil it hits a brick wall at high speed.
We will then have to run a Volkswagon instead of a Caddy and get along somehow. We better start practicing now and get off our high horse. Our golden aura in the world is beginning to dull from arrogance.
Ken – thank you for your service to our country. And thank you for your comments; comments from the eprspective of a man who has served.
Andrew – up thread you hit many good points about what it would take to crush Iraq. And, as you noted, we don’t really have the troop strength.
I stand by my prediction made years ago – this will end up with Syria and Iran dominating Iraq and the entire region. Where there used to be a US ally (Saddam Hussein) acting as a counter-balance to the Iran-Syria alliance that no longer exists.
Bush said that his actions will effect the entire middle east for years to come. In that he is correct: The Syria-Iraq-Iran alliance will dominate the region from the Mediterennean to Pakistan. Al-Quada will be strengthened in the hills of Afghanistan, in Pakistan, and the Horn of Africa.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!
Ben Huie,
Indeed. Mighty convenient that U.S. taxpayers are picking up the tab for Iraqi and Syrian dominance of the Middle East for decades to come.
At every turn, the Bush Administration has been outmanuvered. They’ve been so inept you’d think it was intentional. “The grownups,” indeed.
The fact is, whether or not you are willing to admit it, that those whom we fight in the Middle East will never give up as long as they perceive weakness. These are the same people who have over millennia spread there own version of “truth” by the sword. They have enslaved their victims and subjugated half of their population behind the veil.In the 1930’s Britain’s Chamberlin promised the world “Peace in Our Time.” What England got out of that was the Blitz. This is exactly the same situation.There is no negotiating with these animals. They are not civilized and can not be expected to act as such. Their focus is to “kill the infidel” and that my friends is us!I guess our new “leaders” will wait until the bombs start falling to actually do something. The main targets seem to be the liberal enclaves of New York, Washington DC, Los Angeles, Chicago, and other large cities. When the bombs start going off it will be interesting to see if any of the people living there will finally find something important enough to fight for. Most likely they will simply do what they do best whine, complain, and stick their heads in the sand. At least they won’t actually see the explosion when it vaporizes them.
sean remains a kook.
Hey sean? What does “victory” look like? How do we get there?
You answer that one and spare us the old tired fear mongering rants.
seanmahair, that was an absolutely stupid post. Did you stay up all day working on that one?
The Iraqis did not attack us – al Qaeda was the perp. Al Qaeda was/is in Afghanistan, at least not until we invaded Iraq. Until March 2003, there was no al Qaeda presence in Saddam’s Iraq.
We are stuck in the middle of a civil war, of our doing. We started the vilonece in Iraq, not the folks that destroyed the WTC, etc.
Try reading a bit of the news before you post such drivel.
sean makes a point – in a way. alQuada will see that our weakness is our absolute lunacy. After all, rather than staying on course going after the sources of 9/11 (including Saudi Arabia) we attacked the mortal enemy of alQuada. I wonder, was the purpose of Bush’s attacking alQuada’s enemy to so ingraciate ourselves with them that they would leave us alone? Why did Bush try to appease alQuada by attacking their enemy?
I submit that Bush’s attempts to placate alQuada will backfire on the US.
A nation (if such a thing were possible) controlled by Al-Quida, would be a nation with which we could fight an all out war. They would not last long.
Problem is steve – what we are creating is a widely dispersed network deep underground.
The article on the truck “ramming” the car brings up some interestingpoints.Having been in the industry most of of life, having driven and havinghad a truck driving school for about 8 years before doing safetyconsulting, I can tell you that cars can “get lost” around trucks.The driver noted – there was a space in front of the truck, and she”did not cut the driver off,” when she merged in front of the truck. Itappears the truck driver was leaving space.It is possible when she came up along the truck that she was in thedriver’s blind side the whole time. We don’t know what size car she wasdriving.There is also a huge blind spot in front of most trucks. Some truckshoods curve down giving a partial view of what’s in front of thedriver, however, if the truck was a “long nose” there may be no way ofknowing what is in front of the driver. A few companies are installing”radar” systems which warn the driver.The story finishes with the car driver saying after being rammed andbumped several times, the driver backed off and stayed back.Based on the events as they unfolded, I believe there is a goodpossibility the truck driver was not even aware the car was in front of thetruck. It is a fact that cattle truck drivers are a better breed – asthey face a tremendous responsibility with their load. It is possiblethe truck driver kept had a space in front of his so he continuedcreeping to let the air circulate around his load so any animals would notsuffer shipping stress.On the other hand, sometimes violent road-rage incidents occur andthose folks need to face the consequences.Many incidents with trucks can be avoided following the old SmithSystem – Look far ahead – See and be Seen, Leave yourself an out, Get thebig picture, and keep the eyes moving. The current Smith System CEO,Tony Douglas has a heavy transportation background and is trying toeducate all the professional drivers as well as the general drivingpopulation.If anyone feels a truck is getting too close – please do not assumeits road rage. Please use your horn to alert the driver and remember theSmith System. A ounce of prevention is worth a human life.John TaratutaSafety Consultantadmin@part380.com