Hagel on the Iraq War

[rivergator]

Can't say I disagree:

As to the comment I made about the most dangerous foreign policy decision since Vietnam, that was about not just the surge, but the overall war of choice going into Iraq. That particular decision made on the surge, but more to the point, our war in Iraq, I think was the most fundamentally bad, dangerous decision since Vietnam.

[co_gator89]

And he's right, yet some people could not hate him more it seems, many of them his fellow Republicans. I heard Hannity on his awful radio show today just slamming this guy. One would think such a "patriotic Great American" would show a little more respect for a Vietnam vet. It will be great to have a SOD who has seen first hand how awful war is.

[Lawdog88]

His political view that we were engaging in a similar type of holding pattern in both Viet Nam and Iraq, is not a perfect comparison.

But the similarities are more than significant. The biggest difference to me, is that they were more or less announced as official policy in Iraq . . . eventually . . . but they were not during the Viet Nam conflict.

[neisgator]

That's putting it mildly, Law.

[Row6]

Home sick for much of the day, I watched almost all of this republican written melodrama which focused almost exclusively on gotcha attempts and very little on the serious questions of the day, on which his record as a senator is solid. Where his votes were out of the "mainstream" - should be a plus, given the history of the Senate which spent the Iraq war on it's knees - his reasonable answers where drowned out by his inquisitors insistence on a yes or no response. His deference and politeness to his formal colleagues was puzzling, especially after the first round. His coolness and continuing thoughtfulness was bad strategy for this theater but speaks well of his fitness for public service in a job demanding those qualities. We should want someone who isn't a knee jerk "patriot" like some of his attackers.

McCain: The guy who pumped up invading Iraq with assurances of quick victory and welcoming by it's people has the gall to insist on a yes or no answer on the surge, an event which took place 3 years after the "easy victory" he predicted and which cost over a thousand US lives. What an a*shole. Maybe he's right to assume we have such short memories.

Graham: Another poor imitation of a prosecutor, and with McCain still butt hurt that we aren't still spending US lives in Iraq in attempt to prove him right on the invasion, who nastily - and with an inability to look Hagel in the eye- tried to cut off any response, even though they were solid and reasonable, with the exception of "the Jewish lobby" quote which is a 3rd rail he should have stayed away from then and tried to yesterday. None of his questions were serious.

Cruz: Very amusing seeing little Teddie, head of the debating team, accusing Hagel of dishonoring the "blood and treasure left on foreign soils" by the US. Hagel was too polite to point out to our latest chickenhawk super patriot that some of that blood was his own.

Some of the republican questioners were polite and some were even serious - Blount and Sessions come to mind - but all in all this was another scary example of how unserious the Republican party has become. Bring in the clowns? Don't bother........

[DeanMeadGator]

Originally Posted by co_gator89

And he's right, yet some people could not hate him more it seems, many of them his fellow Republicans. I heard Hannity on his awful radio show today just slamming this guy. One would think such a "patriotic Great American" would show a little more respect for a Vietnam vet. It will be great to have a SOD who has seen first hand how awful war is.

Hate is a description that badly mischaracterizes the reaction of some members of Congress. It appears that those who have genuine concerns are now "haters."

Having lost friends in 'Nam, I agree that it is good to have a prospective on what war is like.

However, I remember with crystal clear clarity that John McCain served and was tortured for 6 years at the Hanoi Hilton. I doubt that his questions are "hateful."

Debate and expression of opinions is now hate, but only if you disagree with the position taken by another. Is it any wonder that the country is divided and Congress accomplishes nothing other than impuning members of the other party.

I am aghast that members of both parties are so spiteful that they no longer engage in an honest debate, nor are they willing to.

[Lawdog88]

Whether the surge actually "worked" or not seems silly in comparison to the larger question of whether the Iraq invasion actually "worked" or not, for whatever amended and evolving purposes now attributed to that adventure.

The Viet Nam haunting that sticks in most folks' minds, is that we reached a point where we knew the military tactics we were using were not going to "win" the war . . . but we kept up the military facade that we could, and kept sending our guys and gals over for the sacrifice.

[Minister_of_Information]

The fighting part of Vietnam was won during Tet, when the VC were effectively annihilated and never again were a significant security threat for the remainder of the war (with the 'assistance' of some MAC-V covert programs...). The North Vietnamese victory was wholly political and occurred in the US (with a little 'help' from their 'friends'...). What happened on the ground in Vietnam was the gradual filling of the VC and US vacuum with the NVA, coming into the fruition of a couple of fairly conventional invasions (considering the logistic and strategic limitations imposed on the NVA by US air supremacy), the last of which succeeded with the absence of any countervailing US force. The RVN government and armed forces could never muster adequate popular support after Diem's regime was toppled, so would fall when the US prop was removed (unless that prop was openended). Ultimately the coup doomed South Vietnam though it took 12 years to come to fruition.

As for Iraq, it was not a mistake and had to be done. No it did not go perfectly but show me a war that has.

[Lawdog88]

All of that is historically correct.

And with U.S. public support of uncertain objectives flagging, and the will of our supposed SVN allies questionable, it is no surprise that we tired of "the tactics of war" we were employing and quit.

Early on we knew we were not going to invade Nam with sufficient force to roll up the countryside from stem to stern and oust the VC and later, the NVR. We just weren't going to commit to that kind of ground force, and we were not going to go nuclear for obvious reasons.

So, our toolbox was limited from the beginning to deal with a primitive insurgent force (who quickly realized it was not going to repeat a Dien Bien Phu-type victory, and re-concentrated its tactics to classical guerrilla warfare), who was sufficiently supplied by powerful surrogates to the North and Northwest, and who didn't mind creating massive staging areas in neighboring countries and crossing international borders at will, to smuggle war material to the South.

[Row6]

Both the Iraq war and the VN war were fools errands and a colossal waste of lives and dollars. The former has resulted in a chaotic and murderous situation who's benefit mostly accrues to Iran, while the latter only managed to postpone an jnevitable and less than horrible future at the cost of 50,000 US lives. That political leadership not only repeated the same cataclysmic mistake within a generation, and with little domestic repercussions - how do McCain and Graham keep getting elected? - is a testament to the necessity of more Chuck Hagels who will step out of "the mainstream" of American foreign policy, a totally discredited concept if there ever was one.

[HALLGATOR]

We would have won about the same thing in Vietnam in the long run as we did in Irag..................nothing.

[Minister_of_Information]

Those who prefer Saddam's regime to the current regime in Iraq either have forgotten or never knew just how destabilizing that regime was in terms of both regional security and US interests. The Baath Party was founded in a totalitarian militarist ideology that is only comparable to Nazism or imperial communism along the lines of Stalin. Minimizing the danger that regime represented over the long term is an exercise in wishful thinking. In addition, the entire concept of collective security was bankrupt unless Saddam was confronted.

[JohnC1908]

So many young men and women are died for no reason. That's tough for me to stomach. It hits home for me since most are right around my age.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Those who prefer Saddam's regime to the current regime in Iraq either have forgotten or never knew just how destabilizing that regime was in terms of both regional security and US interests. The Baath Party was founded in a totalitarian militarist ideology that is only comparable to Nazism or imperial communism along the lines of Stalin. Minimizing the danger that regime represented over the long term is an exercise in wishful thinking. In addition, the entire concept of collective security was bankrupt unless Saddam was confronted.

All of that is true.

Some people question why it is that, when the trash needs taking out, we get to - ur, apparently have to - do it.

Are we really saying that our national interests are global, paramount, and supersede all other national interests . . . whenever we say so ?

[HALLGATOR]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Those who prefer Saddam's regime to the current regime in Iraq either have forgotten or never knew just how destabilizing that regime was in terms of both regional security and US interests. The Baath Party was founded in a totalitarian militarist ideology that is only comparable to Nazism or imperial communism along the lines of Stalin. Minimizing the danger that regime represented over the long term is an exercise in wishful thinking. In addition, the entire concept of collective security was bankrupt unless Saddam was confronted.

I haven't forgotten what it was like when Sadaam was in power. We got a lot of bluster from him after Desert Storm much like we get from North Korea now. If we wanted to wreck what was left of his military ability we could have accomplished that without an invasion. in addition If we were to use the criteria of how a despot(s) treats his/their people then we would be invading countries all of the time.

[Minister_of_Information]

Saddam was the standard bearer of successful defiance of the US as well as a major instigator of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. He actively fostered, advocated, and utilized terrorist tactics from the sanctuary of a nation state. His WMD aspirations were unchanged, and were seen as a pillar of legitimacy by the regime. In the wake of 9-11 all of this was clearly intolerable.

[AmericaFirst]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Saddam was the standard bearer of successful defiance of the US as well as a major instigator of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. He actively fostered, advocated, and utilized terrorist tactics from the sanctuary of a nation state. His WMD aspirations were unchanged, and were seen as a pillar of legitimacy by the regime. In the wake of 9-11 all of this was clearly intolerable.

Dude, we're talking an outright troops on the ground invasion here. No one, not anyone, should defend this war given such little (if anything) was gained from it.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by AmericaFirst

Dude, we're talking an outright troops on the ground invasion here. No one, not anyone, should defend this war given such little (if anything) was gained from it.

What was gained was essential and well worth the cost.

[AmericaFirst]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

What was gained was essential and well worth the cost.

Agree to disagree. I don't believe Saddam was worth thousands of American lives and billions of taxpayer dollars, especially when no WMDs were found.

[Dreamliner]

Obviously Obama disagreed with Hagel on the Iraq War.