Yahoo Story (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050821/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq)
WASHINGTON - A leading Republican senator said Sunday the war in Iraq is looking more like the Vietnam conflict from a generation ago.
Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record), who received two Purple Hearts and other military honors for his service in Vietnam, reaffirmed his position that the United States needs to develop a strategy to leave Iraq.
"Stay the course is not a policy," said Hagel, a possible White House contender in 2008. "By any standard, when you analyze 2 1/2 years in Iraq ... we're not winning."
Sen. George Allen (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., another possible candidate for the GOP nomination for president in 2008, said the formation of a constitution guaranteeing basic freedoms would provide a rallying point for Iraqis.
Political leaders in Baghdad were working to complete the draft of the new constitution in time for the Monday night deadline for parliamentary approval.
"The terrorists don't have anything to win the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq. All they care to do is disrupt," said Allen, who appeared with Hagel on ABC's "This Week."
Hagel said more U.S. troops is not the solution.
"We're past that stage now because now we are locked into a bogged-down problem not unsimilar, dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam," Hagel said. "The longer we stay, the more problems we're going to have."
Allen said that unlike the communist-guided North Vietnamese that the U.S. fought, the insurgents in Iraq have no guiding political philosophy or organization. Still, Hagel argued, the similarities are growing.
"What I think the White House does not yet understand — and some of my colleagues — the dam has broke on this policy," Hagel said. "The longer we stay there, the more similarities (to Vietnam) are going to come together."
Question, do you believe Hagel is sincere, or is just trying to out McCain, McCain for the role of maverick in the Republican Party?
I don't think Chuck will be getting any invites to the Oval Office any time soon. ;)
al_bundy
08-21-05, 12:17 PM
the key is that 2008 is fast approaching and I'll bet polling is heating up
bhk
08-21-05, 12:56 PM
Hagel: The one of two that the dem candidate for pres quoted often.
Before the election, he should have gotten an invite to the Whitehouse(for an ass whipping).
CRM114
08-21-05, 01:01 PM
Yahoo Story (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050821/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq)
Question, do you believe Hagel is sincere, or is just trying to out McCain, McCain for the role of maverick in the Republican Party?
I don't think Chuck will be getting any invites to the Oval Office any time soon. ;)
He's obviously sincere since he describes the situation accurately. Its a Grade A clusterfuck. God forbid he speaks the truth in light of his party. -rolleyes-
CRM114
08-21-05, 01:03 PM
the key is that 2008 is fast approaching and I'll bet polling is heating up
Hagel has been critical of this convoluted policy for a couple of years. Anyone with one eye open can see the reality of the situation.
classicman2
08-21-05, 01:05 PM
He's simply repeating what he has said for at least 2-3 months.
I really don't understand Hagel's strategy. Obviously he wants to be president. However, I don't believe comparisons like he's making will win him any friends in the Republican primaries.
CRM114
08-21-05, 01:07 PM
He's simply repeating what he has said for at least 2-3 months.
I really don't understand Hagel's strategy. Obviously he wants to be president. However, I don't believe comparisons like he's making will win him any friends in the Republican primaries.
Yep. We certainly don't want a candidate with the fresh look at a failed policy costing American lives. We feel more comfortable when they silently suck the teat of the party power brokers. -rolleyes-
classicman2
08-21-05, 01:20 PM
If you don't believe Hagel is positioning himself for a run for the presidency......
It's not a wise political move, IMO. If you have aspirations of running for the presidency and you make unwise political decisions - well, ask John McCain.
Newsflash: The party brokers don't select the nominee anymore. The primary electorate in both parties select that nominee.
CRM114
08-21-05, 01:36 PM
If you don't believe Hagel is positioning himself for a run for the presidency......
It's not a wise political move, IMO. If you have aspirations of running for the presidency and you make unwise political decisions - well, ask John McCain.
Newsflash: The party brokers don't select the nominee anymore. The primary electorate in both parties select that nominee.
You mean Hagel could be testing the waters on what he actually believes rather than what will get him the favor of the far right? I'd like to think there is a sea change happening even on the right in regard to Iraq.
Thor Simpson
08-21-05, 01:49 PM
I still like Iraq.
classicman2
08-21-05, 02:05 PM
You mean Hagel could be testing the waters on what he actually believes rather than what will get him the favor of the far right? I'd like to think there is a sea change happening even on the right in regard to Iraq.
You probably consider anyone left of Karl Marx to be far right.
Is it sea change or seed change? ;)
Mammal
08-21-05, 02:06 PM
Hell, I liked Vietnam, as a place. As a war, it sucked.
classicman2
08-21-05, 02:22 PM
Most of the wars - if you listen to the participants in those wars - suck. ;)
Mammal
08-21-05, 03:18 PM
Indeed, but some wars end more satisfactorily than others. Vietnam didn't turn out well, did it? Iraq doesn't look promising either. Perhaps we should have applied the lessons of the former to the latter.
CRM114
08-21-05, 06:23 PM
You probably consider anyone left of Karl Marx to be far right.
Is it sea change or seed change? ;)
Nope. Pretty much anyone right of Hagel and McCain. The rest are just sycophants of the party.
mosquitobite
08-21-05, 08:27 PM
What I find funny is, during Vietnam and other wars, were other presidents expected to lay out their strategy so that the enemy would know what was coming? :hscratch: Or is it just Democrats want to know the strategy so they know how to mess it up? :shrug:
Mammal
08-21-05, 08:36 PM
When the government and military brass claim successes that turn out to be failures there's a loss of confidence in their competence and veracity. People are catching on. Bush's strategy, if in fact he has one, is as much baloney as "peace with honor" was in the '70s.
waveform
08-21-05, 09:15 PM
What I find funny is, during Vietnam and other wars, were other presidents expected to lay out their strategy so that the enemy would know what was coming? :hscratch: Or is it just Democrats want to know the strategy so they know how to mess it up? :shrug:
Strategy? The WMD nullification strategy? The people welcoming the US as liberators strategy? The we need more troops/the troop strength is enough strategy? The last throes of the insurgents / the 12 year strategy? The war/struggle stragtegy?
This administration changes strategies more often than most of their supporters change their underwear.
CRM114
08-21-05, 10:28 PM
Its painfully obvious that this administration misunderstood the enemy much like LBJ and his advisors misunderstood Vietnam. History repeats itself.
classicman2
08-21-05, 10:36 PM
I don't believe LBJ misunderstood the enemy at all.
Although we did achieve a military victory in Vietnam, there wasn't the political will to achieve a total military victory.
The government distorted the picture in Vietnam, and the government distorts the picture in Iraq.
However, the media distorted the picture in Vietnam, just as the media distorts the picture in Iraq.
al_bundy
08-21-05, 10:40 PM
You mean Hagel could be testing the waters on what he actually believes rather than what will get him the favor of the far right? I'd like to think there is a sea change happening even on the right in regard to Iraq.
more like he is taking a cue from clinton and voicing the poll of the day
bhk
08-21-05, 11:13 PM
The number of honored dead from ALL post 9/11 fighting is fewer than the # of GI's lost in Vietnam in a SINGLE MONTH.
We had much less in-country support in Nam than we have in Iraq/Afghanistan,
Over 40 countries have re-opened their embassies in Iraq since 03.
Senator Finger-in-the-air, can you GRASP this???
The Dalai Lama has a better chance of joining Metallica as a second drummer are greater than you of coming within 5 times zones of the 08 GOP nomination.
Although he does have a point. In Vietnam, we won pretty much every major and minor battle but the media lied and told the American public that we were losing, that we shouldn't be there. That time the lies of the media prevailed, we cut and ran, and as a consequence over a million innocents who looked on us as their protectors against tyrany lost their lives. Now the many liberals and the media are trying to do it again with Iraq and the war on terror, and if they succeed, they will once again be responsible for the mass slaughter of innocent men women and children.
Mammal
08-22-05, 08:00 AM
There are lots of disquieting similarities. For one, as in Vietnam, the real reason we're there now is that we're afraid of the consequences, correctly, if we just leave.
The only exit strategy we have is that we'll leave when the locals can defend themselves. In Vietnam we left 'way too early for that, and all we got was a "decent interval" before the collapse.
Vietnam is now one of the very few old-fashioned communist states in the world. How will Iraq wind up? An islamic state? How nice. What an achievement, and right next door to our friends, the mullahs, in Iran.
VinVega
08-22-05, 08:10 AM
There are lots of disquieting similarities. For one, as in Vietnam, the real reason we're there now is that we're afraid of the consequences, correctly, if we just leave.
The only exit strategy we have is that we'll leave when the locals can defend themselves. In Vietnam we left 'way too early for that, and all we got was a "decent interval" before the collapse.
Vietnam is now one of the very few old-fashioned communist states in the world. How will Iraq wind up? An islamic state? How nice. What an achievement, and right next door to our friends, the mullahs, in Iran.
Vietnam is not an old-fashioned Communist state anymore. They are bringing in tourism and more free market practices every day. If you think of an old-fashioned Communist state, I usually think of Cuba.
I think an exit strategy is of course a key, or at least setting realistic, reachable goals. Far flung ideolistic goals are somewhat harder to achieve due to the 24/7 media coverage and the shortening of the average American's attention span.
al_bundy
08-22-05, 08:13 AM
and the vietnam war had a lot of similarities to the korean war and WW1 and WW2
we went to germany in both cases because we were afraid of the consequences
chess
08-22-05, 10:19 AM
Sensationalism at its worst.
I see comparisons of wars to Vietnam pretty much like I see comparisons of whomever to Hitler. We have some real assholes in our govt, but as far as I know, none of them have gassed 6 million people yet. Similarly, all wars are difficult, but that doesn't make them all "Vietnam".
classicman2
08-22-05, 11:13 AM
The difference between Vietnam & Iraq is also in what the administration used as justification for the war.
In Vietnam, the reason given was to prevent the spread of communism into Southeast Asia. I believe that was the honest reason we were there.
I'm not certain at all that the Bush administration has given us the 'real' reason we're in Iraq.
VinVega
08-22-05, 11:17 AM
The difference between Vietnam & Iraq is also in what the administration used as justification for the war.
In Vietnam, the reason given was to prevent the spread of communism into Southeast Asia. I believe that was the honest reason we were there.
I'm not certain at all that the Bush administration has given us the 'real' reason we're in Iraq.
http://www.gifs.net/animate/oilrig.gif
BOO-YAH! :lol:
just having a little fun.
Tracer Bullet
08-22-05, 11:23 AM
Sensationalism at its worst.
I see comparisons of wars to Vietnam pretty much like I see comparisons of whomever to Hitler. We have some real assholes in our govt, but as far as I know, none of them have gassed 6 million people yet. Similarly, all wars are difficult, but that doesn't make them all "Vietnam".
:thumbsup:
Vietnam went so badly, it's become shorthand for "this war sucks". It's overused.
When we start the draft up again, then the comparison will become more valid (please note that that is the conditional "when". I am not expecting the draft to be reinstated :p).
Thor Simpson
08-22-05, 11:33 AM
:thumbsup:
Vietnam went so badly, it's become shorthand for "this war sucks". It's overused.
When we start the draft up again, then the comparison will become more valid (please note that that is the conditional "when". I am not expecting the draft to be reinstated :p).
<a href="http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/">Think again.</a>
classicman2
08-22-05, 11:58 AM
Thousands and thousands of people took to the street during the Vietnam War.
The reason you don't see that today - we don't have a draft today.
Goldblum
08-22-05, 12:17 PM
:thumbsup:
Vietnam went so badly, it's become shorthand for "this war sucks". It's overused.
When we start the draft up again, then the comparison will become more valid (please note that that is the conditional "when". I am not expecting the draft to be reinstated :p).
Conditional when = if
sfsdfd
08-22-05, 12:55 PM
Vietnam went so badly, it's become shorthand for "this war sucks". It's overused.
The term "Vietnam" has a much more specific meaning than that. It refers to a war that has far outlived the reason for its inception, that continues to drain resources and lives, and that doesn't have a visible exit strategy.
- David Stein
X
08-22-05, 12:59 PM
Anyone know the last visible exit strategy we've had?
VinVega
08-22-05, 01:02 PM
Anyone know the last visible exit strategy we've had?
Gulf War I.
Tracer Bullet
08-22-05, 01:04 PM
Conditional when = if
Perhaps in "traditional" English...
Damn, I useed to be the goodest with grammar, to.
Tracer Bullet
08-22-05, 01:09 PM
The term "Vietnam" has a much more specific meaning than that. It refers to a war that has far outlived the reason for its inception, that continues to drain resources and lives, and that doesn't have a visible exit strategy.
- David Stein
I don't know abou that. I agree with your first point, but the second two seem a bit disingenious to me. What was the exit strategy for WWI, besides "beat the bad guys"? And, show me a war that doesn't "continue to drain resources and lives".
mosquitobite
08-22-05, 01:19 PM
Strategy? The WMD nullification strategy? The people welcoming the US as liberators strategy? The we need more troops/the troop strength is enough strategy? The last throes of the insurgents / the 12 year strategy? The war/struggle stragtegy?
This administration changes strategies more often than most of their supporters change their underwear.
You're confusing media hype as strategies. Their end goal is to get the Iraqi's to be able to sustain and defend themselves. It's never changed. That's when we'll leave.
Now as for strategy on how to obtain that, that's what I meant by saying why does the media or the public have to be informed of every inch of that? Since when?
My biggest beef with the "laying out a timeline" cry is at face value it might make Democrats feel good, but it'll also make the terrorists very happy too. Then they know exactly when to wait around until (when we leave).
In fact, I told my husband the other night, IF they were smart, they'd stop the insurgency and make everyone feel happy that it's peaceful, wait for the Americans to leave and then do whatever the hell it is they're happy to do (kill people I suppose).
In the end, I am not happy we're there, but there IS no alternative. And the people screaming for us to get out, just don't GET IT.
nemein
08-22-05, 01:40 PM
Gulf War I.
How so? We still had troops in the area from the time of GW1 until GW2. I think one could also make a reasonable argument that because of the "exit strategy" we used in GW1 it lead to GW2.
X
08-22-05, 02:04 PM
Gulf War I.And most people would probably say that didn't work out so well.
classicman2
08-22-05, 02:04 PM
Anyone know the last visible exit strategy we've had?
We've never had one to my knowledge.
On second thought - The Gulf War.
X
08-22-05, 02:07 PM
We've never had one to my knowledge.We had one in the Balkins. ;)
I believe successful exit strategies have always been "we'll leave some time after we beat the bad guys". All you need then is a successful war strategy and the will to win the war.
classicman2
08-22-05, 02:07 PM
How so? We still had troops in the area from the time of GW1 until GW2. I think one could also make a reasonable argument that because of the "exit strategy" we used in GW1 it lead to GW2.
I seriously doubt that a reasonable person could make that argument. ;)
VinVega
08-22-05, 02:28 PM
And most people would probably say that didn't work out so well.
Why's that? Did we achieve our objectives there?
X
08-22-05, 02:32 PM
Why's that? Did we achieve our objectives there?Sure, but it didn't turn out to be a good long term objective. It turned out about as good as forcing Germany out of France and then declaring victory and leaving would have been.
nemein
08-22-05, 02:56 PM
I seriously doubt that a reasonable person could make that argument. ;)
:confused: I don't see how a reasonable person could come up w/ any other conclusion. We left SH in power and failed to support an uprising that we in part created, we helped setup debilitating sanctions, a structure was created that allowed him to sell of the country's natural resources to line his own pockets, we allowed him to play hide and seek for many years w/ inspectors... All of which went to create the situation that allowed Bush to make a case for going into Iraq. Had any of the "exit strategy" from GW1 been handled differently we either would have dealt w/ all this back then or a better situation may have been created that would have avoided GW2 (although what that situation might have been I'm not sure off hand).
Or by "exit strategy" do you mean just how we remove the troops and damn all the other considerations? In that sense I agree, GW1 had a clear set of goals that we attained and then we "left" (for the most part). IMHO the goals were wrong from the onset and obviously weren't an "exit strategy" because we remained there and had to go back.
VinVega
08-22-05, 03:16 PM
Sure, but it didn't turn out to be a good long term objective. It turned out about as good as forcing Germany out of France and then declaring victory and leaving would have been.
I don't remember us walking away from the ME after the 1st Gulf War. We had a no-fly zone in place that kept Iraq in check. I'd take the occasional punitive bombing mission over the course of action this adminsitration chose.
In Gulf War I, the Powell doctrine worked. We have since abandoned that type of thinking, although the scaling down of what can be considered victory is a step in the right direction by the administration. Don't ask more of your forces than they can provide. By lowering the bar, we're making a more realistic goal for our forces to achieve, which overall will be a good thing. Of course, in Gulf War I, the bar was set from day one and was clear as a bell and was achieved.
VinVega
08-22-05, 03:18 PM
Or by "exit strategy" do you mean just how we remove the troops and damn all the other considerations? In that sense I agree, GW1 had a clear set of goals that we attained and then we "left" (for the most part). IMHO the goals were wrong from the onset and obviously weren't an "exit strategy" because we remained there and had to go back.
I think that's the main point of contention of this whole war. "Had to", or "wanted to"?
X
08-22-05, 03:21 PM
I don't remember us walking away from the ME after the 1st Gulf War. We had a no-fly zone in place that kept Iraq in check. I'd take the occasional punitive bombing mission over the course of action this adminsitration chose.
In Gulf War I, the Powell doctrine worked. We have since abandoned that type of thinking, although the scaling down of what can be considered victory is a step in the right direction by the administration. Don't ask more of your forces than they can provide. By lowering the bar, we're making a more realistic goal for our forces to achieve, which overall will be a good thing. Of course, in Gulf War I, the bar was set from day one and was clear as a bell and was achieved.We set up bases in Saudi Arabia to keep Saddam in check (if you recall, Saudi Arabia was thought to be next on his list after Kuwait). A big part of the rationale for bin Laden's attacks against the West was those bases.
classicman2
08-22-05, 03:26 PM
Why does Powell get credit for the "Powell Doctrine?"
The idea (doctrine) has been around longer than I've been around.
BTW: Powell violated his own doctrine. He was opposed to the further destruction of the Iraqi military - mainly the Republican guard, and was primarily responsible for preventing the area commander in doing so, because it was his desire to do so.
VinVega
08-22-05, 03:30 PM
We set up bases in Saudi Arabia to keep Saddam in check (if you recall, Saudi Arabia was thought to be next on his list after Kuwait). A big part of the rationale for bin Laden's attacks against the West was those bases.
So we should have had the forethought to understand Bin Laden and his movement when we were planning Gulf War I? The first World Trade Center Bombing wasn't until 1993. :hscratch:
X
08-22-05, 03:33 PM
So we should have had the forethought to understand Bin Laden and his movement when we were planning Gulf War I? The first World Trade Center Bombing wasn't until 1993. :hscratch:No, we should have used the traditional winning exit strategy of defeating the enemy, deposing their leaders, and occupying their territory until the situation was stable enough to leave.
VinVega
08-22-05, 03:37 PM
No, we should have used the traditional winning exit strategy of defeating the enemy, deposing their leaders, and occupying their territory until the situation was stable enough to leave.
Well, if we would have used that rationale for Gulf War I, we would have been going it alone as the coalition would have crumbled. Very similar to what is happening now.
X
08-22-05, 03:39 PM
Then maybe that's the war we shouldn't have got involved in under those terms. Coincidently, the one with the visible exit strategy.
VinVega
08-22-05, 03:44 PM
Then maybe that's the war we shouldn't have got involved in under those terms. Coincidently, the one with the visible exit strategy.
You mean the one where success is measured by the citizens of Iraq having to continue to suffer terrorist attacks, just not at the same pace as right now? I'm sure if we told the Germans that, they'd be thrilled.
X
08-22-05, 03:45 PM
:confused:
How many Iraqis died between Gulf War I and II?
VinVega
08-22-05, 04:08 PM
:confused:
How many Iraqis died between Gulf War I and II?
They died because we didn't have a good enough exit strategy. Not like the one we have now. ;)
Honestly, I don't know, but we weren't in charge of the country. If you want to blame the US for every Iraqi killed by Saddam's forces from 1991 through 2003, that's up to you. Bush I should have backed up the Shiites when they had their uprising, of course we feared an Islamic state coming in the wake of a Shiite victory, so we let them get pummled by Iraq. I think we learned our lesson when we implemented the no-fly zone.
It's just somewhat ironic that we are engaged in the "War on Terror" and our current exit strategy in Iraq leaves a higher level of terrorism on the ground then what existed before we went in. Just doesn't seem to make much sense.
classicman2
08-22-05, 05:18 PM
:confused:
How many Iraqis died between Gulf War I and II?
One can argue that the reason many Irqis died between the Gulf War & the War in Iraq was due to the U. S. sponsored sanctions.
DarkestPhoenix
08-22-05, 07:23 PM
I still like Iraq.
How the hell did the Edit King edit Thor's post?
King, indeed.
X
08-22-05, 08:02 PM
One can argue that the reason many Irqis died between the Gulf War & the War in Iraq was due to the U. S. sponsored sanctions....that some people wanted to continue up to today. That would show Saddam!
And now with the revelations about the Food for Oil program we see how well that was really working.
Buy: