Hagel: An objective observation of Iraq

[George Gervin's Afro]

Ray,Yoni,Snake,whott.. you may not want to read this.


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RobertDNovak/2007/04/30/hagel_on_iraq


WASHINGTON -- Sen. Chuck Hagel returned from his fifth visit to Iraq to join Senate Democrats last Thursday as one of two Republicans voting to begin withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. It was not an easy vote for a conservative party regular and faithful supporter of President George W. Bush's non-Iraq policies. A few days earlier, Hagel sat down with me to paint a bleak picture of the war and U.S. policy.

Over a dozen years, I have had many such conversations with Hagel not for quotation. This time, I asked him to go on the record about his assessment of what the "surge" has accomplished. In language more blunt than his prepared speeches and articles, he described Iraq as "coming undone," with its regime "weaker by the day." He deplored the Bush administration's failure to craft a coherent Middle East policy, blaming the influence of Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams.



In this Feb. 21, 2007, file photo, Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., speaks during an appearance at Bellevue University, in Bellevue, Neb. Hagel will announce plans for his political future amid speculation he may run for president. (AP Photo/Nati Harnik) Hagel faces a political paradox as he ponders a career decision -- to run for president, seek re-election next year or get out of elective politics. His harsh assessment resonates with many Republicans who believe Bush's war policy has led the party to disaster. Yet, this message faces rejection by GOP primary voters, and he is under attack from the Right at home in Nebraska (with 38-year-old state Atty. Gen. Jon Bruning threatening to run against him).

After his latest visit to Baghdad, Fallujah, Ramadi and Anbar Province, Hagel told me: "This thing is really coming undone quickly, and [Prime Minister Nouri al-]Maliki's government is weaker by the day. The police are corrupt, top to bottom. The oil problem is a huge problem. They still can't get anything through the parliament -- no hydrocarbon law, no de-Baathification law, no provincial elections [needed to bring Sunnis into the governing process]."

The regional problem, as described by Hagel, is a U.S. policy breakdown with a failure to engage Iran and Syria. "I do know that there are a number of Israelis who would like to engage Syria," said Hagel. "They have said that Elliott Abrams keeps pushing them back." He quoted foreign ministers, ambassadors and former U.S. officials as saying they believe Abrams "is making policy in the Middle East."

Hagel certainly is no peace-now zealot. "We're not going to precipitously pull out," he told me. "We have [national] interests in Iraq." While he asserted "we can't get out by the end of the year," he called for "pulling some of our guys out -- not all of them, but you've got to get them out of at least, get them out of the middle of civil war." If not, Hagel said, "then the prospects of the Republican Party are very dim next year."

[B]What about claims by proponents of the Iraqi intervention that failure to stop the terrorists in Iraq will open the door to them in the American homeland?

"That's nonsense," Hagel replied. "I've never believed that. That's the same kind of rhetoric and thinking that neo-cons used to get us into this mess, and everything that [Donald] Rumsfeld, [Paul] Wolfowitz, [Richard] Perle, [Douglas] Feith and the vice president all said. Nothing turned out the way they said it would."

It is "nonsense," Hagel said, because "Iraq is not embroiled in a terrorist war today." A member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, he cited "national intelligence" attributing "maybe 10 percent of the insurgency and violence" to al Qaeda. Indeed, he described Shias, Sunnis and Kurds as opposed to al Qaeda: "They don't like the terrorists. What's happened in Anbar Province is the tribes are finally starting to connect with us because al Qaeda started killing some of their leadership and threatening their people. So the tribes now are at war with al Qaeda."

"So," said Hagel, "when I hear people say, 'Well, if we leave them to that, it will be chaos.' What do you think is going on now? Scaring the American people into this blind alley is so dangerous."

These judgments come from someone credited with rebuilding Nebraska's Republican Party who has a lifetime American Conservative Union record of 85.2 percent. Hagel represents millions of Republicans who are repelled by the Democratic personal assault on President Bush but deeply unhappy about his course in Iraq.






What about claims by proponents of the Iraqi intervention that failure to stop the terrorists in Iraq will open the door to them in the American homeland?

"That's nonsense," Hagel replied. "I've never believed that. That's the same kind of rhetoric and thinking that neo-cons used to get us into this mess, and everything that [Donald] Rumsfeld, [Paul] Wolfowitz, [Richard] Perle, [Douglas] Feith and the vice president all said. Nothing turned out the way they said it would."

It is "nonsense," Hagel said, because "Iraq is not embroiled in a terrorist war today." A member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, he cited "national intelligence" attributing "maybe 10 percent of the insurgency and violence" to al Qaeda. Indeed, he described Shias, Sunnis and Kurds as opposed to al Qaeda: "They don't like the terrorists. What's happened in Anbar Province is the tribes are finally starting to connect with us because al Qaeda started killing some of their leadership and threatening their people. So the tribes now are at war with al Qaeda."



But we keep hearing that if we leave they will follow us here...? What will the bush apologists say now? Hagel is PROVING the Dems have it right on this one..I know Bushies he's surrendering..

[clambake]

If Hagel said all this, then fuck him.

This thread is another attempt to sabotage my soaring casket and flag stocks. April has been a very profitable month, thank you W.

[clambake]

Bush said "I talk to God, and God talks to me and gives me direction".

So blame God, or admit Bush gives phony expressions of faith.

You choose.

[xrayzebra]

So Hagel wants to be President, and wants
the MSM on his side, so he attacks Bush.
What the hell is new.

Read his views and tell me if this is the man
who knows what he is talking about. Don't
think so. "We aren't fighting terrorist in
Iraq". Who the hell is AQ? Oh, I forgot they
are insurgents.

[clambake]

People always ragging on Bush.

It takes guts to push a disaster to the end. I just hope he sets fire to the oil wells during retreat. That'll teach'em.

[RandomGuy]

Egads, an honest Republican who actually seems to
1) understand what is going on and
2) can demonstrate a grasp of relevant facts.

If he DID run, I might actually briefly consider voting for him, before remembering that the rest of his party can't seem to get either 1) or 2) right, and voting for the Dimm-o-craps anyways.

This former independent has been VERY soured on the GOP and it would take a LOT of Hagels to get me to vote for any of them again.

[ChumpDumper]

So Hagel wants to be President, and wants
the MSM on his side, so he attacks Bush.
What the hell is new.

Read his views and tell me if this is the man
who knows what he is talking about. Don't
think so. "We aren't fighting terrorist in
Iraq". Who the hell is AQ? Oh, I forgot they
are insurgents.x, you might want to listen to the general on the ground to get a definition of whom we are fighting.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9910477

[Yonivore]

I don't know what NPR has to say about what General Petraeus is saying but, here's an interesting point about his recent secret breifing to the Intelligence Committee and Congressional leaders [who bothered to attend].

There’s been a marked difference between what Republicans are saying about Petraeus’ comments and what Democrats are saying. Who do we believe? Cynics will want to believe the Democrats, optimists will want to believe the Republicans, but we can actually settle the problem of which side more accurately portrays Petraeus’ comments just by looking at some of the other comments on Iraq the General has made publicly.

An exercise that exposes the Democrats for a bunch of manipulative liars

So, what does General Petraeus say about the biggest threat to U. S. forces and stability in Iraq?


Al-Qaida, the shadowy terrorist group responsible for the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and whose involvement with Iraq - later disproved - was cited by President Bush as a key reason to invade four years ago. Iran also is causing trouble.

“Al-Qaida, he made clear, continues to make this the central front in their war with us,” Boehner said. “And I would remind everyone that we didn’t start this war with al-Qaida, they started it. ... And they are the major foe that we face in Iraq today.”


Homegrown insurgents and the rampant violence between Sunnis and Shiites.

“Gen. Petraeus made it very clear that the sectarian violence was the most disruptive element,” Hoyer said.


"Iraq is, in fact, the central front of al Qaeda’s global campaign.”

Q: You say that Iraq is now the central focus of al Qaeda’s worldwide effort. Are you saying that al Qaeda in Iraq is now the sort of principal enemy of the U.S. forces stationed there?

General Petraeus: I think it is probably public enemy number one.

Imagine that, Al Qaeda in Iraq is public enemy number one. Meaning that the Iraq war is very much a part of the global war on terror. A war that is tying up terrorist resources in Iraq so that they can’t use them to launch attacks on targets here at home.

A war the Democrats want to give up on.

This according to the General in charge of all military operations in Iraq. A general appointed to his position by a unanimous vote of not just Republicans in the Senate, but the majority Democrats as well.

Like the previous poster said, you might want to listen to the General on the ground to get a definition of whom we are fighting.

[clambake]

Finally, we know who we're fighting, that only took 4+ years. Now its slam dunk time. This shouldn't take more than a couple weeks, then , all of Iraq will be the green zone. Is it time to start planning that 20 million $ party yet? Who should we invite?

Although, we shouldn't have stated, out loud, that we know who they are. Secrets are so hard to keep.

[boutons_]

"An exercise that exposes the Democrats for a bunch of manipulative liars"

The Repugs lied their way into Iraq. The Tenet book shows more clearly. More info from more insiders and investigative journalists will be forthcoming.

It extremely clear to non-dubya-suckers that Repugs/WHIG/neo-cunts have far out-lied for 6 years any alleged lies of the Dems now.

"Al Qaeda in Iraq is public enemy number one"

In Iraq, public enemy #1 IN FUCKING IRAQ, not in USA.

And enemy in Iraq NOW exclusiveley because of dubya's bullshit war and broken Iraq invited AQ to Iraq, to fight the US military as exposed, sitting ducks. 3300+ dead, 100 in April alone, and the Iraqi monthly death toll continues at previous levels.

AQ is still estimated tiny %age, 10%?, of total insurgents in Iraq. 1000 more AQ now than in Mar 2003. 90% of US casualties are due to Sunni/Baathist insurgents, those who lost control of Iraq and who risk losing the most in the future. There is apparently a backlash even among Iraqi Sunnis against Sunni AQ. The Iraqis want Iraq for themselves. They don't want foreigners like US and AQ in Iraq.

[boutons_]

No one can blame Petraeus for anything in Iraq. He's was the consensus choice for the the "surge", but the failure of the surge will not be Petraeus' fault. He is in an unwinnable situation.

Petraeus says he needs many more years:

"All September can do is provide a preliminary assessment of the surge in Baghdad," he said. "There's a tendency in Washington to try to get everything done by 2008. But a lot of this (military effort) has to go on to 2010 or 2013 if you're going to succeed. Only failure is quick."

Failue isn't quick. Failure is already accomplished.

[xrayzebra]

Gee thanks boutons, you and reid certainly know what you are
talking about, so guess all the rest of us should just shut up.

And reid is intentionally spelled with a small "r". He is a small
person like you.

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao @ Yoni

Wouldn't it have made a little more sense to not make the war on terra ALSO a war on thousands of Shia and Sunni at the same time?

Of course not, the Iraq War was always about Al Qaeda.

It never was about WMDs.

Or Saddam.

Just Al Qaeda.

Because they are all there.

And always were.

Except when they weren't.

And aren't.

Which is never.

[ChumpDumper]

Please Yoni find me a quote from the administration or the military before the war saying they were planning on an insurgency and foreign terrorists flooding into the country.

I'm sure Wolfowitz said something like that in between answering personal ads.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't know what NPR has to say about what General Petraeus is sayingIt was the general himself talking.

Thanks for demonstrating your willfull ignorance, though.

[sabar]

Iraq isn't about terrorism. Al Qaeda just happened to show up and give a reason to actually stay. Ironic that their presence there to get rid of us is just keeping us in there longer.

It's like obtaining a warrant to search a house for a serial killer, and when you don't find him, you justify ransacking the place when you find a bag of weed.