GOP Senator Says Iraq Looking Like Vietnam

[Sgt Sostand]

WASHINGTON - A leading Republican senator and prospective presidential candidate said Sunday that the war in Iraq has destabilized the Middle East and is looking more like the Vietnam conflict from a generation ago.

Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, who received two Purple Hearts and other military honors for his service in Vietnam, reiterated his position that the United States needs to develop a strategy to leave Iraq. Hagel scoffed at the idea that U.S. troops could be in Iraq four years from now at levels above 100,000, a contingency for which the Pentagon is preparing.

"We should start figuring out how we get out of there," Hagel said on "This Week" on ABC. "But with this understanding, we cannot leave a vacuum that further destabilizes the Middle East. I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur."

Hagel said "stay the course" is not a policy. "By any standard, when you analyze 2 1/2 years in Iraq ... we're not winning," he said.

President Bush was preparing for separate speeches this week to reaffirm his plan to help Iraq train its security forces while its leaders build a democratic government. In his weekly Saturday radio address, Bush said the fighting there protected Americans at home.

Polls show the public growing more skeptical about Bush's handling of the war.

In Iraq, officials continued to craft a new constitution in the face of a Monday night deadline for parliamentary approval. They missed the initial deadline last week.

Other Republican senators appearing on Sunday news shows advocated remaining in Iraq until the mission set by Bush is completed, but they also noted that the public is becoming more and more concerned and needs to be reassured.

Sen. George Allen, R-Va., another possible candidate for president in 2008, disagreed that the U.S. is losing in Iraq. He said a constitution guaranteeing basic freedoms would provide a rallying point for Iraqis.

"I think this is a very crucial time for the future of Iraq," said Allen, also on ABC. "The terrorists don't have anything to win the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq. All they care to do is disrupt."

Hagel, who was among those who advocated sending two to three times as many troops to Iraq when the war began in March 2003, said a stronger military presence by the U.S. is not the solution today.

"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 who fought the U.S., 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."

The Army's top general, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, said Saturday in an interview with The Associated Press that the Army is planning for the possibility of keeping the current number of soldiers in Iraq - well over 100,000 - for four more years as part of preparations for a worst-case scenario.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said U.S. security is tied to success in Iraq, and he counseled people to be patient.

"The worst-case scenario is not staying four years. The worst-case scenario is leaving a dysfunctional, repressive government behind that becomes part of the problem in the war on terror and not the solution," Graham said on "Fox News Sunday.

Allen said the military would be strained at such levels in four years yet could handle that difficult assignment. Hagel described the Army contingency plan as "complete folly."

"I don't know where he's going to get these troops," Hagel said. "There won't be any National Guard left ... no Army Reserve left ... there is no way America is going to have 100,000 troops in Iraq, nor should it, in four years."

Hagel added: "It would bog us down, it would further destabilize the Middle East, it would give Iran more influence, it would hurt Israel, it would put our allies over there in Saudi Arabia and Jordan in a terrible position. It won't be four years. We need to be out."

Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said the U.S. is winning in Iraq but has "a way to go" before it meets its goals there. Meanwhile, more needs to be done to lay out the strategy, Lott said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"I do think we, the president, all of us need to do a better job, do more," Lott said, by telling people "why we have made this commitment, what is being done now, what we do expect in the process and, yes, why it's going to take more time."

[Namvet67]

Senator Hagel was in Vietnam and is qualified to make the comparison statement! It appears that way to me as well!

[Sgt Sostand]

Only One Reply. This is a Loaded gun to some Marines

[Namvet67]

You are right Sgt Sostand....very loaded and hard to deal with but the truth is the truth! While it may be similar to Vietnam...it ain't Nam. We just have to be careful with the message that is being sent to those troups who are there! Our troups have a full support and they know it! This is a very debatable subject and there are many vets that really aren't into debate. We have a good CIC and i am sure he is listening to the commanders in the field and he will do what is best for the troups. Semper Fi

[Joseph P Carey]

I see that Sen. Chuck Hagel has not learned anything from Vietnam! When an enemy is so thoroughly defeated and his only hope and salvation is negociation, who best to go to but the US Congress to win their war?

Congress has sold us out before! That is what I remember about Vietnam! Congress not only sold us out as citizens of the USA, but the South Vietnamese People, and the Servicemen that gave their all for what they believed in!

There is nothing new here! The President says, "This war against Terrorism will take a very long time to win. It will take years to win! We will have many a sacrifice to make in those years to come." Congress said, "We are behind you all the way Mr President, all the way!"

Now, it comes time to stand behind the President, and the Congress is reading the polls! If I remember correctly, if we believe in polls that is, it would be President Kerry in office right now. Polls are nothing more than questions asked to support an opinion and belief of the person paying for the poll!

This is not Vietnam! It is nowhere near Vietnam! But, if we leave, it will be no different than what was Vietnam!

Namvet, do you like tucking that tail between your legs? I don't! I would like to finish the job before I call it a day!

[Namvet67]

No I don't like tucking my tail between my legs Joseph! When I was in Nam I finished my job and went home. I really didn't pay a lot of attention to what was being said about Vietnam. I was even willing to stay a little longer but the Corps said the time has come for you to go home. The question is....when is the job finished? Do we make that call or does the President? Did we win in Vietnam or did we just stay too long?

[hrscowboy]

Gentlemen, Gentlemen I dont give a rats behind what people think about Vietnam, as far as I am concerned WE BEAT THERE ARSES, THE AMERICAN VETERAN HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IF WE STAY OR COME HOME. We all know who makes that call.. Enuff said...

[Dual Fool]

Sounds like political positioning to me...just trying to seem more moderate or atractive to the left. I say screw the polititions and anyone else that does not support our President and our troops in harms way. We've taken the fight to the enemy and now when there is light at the end of the tunnel some of the "Rats" are ready to jump ship. If you don't support our troops then I say your guilty of sedition and treason. The liberals always ask "Do you question my patriotism?" when they are called on the carpet for their treasonous and seditious statments. It's high time we called a spade a spade and question their patriotism. How can they say I support the troops just not the war. That's like saying I'm a Chicago Bears fan but I don't want them to win and I'm glad their Quarterback got hurt. You have the right to free speach NOT SEDITION!

[greensideout]

Originally posted by Dual Fool
Sounds like political positioning to me...just trying to seem more moderate or atractive to the left. I say screw the polititions and anyone else that does not support our President and our troops in harms way. We've taken the fight to the enemy and now when there is light at the end of the tunnel some of the "Rats" are ready to jump ship. If you don't support our troops then I say your guilty of sedition and treason. The liberals always ask "Do you question my patriotism?" when they are called on the carpet for their treasonous and seditious statments. It's high time we called a spade a spade and question their patriotism. How can they say I support the troops just not the war. That's like saying I'm a Chicago Bears fan but I don't want them to win and I'm glad their Quarterback got hurt. You have the right to free speach NOT SEDITION!

Yes Dual Fool, you can support the troops and be against the war. Just give me a reason that our fine troops should be ingaged in this war? You tell me what they are dying for? You tell me what they are giving up body parts for? Tell me why we are at war in Iraq? Yes, I support our troops but question the need for THIS war. You tell me why we are there and I will listen, but don't tell me that I can't support the troops and find fault in the reason that we are there at the same time. Get your head out of the sand!

[Joseph P Carey]

Originally posted by Namvet67
No I don't like tucking my tail between my legs Joseph! When I was in Nam I finished my job and went home. I really didn't pay a lot of attention to what was being said about Vietnam. I was even willing to stay a little longer but the Corps said the time has come for you to go home. The question is....when is the job finished? Do we make that call or does the President? Did we win in Vietnam or did we just stay too long?

To answer that Question of 'when the war is over', I will ask you when the Second World War was ended, and how was it ended?

I will await your answer. Your answer should answer your own question.

[Dual Fool]

greensideout..Son my head is not in the sand but I know where yours is. You can take the fight to the enemy or you can let them take it to you. We did not start this, the enemy did. If WE don't fight this on our terms then we will fight it on theirs. But make no mistake we will fight this. And NO, you most certainly cannot support the troops and not believe in what they are doing. If they were not at war abroad we would be fighting this in the US. This fight is going to be fought in the streets of Bahgdad our Baltimore, Takrit or Tacoma. MY President made the right choice. You seem to have a very short memory, four years ago next month we got sucker punched and now we need to stop that from happening again by any means necessary. Every generation has their challenges this is it for mine. I do not want my children to have to fight this when they are old enough I want this done now. If that is not a good enough reason then I question alot more then your intellect. Evil must be met head on, a bully must be punched in the gut and taken to charge for what he has done. Do you not think that the Iraqi people are better off w/out Saddam. I guess it was ok to liberate Nazi concentration camps in 1945, Manchuriun deathcamps in 1945 but these inocent people wanting to be free from oppression don't deserve it huh? Sooner or later Saddam was going to have enough enriched plutonium to really help Al Quida. Having him out of power is a good reason, saving many thousands of Iraqi and US citezens is another. I saw first hand what this man was capable of and many of my friends that are still in and have been over there will tell you the same thing.....We have to finish this now, and what we're doing is RIGHT. Like it or not we have world resposibility also. As the only super-power left we have to from time to time bust somebody in the mouth. Semper Fi and AMEN!

[vfm]

The reason this situation in Iraq is starting to look like Nam has nothing to do with our troops . The military is doing their job just like we did in Nam.
What makes this situation like Nam is the G@#D@#* politicians dividing our country for their own political gains and not rallying around the Commander in Chief during war time.
We got the same oldpeaceniks out there . Hanoi Jane is now Baghdad "Bag Lady" trying to start Sh**all over again.
If our country is to remain the best place in the world to live we as Americans have to once again show our patriotism that our parents and grandparents had during WWII.
The reason that this country is called the United States isn't because we have a bunch of states stuck next to each other ;but because the people that are citizens of this country are supposed to be United behind their leaders in troubled times.
SEMPER FI!!!
vfm

[Joseph P Carey]

Originally posted by Joseph P Carey


To answer that Question of 'when the war is over', I will ask you when the Second World War was ended, and how was it ended?

I will await your answer. Your answer should answer your own question.

Greenside,

To answer my own question, because you can't, on December 31, 1946, President Harry S Truman officially proclaimed the end of World War Two.

Your question of when will this all end is answered as, 'When the President of the United States proclaims it so', and not a day sooner.

Please note: Germany surrendered May 7th, 1945, and Japan surrendered unofficially August 14th, 1945, and Officially September 2nd, 1945. The war did not end until December 31st, 1946. There were deaths that occurred after the surrender of both countries, while the countries were in occupation by US Troops, but they were not listed seperate from World War Two deaths, because we were still at war. Also, the media was not informed of deaths in the occupied territories.
Note Added: US Troops are still in Germany, and US Troops are still in Japan!

Now! What is your point about the boys coming home, and the wanting of a withdrawl date of the troops? If we include the Conflict in Korea along with World War II, I do not see a precedence to bring home the 'Boys'.

That should answer your question!

[Dual Fool]

VFM & Sgt. Carey, I thankyou for your comments and respect your opinions. I have no patience for those that would divide and weaken our country. I have not the stomach for war, I've seen enough blood. But I know that this must be done, and done completely. Thankyou again and SEMPER FI

[greensideout]

Originally posted by Joseph P Carey


Greenside,

To answer my own question, because you can't, on December 31, 1946, President Harry S Truman officially proclaimed the end of World War Two.

Your question of when will this all end is answered as, 'When the President of the United States proclaims it so', and not a day sooner.

Please note: Germany surrendered May 7th, 1945, and Japan surrendered unofficially August 14th, 1945, and Officially September 2nd, 1945. The war did not end until December 31st, 1946. There were deaths that occurred after the surrender of both countries, while the countries were in occupation by US Troops, but they were not listed seperate from World War Two deaths, because we were still at war. Also, the media was not informed of deaths in the occupied territories.
Note Added: US Troops are still in Germany, and US Troops are still in Japan!

Now! What is your point about the boys coming home, and the wanting of a withdrawl date of the troops? If we include the Conflict in Korea along with World War II, I do not see a precedence to bring home the 'Boys'.

That should answer your question!

Sure I want the troops home and so does the Presdident. A reduction of the forces as soon as possable is what he is now trying to achieve. I believe that he received some bad advice going into Iraq and is now working on repairing a bad call.

BTW, Don't try to put words in my mouth---I would never call our troops "boys".