Monday, August 22, 2005

Vietnaminization of Iraq

So Chuck Hagel is on board with forcing Iraq into the Vietnam mold. The terrorist/insurgents must just be loving this.
"We should start figuring out how we get out of there," Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said on ABC's "This Week." "I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur."
I'd love to know why he thinks the presence of the US military is destabilizing the area. I'd also like to understand what he thinks on the potential for a Sunni/Shia sectarian civil war should the US withdraw as he is demanding.
"It seems that the ice is cracking in a bipartisan way in terms of congressional dissatisfaction with President Bush's policy in Iraq. The silence in terms of directly criticizing the administration's handling of Iraq — its mismanagement — has come to an end," said Marshall Wittmann, a senior fellow at the Democratic Leadership Council. Although his independent centrist organization is affiliated with the Democratic Party, Wittmann formerly served as a senior aide to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and in the administration of President George H.W. Bush.
I'm so very tired of the "mismanagement" gripe. I keep hearing it, but never hear them present any real information that shows irrefutable evidence of mismanagement. But then, I also fail to understand a group calling itself "independent centrist" and being affiliated with a single party. Doesn't strike me as being quite honest.
Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), the former majority leader, said that his constituents, despite their "very pro-military" feelings, were beginning to question whether the United States was doing enough to help establish an independent Iraqi government and make enough progress to allow troop withdrawals anytime soon.

"They still believe very strongly in President Bush," Lott said on NBC's "Meet the Press," citing recent conversations with frustrated constituents. "But they have a right to ask their elected officials, you know, 'What is the plan?' "
The plan, the plan, what is the plan. Do you really think there is no withdrawl plan? Just take a second and think about the military. They rarely have any situation without a plan of some sort, and a huge theater most definitely has one. The problem I see in telling the plan is that people demand time-tables with plans. With the situation being rather fluid in Iraq at the moment, I find it unlikely that there is a defined time-table.

Personally, I believe we have already been told the withdrawl plan. The problem is that the plan that is known is vague. Iraq needs to get it's military/police establishments self standing and in place. They need a constitution and an elected government. They require a more stable environment between the Islamic sects, which should come with the government stabilization.
Hagel, however, said that it was the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq that was causing the destabilization, and that the administration needed to start articulating its long-range plans for withdrawal immediately or risk having Iraq become as politically costly as the Vietnam War.
The only destabilization that is occurring, which is caused by the US military, is related to the insurgents. Note that 14 or 15 of the providences of Iraq are stable. Also note that most of the insurgents are attacking Iraqi citizens more than they are attacking the US military. Odd that don't you think?

Politically costly? What? Oh, wait. Hagel is looking to run for president in 2008. He's posturing a centrist position and worried that because he's republican he'll be branded with the results of Iraq. Bloody politician.
"We are locked into a bogged-down problem not unsimilar or dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam. The longer we stay, the more problems we are going to have," Hagel said. He was particularly harsh in his criticism of Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, for saying in an Associated Press interview a day earlier that the Pentagon was making contingency plans for having more than 100,000 U.S. troops in Iraq through 2009.

Such plans, even if they are a worst-case and unlikely scenario, are "complete folly," Hagel said. "There's no way America is going to have 100,000 troops in Iraq, nor should it, in four years."
Hagel demands to be told about withdrawl plans, but when he hears of plans for staying, he starts screeching. Plans don't indicate intentions. Plans are put in place to ensure you know what you need and where you need resources should an issue arise. You'd think being an adult that Hagel would understand such a concept. But then, it doesn't sound as good politically.


Granted said...

I heard part of a quote from that on the radio this morning that almost caused me to drive off the road. He said something like "We're losing the war, so when will we start to pull out."
First off, we're not bloody losing. Secondly, even if we were, the answer is not to cut & run, but to bloody win. Did these schmucks learn nothing from Viet Nam?

geekwife said...

They're liberals. Apparently, that means they don't learn. How can they, when they so steadfastly refuse to acknowledge reality?