Hagel for SecDef

[SicEmBaylor]

I have no problem whatsoever with Hagel. I approve of this nomination, and I hope the Senate does as well.

The amount of consternation his nomination is causing neocons is delicious.

[okie52]

I hope the pubs tell Hagel to **** off.

[sappstuf]

So he voted for the war in Iraq and then changed his mind when public sentiment changed... Stand up guy.

He was against the surge, saying it was "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.” Turned out it was a great success.

He certainly SEEMS like he knows what he is talking about... Or not.

[okie52]

So he voted for the war in Iraq and then changed his mind when public sentiment changed... Stand up guy.

He was against the surge, saying it was "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.” Turned out it was a great success.

He certainly SEEMS like he knows what he is talking about... Or not.

Yep. Those would be 2 of the reasons why I'd be telling him to **** off.

[SoonerProphet]

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-hagel-dossier/

Iraq is something that Hagel likes to talk about—a lot. But it’s not what the CPAC faithful wanted to hear. In a recent interview in his Senate office, he explained why being conservative and condemning the Bush administration’s policy in Iraq—and in broader terms, Bush’s foreign policy in the Muslim world—aren’t mutually exclusive.

“Conservatives, I’ve always known, like this guy up there,” he said, gesturing to a framed picture of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, “and Reagan, Goldwater, and others—[Sen. Robert] Taft, Mr. Conservative—were very protective in conserving our resources. And what is more significant in a country’s resource inventory than its people, its army? I think we have used our military recklessly and carelessly. I don’t think that’s conservative.” He continued, “I find it fascinating sometimes when I am challenged on this. I think I am the real conservative on the Iraq debate here.”

President Bush’s loyal congressional supporters, bolstered by the base, beg to differ. They find Hagel’s brand of realist internationalism, his hammering away at the Iraq policy as a misbegotten adventure akin to the Vietnam War he nearly died in, quite noisome. They’ve called him an appeaser, a traitor even. A personally popular senator with 35-year-old ties to the Republican Party, his detractors have done everything to marginalize him.

[Midtowner]

So the do-nothing Congress isn't going anywhere. We're apparently going to have to go to war for simple judicial appointments. If the pubs can't even support the appointment of their own member, how can we expect any of them to be responsible with any respect? The President should have wide discretion to choose who he wants, especially since the Dems control the Senate. Opposing this nomination, the Republicans will just continue to show how out of touch they really are.

[okie52]

The do nothing congress....that's a good thing when it comes to enacting many of obamas policies. The dems have had the numbers for the last 6 years to get whomever they want approved by he senate so it doesn't matter what the pubs do.

Coburn has already said he won't support hagels nomination as he isn't qualified for the job. Better tell him that doesn't agree with your assessment, maybe he'll change his mind.

[SoonerProphet]

So he voted for the war in Iraq and then changed his mind when public sentiment changed... Stand up guy.

He was against the surge, saying it was "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.” Turned out it was a great success.

He certainly SEEMS like he knows what he is talking about... Or not.

To claim the surge was a "great success" is a stretch a best...laughable at its worst. As for changing his mind, many in the gop would be better served if they repudiated the folly that was the Iraq War.

In Mitch McConnels own words:

“Many of the predictions Chuck Hagel made about the war came true,” the Kentucky senator said in a brief interview after his remarks at a fundraising reception. “They have proven to be accurate.”

Hagel’s views on the war “have not diminished his effectiveness,” McConnell said, and may, in fact, increase his effectiveness over time.

[okie52]

To claim the surge was a "great success" is a stretch a best...laughable at its worst. As for changing his mind, many in the gop would be better served if they repudiated the folly that was the Iraq War.

In Mitch McConnels own words:

“Many of the predictions Chuck Hagel made about the war came true,” the Kentucky senator said in a brief interview after his remarks at a fundraising reception. “They have proven to be accurate.”

Hagel’s views on the war “have not diminished his effectiveness,” McConnell said, and may, in fact, increase his effectiveness over time.

Yep, the surge was such a failure in Iraq that Obama used it again in Afghanistan even after he was against the surge in Iraq.

Hagel sounds like the perfect fit for him.

[FaninAma]

Hagel is absolutely correct about the misuse of our military. Our military is used to prop up the US dollar as the world's reserve currency which in turn "encourages" other countries to prop up our debt.

You must ask yourselves, "Who in this country profits the most from the continued accumulation of massive debt?" And no, it isn't those addicted to government spending. Answer that question and you will have the answer to who really controls and misuses our military.

[SoonerProphet]

Yep, the surge was such a failure in Iraq that Obama used it again in Afghanistan even after he was against the surge in Iraq.

Hagel sounds like the perfect fit for him.

Yep, quite certain that the surge in Afghanistan will bring peace and prosperity...a great success if you will.

[okie52]

Yep, quite certain that the surge in Afghanistan will bring peace and prosperity...a great success if you will.


Obama has already ended the war in Afghanistan, hasn't he?

[KantoSooner]

You must ask yourselves, "Who in this country profits the most from the continued accumulation of massive debt?" And no, it isn't those addicted to government spending. Answer that question and you will have the answer to who really controls and misuses our military.

The Gnomes of Zurich? The Illuminati? Perhaps the Trilateralists?

Seriously, Presidents from either party should be given their choices for cabinet posts (not so much for judges who are in for life).
Hagel seems fairly reasonable (not totally, but who is?). Israel DOES run us around like a chihuahua on a leash. No, Chuck, the surge was a great success. But, like the Tet Offensive, everything connected with Iraq is now painted black by an oversimplifying press/academy in their jihad against W. But, on balance, he seems like a decent enough candidate.
And, as a former enlisted man, you'd have to think that, in an era of shrinking budgets, he'll at least look out for salaries and benefits for the troops.

[sappstuf]

So the do-nothing Congress isn't going anywhere. We're apparently going to have to go to war for simple judicial appointments. If the pubs can't even support the appointment of their own member, how can we expect any of them to be responsible with any respect? The President should have wide discretion to choose who he wants, especially since the Dems control the Senate. Opposing this nomination, the Republicans will just continue to show how out of touch they really are.

Up to 10 Dem Senators have made statements that show they may not support Hagel... Does that mean they are out of touch?

[FaninAma]

The Gnomes of Zurich? The Illuminati? Perhaps the Trilateralists?

Seriously, Presidents from either party should be given their choices for cabinet posts (not so much for judges who are in for life).
Hagel seems fairly reasonable (not totally, but who is?). Israel DOES run us around like a chihuahua on a leash. No, Chuck, the surge was a great success. But, like the Tet Offensive, everything connected with Iraq is now painted black by an oversimplifying press/academy in their jihad against W. But, on balance, he seems like a decent enough candidate.
And, as a former enlisted man, you'd have to think that, in an era of shrinking budgets, he'll at least look out for salaries and benefits for the troops.

I'm not a big World Order type of guy. I am big on believing that there are a group of very powerful and very GREEDY people in the world who are not above using their wealth and power to influence government policy in a way that benefits them to the detriment of the average citizen. If that makes me a tinfoil hat type then so be it.

[okie52]

The Gnomes of Zurich? The Illuminati? Perhaps the Trilateralists?

Seriously, Presidents from either party should be given their choices for cabinet posts (not so much for judges who are in for life).
Hagel seems fairly reasonable (not totally, but who is?). Israel DOES run us around like a chihuahua on a leash. No, Chuck, the surge was a great success. But, like the Tet Offensive, everything connected with Iraq is now painted black by an oversimplifying press/academy in their jihad against W. But, on balance, he seems like a decent enough candidate.
And, as a former enlisted man, you'd have to think that, in an era of shrinking budgets, he'll at least look out for salaries and benefits for the troops.

Just from a political point of view the pubs owe hagel nothing...in fact they really owe him a bloody nose.

[sappstuf]

To claim the surge was a "great success" is a stretch a best...laughable at its worst. As for changing his mind, many in the gop would be better served if they repudiated the folly that was the Iraq War.

In Mitch McConnels own words:

“Many of the predictions Chuck Hagel made about the war came true,” the Kentucky senator said in a brief interview after his remarks at a fundraising reception. “They have proven to be accurate.”

Hagel’s views on the war “have not diminished his effectiveness,” McConnell said, and may, in fact, increase his effectiveness over time.

To claim his prediction about the surge was "accurate" is a stretch at best.... laughable at its worse.

Actually that is incorrect... You cannot even stretch his prediction to anywhere near accurate.

[SoonerProphet]

How, by any metric, was the surge a success?

[TitoMorelli]

So why is so much attention on whether the 'pubs will turn on one of their own (in name, anyway), and not on an administration that insists on making such critical appointments based whatever political leverage it believes it may garner, instead of actually caring about what's best for the country?

[TitoMorelli]

How, by any metric, was the surge a success?

You can argue about whether the war in Iraq was worthwhile or whether it achieved its intended ends. But arguing that the surge, as part of the strategy there, was a failure is infantile. Even most Dems aren't stupid enough to attempt to claim that. (I said most)

[SoonerProphet]

Not interested in answering my question huh? Rather toss out infantile and partisan hackery.

[okie52]

http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af24/okie54/800px-OIF_fatalities_by_month_zpsc0813251.png

U.S. troop fatalities in Iraq by month, the orange and blue months being post-troop surge.

[rock on sooner]

I'm not a big World Order type of guy. I am big on believing that there are a group of very powerful and very GREEDY people in the world who are not above using their wealth and power to influence government policy in a way that benefits them to the detriment of the average citizen. If that makes me a tinfoil hat type then so be it.

Fan, you are correct....we just experienced an election that showed the
perfect example....Soros on the left and Adelson, Koch Bros, Perry, Anderson
et al on the right. There was also a guy whose name escapes me that is
foreign born (Romanian?) that paid for a lot of anti-Obama ads, claiming
socialism.

I can think of only one man that Obama could nominate that wouldn't be
controversial for any cabinet postion...Colin Powell. I'm not sure why
Obama wants to pick this fight, other than probably an in-your-face
deal because of the Rice uproar. Hagel will get confirmed...this, too,
shall pass.

[okie52]

In January 2007, Hagel openly criticized President Bush's plan to send an additional 20,000 troops to Iraq. He called it "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out."[75] Together with Democrats Joseph Biden and Carl Levin, he proposed a non-binding resolution to the Democratic-controlled Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which rejected Bush's policy as "not in the national interest" in a 12-9 vote.[76] After an April 2007 visit to Iraq with U.S. Congressman Joe Sestak (D-PA), Hagel stated his belief that the occupation of Iraq should not continue indefinitely and expressed his intention to cooperate with Senate Democrats in voting for a bill that would set a timeline to get out of Iraq.[77]

.

So is ole Chuck going to end the war in Afghanistan?

[TitoMorelli]

Not interested in answering my question huh? Rather toss out infantile and partisan hackery.

Just stating what everyone else on this thread already knows about your incessant posts on the subject. Since all you ever offer on the subject is your partisan opinion without anything of substance to back it, why should I or anyone else take the time to respond to you with anything more?

[sappstuf]

http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af24/okie54/800px-OIF_fatalities_by_month_zpsc0813251.png

U.S. troop fatalities in Iraq by month, the orange and blue months being post-troop surge.

Any metric.. Besides that one.

[rock on sooner]

.

So is ole Chuck going to end the war in Afghanistan?

Interesting question, Okie. Obama has stated he wants combat done
in 2014 and also signed that deal with Karzai about our committments
for ten years after. I'm guessing that Hagel will serve at the President's
leisure and will do what the boss says. Seems as though Obama is
not going to play as diplomatically nice now as he did before the election.
As I said earlier, I think the Hagel pick is an in-your-face one and he
wants the fight with the Pubs....

[KantoSooner]

I'm not a big World Order type of guy. I am big on believing that there are a group of very powerful and very GREEDY people in the world who are not above using their wealth and power to influence government policy in a way that benefits them to the detriment of the average citizen. If that makes me a tinfoil hat type then so be it.

Be of good cheer, I didn't mean a slam at you on this. Clearly the banks have the most to gain out of a stable world. They don't like surprises because they seem to be pathetically incapable of predicting political or economic events even a few months in the future and are thus badly impacted by almost anything that happens.
And that's going to bias them in favor of using whatever means necessary to 'keep the peace'.
Where you and I differ, I think, is that I don't think those boys think about the average Joe really at all.There's no animus, we're just small and tend to be easily stepped on.
Soomething to consider: if educated Americans feel this way, how do you imagine third world peasants feel about the way the world is organized?

[okie52]

Interesting question, Okie. Obama has stated he wants combat done
in 2014 and also signed that deal with Karzai about our committments
for ten years after. I'm guessing that Hagel will serve at the President's
leisure and will do what the boss says. Seems as though Obama is
not going to play as diplomatically nice now as he did before the election.
As I said earlier, I think the Hagel pick is an in-your-face one and he
wants the fight with the Pubs....

I agree with you Rock it is an in your face. I'm sure there are a lot of dem nominees that would be less distasteful to pubs.

[SoonerProphet]

Just stating what everyone else on this thread already knows about your incessant posts on the subject. Since all you ever offer on the subject is your partisan opinion without anything of substance to back it, why should I or anyone else take the time to respond to you with anything more?

So, you are not going to address my question. In what metric, outside of the decline in combat deaths, has the surge been successful.

Didn't you pitch a big fit in LLL thread about civility?

[sappstuf]

Damn those sneaky Repubs for making the Dems stand in Hagel's way...

EYghotmp1PM

[okie52]

Damn those sneaky Repubs for making the Dems stand in Hagel's way...

EYghotmp1PM

Obviously these dems are out of touch.

[TitoMorelli]

How, by any metric, was the surge a success?


So, you are not going to address my question. In what metric, outside of the decline in combat deaths, has the surge been successful.

Didn't you pitch a big fit in LLL thread about civility?

Uh, your pwnership is showing.

Sorry about my incivility hurting your feelings. I'm heartbroken, seriously.

[SoonerProphet]

Don't have the testicular fortitude or intellect to tackle the question huh? Figured as much.

[FaninAma]

You can argue about whether the war in Iraq was worthwhile or whether it achieved its intended ends. But arguing that the surge, as part of the strategy there, was a failure is infantile. Even most Dems aren't stupid enough to attempt to claim that. (I said most)

Temporary success. Iraq will be in the hands of the Islamists within 3 years. There is only one way to deal with the Middle East: make the defense of Israel iron-clad and non-negotiable. Step out of the way and allow the 2 factions of Islam to have at each other. Quit protecting the House of Saud.

[KantoSooner]

Since life always ends in death, you can, eventually be correct 100% of the time by predicting an individual's death each and every day.

Of course Iraq's stability is 'temporary'. It was temporarily stable under the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire, Saddam Hussein and, very much formerly, the Babylonians.

That 'Islamists' will be a powerful force there is kind of like saying that Texas, or Ohio or California are important in US presidential elections.

Keeping them out of power guarantees that they will disrupt governance in the region. We might as well let the folks there elect who they will and then let them sort it out. Not to the extent that we have to stand by and grin if they want to attack us, but the people there are going to have to make their own mistakes. And if that includes electing nitwits whose sole focus in life is some neo-lithic myth system, then they'll have to deal with the consequences of that. One of which is that they're ****ty countries to live in.

How many Saudi's live in the US? How many Americans are clamoring to go live in Saudi? Even with money, such places suck.

[SoonerProphet]

Of course Iraq's stability is 'temporary'.

How is Iraq "stable" today?

Stephen Walt in ForPol-

With the level of violence rising and the Kurds pressing for a level of autonomy that borders on independence, can we finally dispense with the myth that the 2007 "surge" in Iraq was a success?

The surge had two main goals. The first goal was to bring the level of violence down by increasing U.S. force levels in key areas, forging a tactical alliance with cooperative Sunni groups, and shifting to a counterinsurgency strategy that emphasized population protection. This aspect of the surge succeeded, though it is still hard to know how much of the progress was due to increased force levels and improved tactics and how much was due to other developments, such as the prior "ethnic cleansing" that had separated the contending groups.

The second and equally important goal was to promote political reconciliation among the competing factions in Iraq. This goal was not achieved, and the consequences of that failure are increasingly apparent. What lies ahead is a long-delayed test of strength between the various contending groups, until a new formula for allocating political power emerges. That formula has been missing since before the United States invaded -- that is, Washington never had a plausible plan for reconstructing a workable Iraqi state once it dismantled Saddam's regime -- and it will be up to the Iraqi people to work it out amongst themselves. It won’t be pretty.

With the passage of time, the "surge" should be seen as a well-intentioned attempt to staunch the violence temporarily and let President Bush hand the problem off to his successor. Hawks will undoubtedly try to pin the blame on Obama by claiming that we were (finally) winning by the time Bush left office, in the hope that Americans have forgotten the strategic objectives that the "surge" was supposed to achieve. It's a bogus argument, but what would you expect from the folks who got us in there in the first place?

[KantoSooner]

How is Iraq "stable" today?

I]

In comparison to what it was before the surge, it is much more stable. The surge was designed not for two but for three reasons. It was aimed at reducing the level of overall violence. It succeeded in that. Second, it was designed to give the Iraqi people a shot at reconciliation and a window in which to cobble together a lasting modus vivendi. That moment was created. The Iraqis have mostly failed to seize it; though they haven't lost everything yet. Finally, it was designed to give us cover to get the hell out. It succeeded in that. Two out of three ain't bad considering where we were prior.

Iraq is not now and possibly never will be ready for Jeffersonian democracy. Let's say it splinters into a Shiite South and East, a Sunni West and a Kurd North. Big problems for us? Not really. Big gains for Iran? Not really. Big problems for Turkey? Kind of. An issue for Israel? Only if they choose to make it one. Does it upset the balance of power in the Mid-East? Not really. In fact, you could dissolve Iraq AND Syria and pretty much change not much of anything in the region. About the biggest downside would be that there would be a period of 10-15 years in which central authority in those new states would be weak and we could expect to see more terrorism emanating from them.
So, yeah, basically the surge did pretty much what it was designed to do and the sky is not falling now, nor will it in the near term future.
Those who are upset about it are those who can't give up pillorying W...and probably won't long after he's dead and buried.

[Soonerjeepman]

So why is so much attention on whether the 'pubs will turn on one of their own (in name, anyway), and not on an administration that insists on making such critical appointments based whatever political leverage it believes it may garner, instead of actually caring about what's best for the country?

seriously you jest with that comment? LOL...the chosen one can do no wrong, doesn't need to compromise, it's all the Rep fault..just the media and libs on this site doing what they do best...deflect.

[SoonerProphet]

In comparison to what it was before the surge, it is much more stable. The surge was designed not for two but for three reasons. It was aimed at reducing the level of overall violence. It succeeded in that. Second, it was designed to give the Iraqi people a shot at reconciliation and a window in which to cobble together a lasting modus vivendi. That moment was created. The Iraqis have mostly failed to seize it; though they haven't lost everything yet. Finally, it was designed to give us cover to get the hell out. It succeeded in that. Two out of three ain't bad considering where we were prior.

Iraq is not now and possibly never will be ready for Jeffersonian democracy. Let's say it splinters into a Shiite South and East, a Sunni West and a Kurd North. Big problems for us? Not really. Big gains for Iran? Not really. Big problems for Turkey? Kind of. An issue for Israel? Only if they choose to make it one. Does it upset the balance of power in the Mid-East? Not really. In fact, you could dissolve Iraq AND Syria and pretty much change not much of anything in the region. About the biggest downside would be that there would be a period of 10-15 years in which central authority in those new states would be weak and we could expect to see more terrorism emanating from them.
So, yeah, basically the surge did pretty much what it was designed to do and the sky is not falling now, nor will it in the near term future.
Those who are upset about it are those who can't give up pillorying W...and probably won't long after he's dead and buried.

So basically you are saying that the surge was simply kicking the can down the road? Pretty sporting to blame the Iraqis for our high placed hopes after bombing the sh!t out them.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

So he voted for the war in Iraq and then changed his mind when public sentiment changed... Stand up guy.

He was against the surge, saying it was "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.” Turned out it was a great success.

He certainly SEEMS like he knows what he is talking about... Or not.remember that Libertarians(Sicem) share the belief that America shouldn't have (much, if any)military involvement internationally, with the democrats. It should be no surprise that Sicem started this thread with the approval of Hagel.

[sappstuf]

How is Iraq "stable" today?

Stephen Walt in ForPol-

With the level of violence rising and the Kurds pressing for a level of autonomy that borders on independence, can we finally dispense with the myth that the 2007 "surge" in Iraq was a success?

The surge had two main goals. The first goal was to bring the level of violence down by increasing U.S. force levels in key areas, forging a tactical alliance with cooperative Sunni groups, and shifting to a counterinsurgency strategy that emphasized population protection. This aspect of the surge succeeded, though it is still hard to know how much of the progress was due to increased force levels and improved tactics and how much was due to other developments, such as the prior "ethnic cleansing" that had separated the contending groups.

The second and equally important goal was to promote political reconciliation among the competing factions in Iraq. This goal was not achieved, and the consequences of that failure are increasingly apparent. What lies ahead is a long-delayed test of strength between the various contending groups, until a new formula for allocating political power emerges. That formula has been missing since before the United States invaded -- that is, Washington never had a plausible plan for reconstructing a workable Iraqi state once it dismantled Saddam's regime -- and it will be up to the Iraqi people to work it out amongst themselves. It won’t be pretty.

With the passage of time, the "surge" should be seen as a well-intentioned attempt to staunch the violence temporarily and let President Bush hand the problem off to his successor. Hawks will undoubtedly try to pin the blame on Obama by claiming that we were (finally) winning by the time Bush left office, in the hope that Americans have forgotten the strategic objectives that the "surge" was supposed to achieve. It's a bogus argument, but what would you expect from the folks who got us in there in the first place?

You are asking a question about the stability of Iraq today and quote from an article written in July 2009...

[SoonerProphet]

You are asking a question about the stability of Iraq today and quote from an article written in July 2009...

feel free to refute the article. don't think iraq has become more stable than when the article was written.

[KantoSooner]

So basically you are saying that the surge was simply kicking the can down the road? Pretty sporting to blame the Iraqis for our high placed hopes after bombing the sh!t out them.



Not really what I was saying, at all.

Was the plan to stay there forever? If not, at some point, you need to hand over to a local government. It being kind of hard to hold elections and **** in the middle of a firefight, it was not illogical to flood the streets with soldiers to create enough space to select a government and hand over to it. (thus, also removing the irritant of foreign troops - something that very few peoples really like.)

If the Iraqis can't live together, that's really their affair. We were not there to pick winners in a game of domestic domination. If they really can't live together, then they're better off apart.

[SoonerProphet]

Not really what I was saying, at all.

Was the plan to stay there forever? If not, at some point, you need to hand over to a local government. It being kind of hard to hold elections and **** in the middle of a firefight, it was not illogical to flood the streets with soldiers to create enough space to select a government and hand over to it. (thus, also removing the irritant of foreign troops - something that very few peoples really like.)

Not really sure if a "plan" ever existed, but that is a whole different thread. Yeah, ideally you want a stable situation to pack and leave, please give some historical accounts of this ever panning out real well without said country being bombed into bolivia. Look, my main beef is that by the details given in the so called "new approach", several key elements for success were given. Some of the key political elements that the Bush administration considered "key" were these:

*Strengthen the rule of law and combat corruption.

*Build on security gains to foster local and national political accommodations.

*Make Iraqi institutions even-handed, serving all of Iraq’s communities on an impartial basis.

Nobody with a straight face not named Charles Krauthammer could argue that any of those key elements had been met.



If the Iraqis can't live together, that's really their affair. We were not there to pick winners in a game of domestic domination. If they really can't live together, then they're better off apart.

You break it, you buy it. And by the very nature of the game, once you insert yourself into the situation you are there to pick winners. To pretend otherwise ignores centuries of history.

[okie52]

So, you are not going to address my question. In what metric, outside of the decline in combat deaths, has the surge been successful.

Didn't you pitch a big fit in LLL thread about civility?

Isn't a dramatic decline in battlefield deaths a substantial success?

[rock on sooner]

Isn't a dramatic decline in battlefield deaths a substantial success?

My thoughts exactly. Last I checked battlefield death was/is THE
measure, metric or otherwise, to determine if "we done good".
Prophet, would love to hear what you consider another way to
measure "doing good".

[StoopTroup]

I like Susan Rice for Secretary of Defense.

[SoonerProphet]

Isn't a dramatic decline in battlefield deaths a substantial success?

While the decline in battlefield deaths is a commendable statistic, I don't know if it has anything to do with "New Approach" strategy other than give us cover to head for the exits. It most assuredly didu not lead to any measure of success regarding any strategic objective.

[pphilfran]

What metrics do you propose?

[SoonerProphet]

What metrics do you propose?

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070110-3.html

[okie52]

While the decline in battlefield deaths is a commendable statistic, I don't know if it has anything to do with "New Approach" strategy other than give us cover to head for the exits. It most assuredly didu not lead to any measure of success regarding any strategic objective.

By your own article by Stephen wait the surge accomplished its first goal.

Now, at least 3 years since the article, US troops are out of Iraq. Obama had little to do with the removal of the troops as that agreement was signed by Bush and the Iraqi government so Waits point is lost on me.

And the surge, denounced by Obama and his sec of defense nominee hagel in Iraq, was used by Obama in Afghanistan. Now I did find that irony laughable.

[SicEmBaylor]

I haven't kept up with this thread but let me throw this thought out there:

I am pretty dismissive of the flip-flop attack on Hagel. Situations change. Facts change. Those changes should and do result in policy leaders changing their position on an issue. This is often a good thing especially in foreign policy.

Hell, I was highly supportive of the war in Iraq when it started but things change. It was a disastrous decision, and I was wrong -- Chuck Hagel recognized the mistake and was honest enough to admit it.

Chuck Hagel is very pragmatic and understands the need to use our military in a conservative and judicious manner. I have no doubt that he will be an advocate for rational foreign policy decisions and argue for restraint when it comes to deploying our armed men and women.

[sappstuf]

I haven't kept up with this thread but let me throw this thought out there:

I am pretty dismissive of the flip-flop attack on Hagel. Situations change. Facts change. Those changes should and do result in policy leaders changing their position on an issue. This is often a good thing especially in foreign policy.

Hell, I was highly supportive of the war in Iraq when it started but things change. It was a disastrous decision, and I was wrong -- Chuck Hagel recognized the mistake and was honest enough to admit it.

Chuck Hagel is very pragmatic and understands the need to use our military in a conservative and judicious manner. I have no doubt that he will be an advocate for rational foreign policy decisions and argue for restraint when it comes to deploying our armed men and women.

Was he honest enough to admit his prediction that the surge would be "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.”?

Nope.

[SicEmBaylor]

remember that Libertarians(Sicem) share the belief that America shouldn't have (much, if any)military involvement internationally, with the democrats. It should be no surprise that Sicem started this thread with the approval of Hagel.

You're completely wrong in characterizing a libertarian (actually I'm a paleocon but close enough) foreign policy as in-line with mainstream leftist ideology. In fact, the GOP adopted the foreign policy of the old-left and their belief in spreading American style democracy around the world.

Do not make the mistake in believing that libertarians share the same foreign policy goals as liberals/progressives. Absolutely nothing could possibly be further from the truth. In reality, mainstream Democrat foreign policy is different only in application with mainstream Republican foreign policy goals. The overall ideology is EXACTLY the same. The two parties differ on how to apply those principles.

[SicEmBaylor]

Was he honest enough to admit his prediction that the surge would be "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.”?

Nope.
Using history as a guide, he was not at all 'out there' on that prediction. If you believe there is no longer any benefit to continuing a war then it's hard to get behind dumping more troops and more resources into the pit.

[okie52]

Was he honest enough to admit his prediction that the surge would be "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.”?

Nope.

Beat me to it Sapp.

Hell, Hagel might be the perfect choice for Obama. Obama was against the surge even after it worked until he got into office...then he used it in Afghanistan. No problem with flip flops in this administration.

[okie52]

Using history as a guide, he was not at all 'out there' on that prediction. If you believe there is no longer any benefit to continuing a war then it's hard to get behind dumping more troops and more resources into the pit.

But he was wrong and his once loud protest slid quietly away.

[sappstuf]

Iraq civilian war-related deaths by year.

2003 12,104
2004 11,428
2005 16,114
2006 29,009
2007* 25,275
2008 9,618
2009 4,918

Surge was completed by the summer of 2007. Civilian deaths were very high. A dramatic drop in the years after.

So as to the metrics that Soonerprophet wants us to use:

Let the Iraqis lead; 100% happened.

Help Iraqis protect the population; A dramatic drop in deaths. Successful.

Isolate extremists; Obviously happened as reflected in civilian population deaths and the reduced deaths of coalition forces.

Create space for political progress; Most certainly happened. Elections show that.

Diversify political and economic efforts; and Somewhat vague goal.

Situate the strategy in a regional approach. Vague again.

There is no way you cannot call that a success. It certainly isn't bad for "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.”.

[sappstuf]

Using history as a guide, he was not at all 'out there' on that prediction. If you believe there is no longer any benefit to continuing a war then it's hard to get behind dumping more troops and more resources into the pit.

If you are trying to defend him by saying his prediction was within the realm of possibility. Fine.

If you are trying to defend him by saying his prediction was accurate or even remotely accurate. It just isn't true. He was wrong.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

You're completely wrong in characterizing a libertarian (actually I'm a paleocon but close enough) foreign policy as in-line with mainstream leftist ideology. In fact, the GOP adopted the foreign policy of the old-left and their belief in spreading American style democracy around the world.

Do not make the mistake in believing that libertarians share the same foreign policy goals as liberals/progressives. Absolutely nothing could possibly be further from the truth. In reality, mainstream Democrat foreign policy is different only in application with mainstream Republican foreign policy goals. The overall ideology is EXACTLY the same. The two parties differ on how to apply those principles.Well, the socialists(modern day Left, not old time liberals) don't really give all that much attention to the USA's military preparedness against foreign enemies, it seems. Consequently, their minimalist military preparedness seems to be more in line with the libertarian view of military than it does traditional(since Ike)republican policy, IMHO.

[SoonerProphet]

So let me get this straight. A policy that continued to drain lives and treasure, empowered Iran, made Baghdad a Shiite city, and did nothing to end the gwot is deemed a success? Talk about polishing a turd.

[Midtowner]

Up to 10 Dem Senators have made statements that show they may not support Hagel... Does that mean they are out of touch?

If they deny the President a cabinet appointment, yes. Hagel is a reasonable choice.

[okie52]

Coburn: 'I Cannot Vote for Chuck Hagel'

7:11 AM, DEC 31, 2012 • BY DANIEL HALPER

Senator Tom Coburn said Sunday that he would not vote for Chuck Hagel to be the next secretary of defense:



Transcript, via the Washington Free Beacon:

NORAH O’DONNELL: You both served with Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel who has been mentioned as a choice for Defense Secretary, Senator Coburn would you vote for him?

TOM COBURN: I cannot vote for Chuck Hagel.

O’DONNELL: Why?

COBURN: Just simply because of some of the positions he’s taken and statements he’s [made].

O’DONNELL: What about you Sen. Durbin?

DICK DURBIN: I think he has proven his patriotism, and public service. Two purple hearts in Vietnam. This man deserves more than just a hearing. He deserves our respect for the service he’s given our country in the and the Senate and to disqualify him for statements he’s made– I think he at least deserves a hearing and an opportunity.

COBURN: That’s not the only reason to disqualify him. He does not have the experience to manage a very large organization like the Pentagon. And we’ve actually had– I think Leon Panetta has done a wonderful job. I supported his nomination. He did have a lot of experience prior to coming here. And if there’s a place we need great management, it’s the Pentagon, and a great manager.

Unreasonable baztard.

[SicEmBaylor]

Well, the socialists(modern day Left, not old time liberals) don't really give all that much attention to the USA's military preparedness against foreign enemies, it seems. Consequently, their minimalist military preparedness seems to be more in line with the libertarian view of military than it does traditional(since Ike)republican policy, IMHO.
:sigh: Completely wrong again.

First, let me state unequivocally that this is not an issue of "preparedness" as you say -- it's an issue of application. I don't know of many libertarians, and certainly no palecons, who don't want the United States to be fully prepared to deal with any and every threat that may endanger this nation. The argument we have is on when and what way to apply our power.

Now, Obama and the Democratic party are full on board with a military-centric forward leaning and aggressive foreign policy built around the principle of spreading American principles and democracy world wide. The idea that liberals want to scale back military action is absurd considering the fact that Obama has exponentially increased the number of drone strikes and involved us in 2 and possibly 3 additional mid-east conflicts.

The argument between Republicans and Democrats is not over the use of the military -- it's over where and what branches of the military are best to accomplish a task.

The libertarian position and the position of most paleocons is completely different so please please please do not link our foreign policy views with those of liberals, socialists, progressives or whatever hell else you choose to call them. It isn't at all the same.

And, by the way, the GOP adopted traditional liberal foreign policy goals lock stock and barrel during W. Bush's administration not "after Ike." The exception to that is the Cold War but up until after 9/11 most Republicans wholly rejected the use of military power to spread American democracy into petty *** nations around the globe. Republicans were furious with Clinton for acting as the "policeman of the world" during his administration only to completely change their tune after 9/11. So, again, please please don't act like Republican acceptance of a Wilsonian foreign policy is something that has been going on for 60+ years. It isn't.

[Midtowner]

As far as managing large organizations, what has HRC ever managed until she was in charge of the State Dept.? John Kerry? Sounds like a BS excuse to me.

The only reason they're supporting Kerry's nomination is to take another shot at a Massachusetts senate seat.

[SicEmBaylor]

If you are trying to defend him by saying his prediction was within the realm of possibility. Fine.

If you are trying to defend him by saying his prediction was accurate or even remotely accurate. It just isn't true. He was wrong.
The former. Clearly the surge worked-ish. My point is that he was not making a crazy or unreasonable argument when he took a position opposing the surge. It wasn't at all unreasonable considering the fact that he believed the Iraq War was a mistake; therefore, it's hard to imagine him supporting more troops and material. If one thinks a war should be ended then one is unlikely to want to ratchet things up.

[diverdog]

A really interesting read:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/09/opinion/chuck-hagel-under-attack-in-vietnam-and-on-capitol-hill.html?hp&_r=0

[okie52]

As far as managing large organizations, what has HRC ever managed until she was in charge of the State Dept.? John Kerry? Sounds like a BS excuse to me.

The only reason they're supporting Kerry's nomination is to take another shot at a Massachusetts senate seat.

The state department is no where near the size of the Pentagon & DOD:


The President’s Fiscal Year 2010 Budget provides $53.9 billion to the Department of State and other international programs, of which $36.5 billion is for foreign assistance.


The President's 2012 Budget for the Department of Defense (DOD) reflects that commitment, proposing $553 billion - an increase of $22 billion above the 2010 appropriation.


The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports that more than 2.6 million people serve in the U.S. Armed Forces. Of that, more than 1.4 million were on active duty (the rest served in the Reserves). Of those on active duty, more than 500,000 served in the Army, 339,000 in the Navy, 340,000 in the Air Force, and 179,000 in the Marine Corps. An additional 40,000 people served in the Coast Guard - now have Department of Homeland Security jobs.

[KantoSooner]

Prophet,
You said: "You break it, you buy it. And by the very nature of the game, once you insert yourself into the situation you are there to pick winners. To pretend otherwise ignores centuries of history."

I don't think so. Your statement implies that we would never leave; that we'd be in charge or running the place forever. The surge was designed to achieve minimally acceptable conditions for our exit. It did. Therefore, in the context of a ****ty set of circumstances, it was successful.

If you're still p.o.'d over the original decision to invade Iraq, that is is your prerogative. And I think we'd have less to argue over on that point. Likewise you can very legitimately criticize the utter lack of planning for the aftermath of military success. And, again, I'd most likely be in broad agreement with you.

But the surge was, taken for what it was, a success and a pretty good example of how to extricate yourself from someone else's civil war.

[SoonerProphet]

Prophet,
You said: "You break it, you buy it. And by the very nature of the game, once you insert yourself into the situation you are there to pick winners. To pretend otherwise ignores centuries of history."

I don't think so. Your statement implies that we would never leave; that we'd be in charge or running the place forever. The surge was designed to achieve minimally acceptable conditions for our exit. It did. Therefore, in the context of a ****ty set of circumstances, it was successful.

If you're still p.o.'d over the original decision to invade Iraq, that is is your prerogative. And I think we'd have less to argue over on that point. Likewise you can very legitimately criticize the utter lack of planning for the aftermath of military success. And, again, I'd most likely be in broad agreement with you.

But the surge was, taken for what it was, a success and a pretty good example of how to extricate yourself from someone else's civil war.

Statement doesn't imply that. What I am simply saying is that if you go in and blow sh!t up, it is your moral obligation to make things right. We didn't, it was a morally bankrupt policy from start to finish and history has proven time and again that nation building is a fool's errand.

I can buy that it was successful in that regard, it allowed us cover to get out without having to recognize what a colossal f*ckup it was.

[okie52]

Statement doesn't imply that. What I am simply saying is that if you go in and blow sh!t up, it is your moral obligation to make things right. We didn't, it was a morally bankrupt policy from start to finish and history has proven time and again that nation building is a fool's errand.

I can buy that it was successful in that regard, it allowed us cover to get out without having to recognize what a colossal f*ckup it was.

History...as in Japan, Germany, Italy...?

Nation building in some places like the middle east may not work. We certainly have no moral obligation to do it in Afghanistan. Perhaps we did in Iraq although we have poured plenty of money into their economy.

If your contention is that the US should abandon interventionist policies then I would agree. Iraq in hindsight was a bad idea, not so much for moral reasons but rather it just is bad policy. Of course, so was Libya.

[The Profit]

I like Hagel. He is the perfect man for the job. For the first time in US History, an enlisted man would be Sec. of State. I've always valued the judgement of a Top Sarge over a General. Hagel has also been a successful businessman, and will use that knowledge to reduce the military back to the pre-cold war size it needs to be. It was the Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower, who warned what the military industrial complex would do to this nation. Not a single president since him (Republican or Democrat) took his advice. That is a damn shame.

[KantoSooner]

^^^^^Yup

[SoonerProphet]

History...as in Japan, Germany, Italy...?

Nation building in some places like the middle east may not work. We certainly have no moral obligation to do it in Afghanistan. Perhaps we did in Iraq although we have poured plenty of money into their economy.

If your contention is that the US should abandon interventionist policies then I would agree. Iraq in hindsight was a bad idea, not so much for moral reasons but rather it just is bad policy. Of course, so was Libya.

I addressed the Germany & Japan argument in my first response to Kanto. Those are exceptions to the rule and were both bombed into bolivia...one atomically. In addition, the prospect of Soviet domination lingered over them.

Iraq in foresight was a bad idea. Outside of the various cheerleaders, anyone with a lick of sense knew how that whole thing would turn out. It was not like this was the first try at nation-building and the bullsh*t stream from Wolfowitz and company about rose pedals and paying for itself should have sent up plenty of red flags. It didn't, it was a failure, and the gop has yet to learn from the f*ck up.

Yes, sticking our beaks in the affairs of Libya is bad policy and has proven so, you will get no argument from me.

[okie52]

I addressed the Germany & Japan argument in my first response to Kanto. Those are exceptions to the rule and were both bombed into bolivia...one atomically. In addition, the prospect of Soviet domination lingered over them.

Iraq in foresight was a bad idea. Outside of the various cheerleaders, anyone with a lick of sense knew how that whole thing would turn out. It was not like this was the first try at nation-building and the bullsh*t stream from Wolfowitz and company about rose pedals and paying for itself should have sent up plenty of red flags. It didn't, it was a failure, and the gop has yet to learn from the f*ck up.

Yes, sticking our beaks in the affairs of Libya is bad policy and has proven so, you will get no argument from me.

But both parties overwhelmingly supported the Iraq war. So did most Americans. The war itself was almost bloodless (US casualty wise)...the occupation was what was costly. Perhaps now the American public has tired of the intervention mentality.

[SoonerProphet]

But both parties overwhelmingly supported the Iraq war. So did most Americans. The war itself was almost bloodless (US casualty wise)...the occupation was what was costly. Perhaps now the American public has tired of the intervention mentality.

Both parties were wrong. Both parties failed to address all of the potential outcomes and rushed to war. Almost bloodless...really?

[diverdog]

But both parties overwhelmingly supported the Iraq war. So did most Americans. The war itself was almost bloodless (US casualty wise)...the occupation was what was costly. Perhaps now the American public has tired of the intervention mentality.

It was not overwhelmingly supported by both parties. More dems voted against it in the house than voted for it. In the senate it was 29-21 in favor. I bet if they knew Colin Powell's speech was BS it would have been even more against it.

[diverdog]

The former. Clearly the surge worked-ish. My point is that he was not making a crazy or unreasonable argument when he took a position opposing the surge. It wasn't at all unreasonable considering the fact that he believed the Iraq War was a mistake; therefore, it's hard to imagine him supporting more troops and material. If one thinks a war should be ended then one is unlikely to want to ratchet things up.

If memory serves me correctly there was something other than the surge that worked. It was a new intelligence gathering process that allowed us to hunt down and kill key insurgence. Woodward mentioned it in his book but it is still secret what was done. All I know is that it was extremely effective.

[SoonerProphet]

If memory serves me correctly there was something other than the surge that worked. It was a new intelligence gathering process that allowed us to hunt down and kill key insurgence. Woodward mentioned it in his book but it is still secret what was done. All I know is that it was extremely effective.

Have also read that the decline in violence was due to the fact that much of shared cities of Iraq were "ethnically cleansed" therefore sectarian violence naturally declines when you ain't got no one left to hang from the lightpoles. We also started forking over pallets of cash to fund the Sunni Awakening so they would stop blowing us up.

[okie52]

Both parties were wrong. Both parties failed to address all of the potential outcomes and rushed to war. Almost bloodless...really?

Really. The majority of our casualties occurred after Saddam and the Iraqi army had been defeated.

[okie52]

It was not overwhelmingly supported by both parties. More dems voted against it in the house than voted for it. In the senate it was 29-21 in favor. I bet if they knew Colin Powell's speech was BS it would have been even more against it.

Colin a liar?

To some it wouldn't have mattered what was said...Obama was against the surge even after it had worked...until he got into office.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Really. The majority of our casualties occurred after Saddam and the Iraqi army had been defeated.you don't get it. R in POTUS office = Baaaaaad! Need to change. impeach his sorry as*! ASAP!

[okie52]

It was not overwhelmingly supported by both parties. More dems voted against it in the house than voted for it. In the senate it was 29-21 in favor. I bet if they knew Colin Powell's speech was BS it would have been even more against it.

I forgot to add at least this war was put to a vote....Libya...not so much.

[diverdog]

I forgot to add at least this war was put to a vote....Libya...not so much.

Do you seriuosly want to compare the two?

[diverdog]

Have also read that the decline in violence was due to the fact that much of shared cities of Iraq were "ethnically cleansed" therefore sectarian violence naturally declines when you ain't got no one left to hang from the lightpoles. We also started forking over pallets of cash to fund the Sunni Awakening so they would stop blowing us up.

Yep.

[okie52]

Do you seriuosly want to compare the two?

Certainly...don't you?

[SoonerProphet]

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/01/09/scowcroft_the_gop_left_me_and_hagel

[SicEmBaylor]

Certainly...don't you?

You do absolutely have a point here. The size of our involvement may have been much less compared to Iraq but that is relatively irrelevant. The President should have gone to Congress and got authorization before engaging in a military dispute for an unknown amount of time. Any sustained military action should require Congressional authorization.

[sappstuf]

I find it amusing that Dems on this board are bending over backwards to defend a guy that was against funding abortions for female military members that were raped and didn't want an ""openly, aggressively gay" ambassador appointed.

Either position would have sunk the same exact person if he would have been nominated by a Repub.

[diverdog]

I find it amusing that Dems on this board are bending over backwards to defend a guy that was against funding abortions for female military members that were raped and didn't want an ""openly, aggressively gay" ambassador appointed.

Either position would have sunk the same exact person if he would have been nominated by a Repub.

I don't think I defended him.

[okie52]

This thread morphed into "whether pubs should approve him". I say they shouldn't but he is probably going to be confirmed anyway.

[KantoSooner]

Serioiusly, a vote on a cabinet appointment should really look at only basic qualifications, which Hagel has. After that, a president should get his choice. I'd agree that judges should face stronger scrutiny, but Hagel is 'limited' to four years, max without further review.

[okie52]

Serioiusly, a vote on a cabinet appointment should really look at only basic qualifications, which Hagel has. After that, a president should get his choice. I'd agree that judges should face stronger scrutiny, but Hagel is 'limited' to four years, max without further review.

If that was the history of appointments then I would agree...but that hasn't been the case as they are usually political. Hagel burned a lot of bridges with the pubs and I don't see any reason for them "politically" to support him.

[KantoSooner]

I agree it hasn't been that way for a long time, if ever. I was writing aspirationally as much as anything else, although you could make an argument that the pubs have limited ammo, controlling only one house and that one narrowly, and might want to save their powder for more important issues.
They probably can't beat Hagel, so why waste resources when you know there are going to be other, more meaningful, fights coming up very soon?

[okie52]

I agree it hasn't been that way for a long time, if ever. I was writing aspirationally as much as anything else, although you could make an argument that the pubs have limited ammo, controlling only one house and that one narrowly, and might want to save their powder for more important issues.
They probably can't beat Hagel, so why waste resources when you know there are going to be other, more meaningful, fights coming up very soon?

It may not be the fight to pick on the pubs part because I don't think they win this one. On the other hand, virtually anything done now will be forgotten by the mid terms so they may not have much to lose.

[okie52]

Sen. Inhofe opposes Chuck Hagel's nomination to be secretary of defense

Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Tulsa, announced Tuesday he will oppose the nomination of former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel to be secretary of defense.

Published: January 16, 2013


WASHINGTON— Sen. Jim Inhofe, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, announced Tuesday that he will oppose the nomination of former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel to be secretary of defense.


Inhofe, R-Tulsa, said he told Hagel in a “cordial” meeting Tuesday that they were too philosophically opposed on the issues for Inhofe to support his nomination to replace Leon Panetta at the Pentagon. Inhofe said Hagel had not demonstrated the same level of concern as Panetta about the looming defense cuts under the process known as sequestration.

Inhofe said he also is concerned with Hagel's positions on nuclear disarmament and on Iran and Israel.

“In 2000, he was one of just four senators who refused to sign a letter affirming U.S. solidarity with Israel,” Inhofe said. “In 2001, he was one of just two senators who voted against extending the sanctions against Iran. A year later, he urged the Bush administration to support Iranian membership in the World Trade Organization. Given the current tension in the Middle East that is largely being instigated by the Iranian regime, I am concerned with Senator Hagel's views.”

Chris Casteel, Washington Bureau


.