Army Planning for 4 More Years in Iraq

America's next Vietnam has officially been born.

Now, when will the rich neocons start sending in their sons and daughters to share in the responsibility?

They are nuts!

The are absolutely NUTS!

Hagel Says Iraq War Looking Like Vietnam
'We Should Start Figuring Out How We Get Out of There'
By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, AP


WASHINGTON (Aug. 21) - 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.''


http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050821125009990002&ncid=NWS00010000000001

Hagel thinks he's a contender for '08.

What he doesn't yet know is he'd get just exactly one vote....from his mother.



Maybe LOL.

I thought this was old news given the four huge bases being built and the plan to attack Iran next if they don't overthrow their government and put in someone we like.

They've been saying we'll be there a long time, so I figured it'd be a lot longer than 4 years.

I hear the new White House will be in Baghdad. And I think all neo cons should move there.

Squinney


Make that 14 bases, not 4.

BBB

They will perpertrate their hoax until Hell freezes over. However, it's a hot time time in the old house tonight. At least in Washington. For those hanging onto Dubya's idiotic conception of a "war," good luck. You may one day wake up from the nightmare.

Did any of you actually read BBB's article?



It seems you'd rather the army not plan for anything, just be a reactionary force that does things after events have happened.

Fourteen. Yes.

Thanks for the correction, BBB.

That's a lot of money and effort put into something if we plan on leaving any time soon.

I think what the General is saying, McG, is not to listen to that guy last week talking about maybe sending troops home next year. Bush was quick to correct him, and now Gen, Shoomaker is reiterating it may take longer.

Hey I got a real good idea. Why don't we just bring all the military back to the states, practice isolationism all ver again and when somebody needs help or when somebody attacks us again, we can just sit on our a$$e$. That would do a lot to appease or if you will, please everyone out there who is afraid to help other people. Just like we can have the police departments stay inside their buildings and when somebody needs help they can stay there. And the fire department too. For those of you who are asking the question, yes, we are the worlds police force. Why? because it comes with being the strongest power in the world. Little news flash: America has the longest current running government in the world.
We pesronally did not create the Middle East's problems, but we need to find a way to help solve them. Insurgents are in Iraq because they don't want us in there. The largest majority of insurgents arre NOT Iraqi's.
Personally, I am thankful the military is thinking farther ahead and I have no problems with the rerserves and the National Guard being used in Iraq. It's about time the were used especially when you take a look at all the money they receive for one week end a month and two weeks a year.
Oh, and by the way, I am one of those Pa guardsmen thats in Iraq.

Well good for you. God bless you and your service.

Echo that, but....



This seems to contradict the opinion of many authorities. But what do they know?

Cycloptichorn

Actually the largest number of insurgents are US military forces.

If we are indeed the world's police force, then
there very many calls we are not responding to.
Nor will we.
Nor can we.
Let's be realistic.

A police force can only be in soo many places at one time. Are there other countries that need our help? Yes. Are we politicly motivated to help one country and not another? Yes. Do we as individuals help people more often when we can get something in return? Usually yes.
Remeber, one groups insurgents are another groups patriots. And, most of the insurgents are NOT us military forces. Most of the insurgentsare from the surrounding countries who are afraid to see any other type of government in the middle east.
And, for those of you wjo think we are here just for the oil, remember, Iraq does not produce 100% of the oil. And, I do believe our gas prices keep climbing.
One last statement: for those of you who are supporting the troops, we all thank you. It makes our time away from home a little easier. We appreciate everything you do for us. And our families at home appreciate the heart felt gratitude you extend to them.

Ralph...that is precisely what MOST of the insurgents want. To suppose they are afraid to see any other type of governments in the Middle East is to completely misunderstand what they are after.

If those are the principles that guide your town's police force,
I hope I never have to live there.

I re-read my last post and realize it has a rather nasty tone. Sorry.
That's not what I was going for.

In fact, I agree with you that we cannot police the whole world.
Furthermore, as much as we hope to be guided by our best ideals,
the sad reality is that politics and the national interest are going
to come first in determining whom we help and how much.