Iraq post-mortem

Combat operations have ended in Iraq and all but 50,000 troops have withdrawn (so long as you don't ask about the private security contractors who remain).

How did the U.S. do? Did "we" win?

Former Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) isn't kind in this interview:

Hagel flatly rejects the notion — now conventional wisdom among many Americans — that the war in Iraq has been a success. “Did you see today’s paper?” he asked, holding up a front-page story in the Washington Post that described vast swaths of the country as being plagued by electricity outages.

“Look at the facts: No government, less electricity and people want us out,” Hagel pointed out. “Anyway you measure Iraq today I think you’re pretty hard pressed to find how people are better off than they were before we invaded. I think history is going to be very harsh in its judgment — very, very harsh.

Hagel stills says the Iraq war was the worst foreign policy decision since the Vietnam war and one of the five worst in U.S. history.

Hagel is no fan of nation-building, which is why he also says "I think we’re headed for a similar outcome in Afghanistan if we don’t do some things differently.”

Hat tip: Steve Clemons.

Visit this blog's homepage.

Ron Paul

Several times in the past, I've blogged about a couple of prominent political figures that I've briefly tagged as "my favorite Republican."

A few years ago, like many members of the news media, I had a brief infatuation with Senator John McCain. By 2005, with his persistent support of the Iraq war, McCain lost the title.

Then, more recently, Senator Chuck Hagel was the top choice. Hagel has been a critic of the Iraq war -- plus I shook his hand and appreciated his frankness back in '05.

If I had to limit my choice to the 2008 Republican candidates for President, it looks like Ron Paul wins the title. I base this both on his May appearance on Bill Maher's show and on this test.

And like Rob, who pointed me to the test, I was surprised at how much I apparently like Bill Richardson.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Hagel

What's up with Chuck Hagel? He was skeptical about Iraq even in 2002, when he voted for the "use of force" resolution. Later, he became a more vocal critic. Earlier this year, he even voted for a Democratic resolution opposed to war funding.

Some are questioning his political sanity.

John Judis investigates that issue in a well-done piece:

Yet what Hagel seems to have lost is not so much his sanity or his grasp of world politics--his recent floor speech opposing the Reid-Feingold bill, which would have entirely cut off war funding, was a model of sober intelligence--but rather the part of the political cerebellum that allows politicians to put career before conviction. In my final conversation with him, I asked whether he saw irony in the fact that, while his anger about the war was driving him to run for president, what he had said and done about the war was putting the Republican nomination out of reach. I told him that he seemed to be paying a price for honesty. Hagel laughed. "Of course there is a price for honesty in politics," he said. "Are you paying it?" I asked. He replied, "I'll let others make that judgment."

I recommend the entire piece.

Long-time readers might recall that Hagel is a strong candidate for the "my favorite Republican" tag -- even though he might make an Independent run for the presidency.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Litmus testes

Yesterday, I gave a talk on Iraq at the Metro Democratic Club of Louisville. Ken Stammerman, a former career US foreign service officer with extensive Middle East background, shared the microphone with me.



Ken kicked off the evening by talking about Iraq's history and the backstory behind America's most recent involvement. He covered the creation of the Iraqi state, the various political regimes, Saddam Hussein's rise to power, the Iran-Iraq war, the Persian Gulf war, and the UN sanctions regime in the 1990s.

I then answered these two questions, as requested by the organizer (complete with the short versions of my answers):

1. Q: Why did the US go to war?

A: Because we could. Because it was there. Because we thought it would be easy. Not to be flippant, but I think the administration (or at least the hawks in the Pentagon and in Cheney's office) thought that Iraq would provide a quick victory in the "war on terror," thus creating momentum for US policy and help put the squeeze on Iran.

WMD and terrorism were the stated rationales, but those aren't rally holding up. Al Qaeda had no "collaborative relationship" with Iraq. Paul Wolfowitz told an interviewer that the criminal mistreatment of the Iraqi people was not a sufficient reason to fight. Oil probably had something to do with it, at least behind the scenes, as did tactical concerns -- such as the desire to remove US troops from Saudi Arabia.

2. Q: How has the war gone?

A: Not well. Polls reveal that a majority of the population think the war was "a mistake." However, in truth, the Bush administration committed one error after another.

They botched the pre-war diplomacy at the UN; they screwed up the WMD intelligence; they failed to deploy enough troops to provide post-war security; they ignored the State Department's "Future of Iraq" project, which included some excellent planning; they disbanded the Iraqi army and thus helped create an angry, armed and unemployed base of insurgents; they completely misjudged the economic costs of the war; and they have failed to engage the Sunni Muslems in Iraq.

Ken then presented the basic options from this point forward: stay the course; quick withdrawal; phased withdrawal; or escalation.

He was really worried about creating a failed state and the prospect of civil war.

Ken then handed me the microphone and I spoke to the group as Democrats: In 1960, JFK won an election by making everyone believe that the Eisenhower administration had been soft on defense. Sputnik and the "missile gap" played a key role in this. Since Vietnam, however, Republicans have turned the tables and made Democrats out to be weak, anti-military, anti-war and practically un-American.

A Republican Vietnam veteran like Senator Chuck Hagel can safely (for his political career and presidential aspirations) say that the US is losing in Iraq, cannot hope to win by escalating troops (because it's too late), and thus needs to get out of Iraq ASAP.

Could a Democrat say these things? Or are Democrats left to follow as Hagel leads a political parade?

I suggested that Democrats need to present a very serious national security posture to the electorate. In all likelihood, the Republicans are going to announce some targets for phased withdrawal before the 2004 mid-term congressional elections and will manage to get some troops home. Thus, the Dems have to take that into account as they prep for the next election cycles.

John Kerry tried to argue that he would be a more competent leader in the war on terror, but not enough Americans believed him. Sad as Katrina was, the storm did reveal that the Republicans in charge of the federal government weren't especially prepared for a disaster.

So, what to do? Talk (and think) seriously about how resources should be spent on genuine homeland security. Bring up Osama bin Laden and come up with a plan to find him and mitigate the threat from al Qaeda. Think creatively about what the US should do after Iraq, that doesn't necessarily involve substantial new military budgets or a new war.

If they want to win back the Congress and the White House, Democrats have to pass the national security litmus test. They've got to have cojones exhibit some chutzpah.

Chuck Hagel, War Critic

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel (Neb.), a likely candidate for President in 2008 who voted for the Iraq war resolution in 2002, has gone postal on the Bush administration's war policy. As CNN reports, Hagel said this on Thursday:

"The casualties we're taking, the billion dollars a week we're putting in there, the kind of commitment we've got -- we're not going to be able to sustain it," he said.

Iraq and Vietnam still have more differences than similarities, he said, but "there is a parallel emerging."

"The longer we stay in Iraq, the more similarities will start to develop, meaning essentially that we are getting more and more bogged down, taking more and more casualties, more and more heated dissension and debate in the United States," Hagel said.

Hagel also did not back away from comments he made in June to U.S. News & World Report that "the White House is completely disconnected from reality" and "the reality is that we're losing in Iraq."

"It gives me no great pleasure to have said that and to say that now," he said Thursday.

Almost nothing looks good for the US in Iraq:

He [Hagel] said the U.S. death toll has continued to rise "at a very significant rate -- more dead, more wounded, less electricity in Iraq, less oil being pumped in Iraq, more insurgent attacks, more insurgents coming across the border, more corruption in the government."

Sunday, Hagel went even further in his critique -- the entire mission has been counterproductive:

"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.

Interestingly, Hagel rejects the Biden/McCain formula for Iraq, even though he was in favor of sending several hundred thousand troops in 2003:

"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."

"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."

Too bad Hagel didn't say this stuff last October...

"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."

Thursday, the Senator also said Bush should have met with anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan, mother of a soldier who died in action in Iraq.


Observe the anti-war cascade: Kevin Drum is crowing about his call for withdrawal back in June. Kieran Healy rejects the President's "stay the course" mantra. And as Digby notes, even writers from the National Review are ready to "get off the bus."

Hagel on multlateralism

Yesterday, I shook hands with Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel (R), who was speaking to a small group of Kennedy School students and Fellows in advance of a public speech.

Usually, those in attendance at these small events are warned that the comments are "off the record." However, no one issued such a statement yesterday. Nonetheless, just about everything Hagel said -- and he does speak frankly for a politician -- can be found in his public statements.

For instance, Hagel made clear that he is not fond of the Bush administration's "coalitions of the willing." As early as March 2003, the LA Times reported:

Hagel, a conservative, has become increasingly vocal in his criticism of the Bush policy; the current international coalition supporting the war, he charges, "is not a coalition of the willing; it's a coalition of the bought."

In fact, after Hagel gave the strong impression that he is a genuine multilateralist, I asked him about shared decision-making and legitimacy, two of my central concerns about American unilateralism. He used that as an opportunity to criticize the current approach, but didn't take the bait I offered. However, in a January 2003 speech at Notre Dame University, Hagel did talk about these concerns in an admirable fashion:

The threats to both our country and the world will require strengthened alliances to manage the diplomatic, economic, law enforcement, intelligence and humanitarian aspects of these new global challenges. Military power alone will not be enough.

Working through the United Nations and regional alliances allows America to reinforce, not weaken, its power, principles and purpose....America gains by working with and empowering our allies to share leadership and initiative.

There is a disturbing and widening gap between America and the world regarding the perception of the intent of American power. America must not forget the role that coalitions play in bringing international support and legitimacy to our policies, especially to the use of force.

Maybe I should make Hagel my favorite Republican, supplanting John McCain?

Hagel has also introduced bills in the Senate which attempt to address the problem of global warming. As he made clear yesterday, he's a fan of providing incentives to business to promote technological solutions, and opposed to regulatory approaches, but he's obviously willing to push the issue of climate change. That's good news, ultimately.

As I said, Hagel spoke pretty frankly for a politician. Michael Crowley in The New Republic once called him a "McCain-in-training." This is interesting, because he is sometimes viewed as a presidential candidate for 2008. He's been called a "sane foreign policy voice" by centrists who don't like the current administration's choices.

Time to stick a fork in Bolton?

Now that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee vote on John Bolton has been delayed until May 12, much more information is seeping into the press.

The committee has 10 Republicans and 8 Democrats, who have unanimously said they do not support the nomination. If one Republican votes "no," then the nomination will not be reported out of committee automatically. If the vote is 9-9, or worse, it would be unusual to forward the nomination to the full Senate for a vote. It could happen, for example, if the committee decided to forward Bolton's name with "no recommendation," as the Senate did with Bush's choice for Ag Secretary in August 2002.

There are reports that former Secretary of State Colin Powell warned some Republican Senators on the Foreign Relations Committee about Bolton. Powell did not sign the letter in support of Bolton's nomination that other former Republican Secretaries of State wrote to the Committee (Baker, Kissinger).

Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican, has said she's glad the vote was delayed. That makes four: Chuck Hagel (Neb.), George Voinovich (Ohio), and Lincoln Chaffee (RI) already expressed this view. As Reuters reports:

Asked if Bolton had Murkowski's support, spokeswoman Kristin Pugh said, "I can't speculate on how she would vote."

Will all 4 of those Republicans vote to support Bolton after expressing doubts?

The LA Times has reported that the former US Ambassador to South Korea, Thomas Hubbard, claims that Bolton misled the Committee about his reaction to a Bolton speech about North Korea in 2003. Bolton claims Hubbard approved of his attacks on North Korea's regime and thanked him for the help; Hubbard says he asked Bolton to tone down the rhetoric -- and that he, in fact, did not agree with them. Hubbard says he thought the remarks were counterproductive, not helpful!

In reaction to the speech in question, North Korea called Bolton "human scum."

Hmmmmm.

Definition: "a person or an element of society, that is regarded as despicable or worthless."

You make the call.

Bolton in trouble?

The Washington Post has some more dirt on Bush's nominee to serve as ambassador to the UN. Apparently, Condi Rice is already keeping him out of the loop on Iran policy, so he is basically powerless in Washington right now.

Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel isn't 100% happy with Bolton:

But, yesterday, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) said the allegations were beginning to pile up.

"If there's nothing more that comes out, I will vote for Bolton," Hagel told CNN's "Late Edition." But Hagel also said that he was "troubled with more and more allegations, revelations, coming about his style, his method of operation," including charges that Bolton had intimidated a member of Hagel's staff who had worked briefly under Bolton at the State Department's Nonproliferation Bureau.

ABC had more from this interview:

"We need a uniter," he told CNN's "Late Edition." "We need a builder. We need someone who will reach out to our friends and our allies at the United Nations."

Hagel deemed the allegations "a disturbing pattern of things that have come out about Bolton's management style, this intimidation. We cannot have that at the United Nations. That should not be anywhere in our government."

The vote is Monday.

Republican Senators are Shrill

The latest National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq leaked to the Associated Press this week, and the news was not good. Not good at all.

In a highly classified National Intelligence Estimate, the [National Intelligence] council looked at the political, economic and security situation in the war-torn country and determined that -- at best -- stability in Iraq would be tenuous, a U.S. official said late Wednesday, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

At worst, the official said, were "trend lines that would point to a civil war." The official said it "would be fair" to call the document "pessimistic."

The intelligence estimate, which was prepared for Bush, considered the window of time between July and the end of 2005.

So why does President George W. Bush tour the country talking about the good news in Iraq? The AP quoted Bush in August: "We're making progress on the ground."

Wouldn't one simple and quantifiable sign of progress be the reconstruction of Iraq? I know that conservatives are always talking about the new schools and hospitals in Iraq. Why doesn't the media talk about them more, they say?

Better check those talking points.

It turns out that only $1 billion of $18.4 billion allocated by Congress for reconstruction of Iraq has been spent this year. In response to this news, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel (Neb.) was not happy:

"It's beyond pitiful, it's beyond embarrassing, it's now in the zone of dangerous," said Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., referring to figures showing only about 6 percent of the reconstruction money approved by Congress last year has been spent.

Republican Senator Richard Lugar is not happy either (Reuters):

"This is the incompetence in the administration," he said on ABC's "This Week."

Reuters too got a choice quote from Hagel today:

"The fact is, we're in deep trouble in Iraq ... and I think we're going to have to look at some recalibration of policy," Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

Republican Senator John McCain has discussed the broader context of Iraq, noting that George W. Bush isn't always a "straight shooter."

"We made serious mistakes," said Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican...After the CIA report was disclosed on Thursday, Kerry accused the president of living in a "fantasy world of spin" about Iraq and of not telling the truth about the growing chaos.

McCain said Bush had been "perhaps not as straight as maybe we'd like to see."

Here's Lugar quoted in the AP piece:

"Our committee heard blindly optimistic people from the administration prior to the war and people outside the administration -- what I call the 'dancing in the street crowd' -- that we just simply will be greeted with open arms," Lugar said. "The nonsense of all of that is apparent. The lack of planning is apparent."

Deep Trouble. Beyond pitiful. Beyond embarrasment.

Dangerous. Incompetent. Nonsense.

Does this seem shrill? These are three sitting senior Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee talking about US policy in Iraq.

So why would anyone want to keep the same team in place?

Band of Brothers II: The US Senate

I know everyone is talking about "star witness" Richard Clarke, who testified before the 9/11 Commission Wednesday. Since I wasn't able to watch and haven't yet read the transcript, I'll reserve comment for now.

Apparently, however, Clarke continued to attack the Bush administration for minimizing the terror threat in 2001 before 9/11 and for undermining the war on terror by attacking Iraq.

Interestingly, while Bush is being attacked for being soft on terror, some Republicans are defending John Kerry for his record on security policy.

Last week, fellow Vietnam veteran Republican Senator John McCain (Arizona) defended John Kerry's voting record on defense:

Discussing the Bush campaign charges, McCain told the "Today" show on Thursday, "I do not believe that he is, quote, weak on defense. He's responsible for his voting record, as we are all responsible for our records, and he'll have to explain it. But, no, I do not believe that he is necessarily weak on defense."

McCain, the straight talker, apparently wanted to set the record straight.

Sunday, in a chat show appearance that I missed, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel (Nebraska) seconded McCain's analysis:

Hagel joined fellow Vietnam veteran Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in criticizing ads sponsored by the Bush campaign that call Kerry, a senator from Massachusetts who also is a Vietnam veteran, "weak on defense."

"The facts just don't measure [up to]the rhetoric," Hagel said on ABC's "This Week."

"You can take a guy like John Kerry, who's been in the Senate for 19 years, and go through that voting record," Hagel said. "You can take it with … any of us, and pick out different votes, and then try to manufacture something around that."

For example, Kerry voted for one version of the $87 billion for Iraq when it was funded by increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans. He voted against it when the funding amendment failed.

Were Republicans against a Homeland Security Department...if unionized? Yes. It's the same deal.

Thanks to Mark A.R. Kleiman for the links to the LA Times story.