Will Hagel’s past doubts about U.S. military intervention in Iraq help or hurt?

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.omaha.com/news/military/will-hagel-s-past-doubts-about-u-s-military-intervention/article_366d38c5-f115-51e8-b4ad-2969393479b5.html

POSTED: TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 1:00 AM
By Joseph Morton / World-Herald Bureau

WASHINGTON — When Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel heads to Capitol Hill this week to sell the administration’s strategy against Islamic State militants, he will take with him a record of skepticism about U.S. military intervention in Iraq.

As a two-term Republican senator from Nebraska, Hagel was a strong critic of the Bush administration’s handling of the Iraq War, and he resisted the 2007 “surge” strategy that proponents credit with turning the tide of the conflict.

It remains to be seen whether those positions from a previous life will bolster or undermine Hagel’s case as he advocates for a plan to degrade and destroy the Islamic State militants through aggressive airstrikes and support for friendly forces on the ground, including the moderate opposition in Syria.

Hagel will testify today before the Senate Armed Services Committee and will face questions later in the week from House members. Secretary of State John Kerry also is scheduled to testify this week in front of different committees.

FULL story at link.



Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel

Chuck Hagel quotes

HAGEL IN 2008

“Misguided and dangerous ideology, not military necessity, landed us in Iraq. Taken in sum, this (George W. Bush) administration’s
hell-bent determination to go to war in Iraq was an historic blunder borne of an astounding amount of arrogance, ignorance and incompetence. In my opinion, this misstep will play out to be the most dangerous and costly foreign policy debacle in our nation’s history.”

— Chuck Hagel, in his 2008 book, “America: Our Next Chapter.”

HAGEL IN 2014

“The president (Obama) has been very clear about we’re not going to go back into Iraq the same way we came out of Iraq a few years ago. That means a combat action, so-called boots on the ground combat action for American troops. We’re not going to do that. I support that decision. I think it’s the — the right decision.”
— Chuck Hagel, Sept. 3, 2014,

interview on CNN

[MisterP]

1. hawks of course support a war: the trick is to get the doves behind it

that generates disproportionately more support--since if a dove or two is behind it, doesn't that mean there might be something to the war and we should suspend judgment?

same effect with the New Atheists' backing of Islamophobia/Mideastern war: it makes it sound more plausible that it's a real problem than if it were just some Crusade of fundies and oil barons