Chuck Hagel: Quit Talking About The Surge, Focus On War's Future

OMAHA, Neb. — Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, fresh from an Iraq trip with Democrat Barack Obama, said the presidential candidates should focus on the war's future and stop arguing over the success of last year's troop surge.

Hagel mentioned both candidates, but his comments seemed directed at Republican John McCain. McCain, while Obama traveled the Middle East, attacked Obama for opposing the military escalation last year that increased security in Iraq.

"Quit talking about, 'Did the surge work or not work,' or, 'Did you vote for this or support this,'" Hagel said Thursday on a conference call with reporters.

"Get out of that. We're done with that. How are we going to project forward?" the Nebraska senator said. "What are we going to do for the next four years to protect the interest of America and our allies and restructure a new order in the world. ... That's what America needs to hear from these two candidates. And that's where I am."

Hagel, too, opposed the troop increase strategy, though he acknowledged Thursday it brought about positive changes. "When you flood the zone with superior American military firepower, and you put 30,000 of the world's best troops in a country, there's going to be a result there," Hagel said.

Whether the surge worked, though, can't be measured, Hagel said, arguing the small gains came at a high price. He said President Bush's decision last year to dispatch an additional 30,000 troops to Iraq has cost more than 1,000 American lives and billions of dollars.

Though Hagel is a Republican, his name has been floated as a potential vice presidential running mate for Obama. Like McCain, he is a Vietnam war veteran, but Hagel is a fierce critic of the war in Iraq. He has said he would consider running with Obama on the Democratic ticket but that he doesn't expect to be asked. He is not running for reelection.

Hagel joined Democratic Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island in traveling with Obama to the Middle East. Reed said the trip was productive. "It wasn't just a photo op and social chit chat," Reed said in a telephone interview.

Reed said the group pressed Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to have the Iraqi government do more.

"Unless the government of Iraq can start delivering _ delivering jobs, delivering funds, performing _ then the gains that have been made will be quickly erased," Reed said. "I think that is a point that we all stressed, particularly Senator Obama, with the prime minister."

___

Associated Press Writer Andrew Miga in Washington contributed to this report.

(This version CORRECTS that Hagel has said in the past, not Thursday, he would run.)

Comments

[rinpochet]

Sorry Chuck. Can't stop talking about the surge. That will leave McSame nothing to talk about!!

[devinsbuddy]

The whole world's watching...

[kellygrrrl]

indeed

[Meteor]

One only has to walk out the door and look up into the starry sky at night to see and to know for certain how utterly foolish wars are.

[mexicanamerican1948]

Wars are a natural part of man, check out history from the cave man to today, the only question is to lose them or win them. The policy in the future of Iran and its allys will not be peace, but war to end Israel, we will have to fight that war. Sad but true, better to win rather to lose...

[blackmouth]

Wars are not a natural part of man. Man has evolved to a higher level that gives us the power to make decisions. Weather we make the right decision or the wrong decisions is the problem. When ever I make a decision I like to have all the information so that at least I can make an informed decision. The decision to go to war against Iraq was based on bad information and lies. The only natural thing about war is greed and that can be overcome through moral information and understanding. There is never a good reason for war.

[JiminNC]

Amen!

[Viper]

Unfortunately only one side has to be foolish so that even the non foolish party is forced to fight. Some times there is no choice.

There was no choice in WW2 or Afganistan or Desert Storm. There was every choice in Vietnam and Iraq 2003. In those two cases we were the foolish side and the ourcome was/is accordingly foolish.

Al Qeda was a small problem in Iraq that never existed until we invaded. Whats now left is an internal power structure between multiple regional powers/players... a civil war/power struggle... which our troops should not be involved in. No one came to our civil war party to separate the south and the north. It was a family squable. So is this.

Joe Bidden years ago said... we dont have to worry about Al Qeada in Iraq. The Iraqi's hate them and when we live they will take care of them. We did not even have to leave, just put the Sunnis on our P/R.

Regards

[jimme]

Well put. My same thoughts exactly at times.

[muadibe]

Very nicely put. I agree totally. More people need to do that.

[PixieThis]

Wow - I have to say that I'm impressed.

[happyblackman]

Wow. A forward thinking Republican? I've seen it all.

[GuyFawkes]

The MSM should be asking McDubya, "Knowing what you know now, that there were no WMD or conenection to Al Qaeda, would you still invade Iraq?"

If we're going to keep rehashing decisions, let's go back to the beginning.

[Msohio]

I wrote Senator Hagel a short note approximately two years ago where I asked him to run for President. I just wanted to see an intelligent, honest, fair debate over how we can honestly fix the problems created by the Bushies. He would make an excellent Secretary of Defense.

[JohnFromCensornati]

Could we please focus on its END?