Would Hagel push to bring troops home early? Squealing like

[SaveAmerica]

a little girl at the thought!!

No, actually, I am teared up at the thought of what Obama and Hagel could do for those in Afghanistan and I have high hopes. Obama needed the right combo to get this done and it will be himself and a Senator who has combat experience.

Now, I've worked myself up to an aching stomach and crazy heart palpitations!!

Signed,

the wife of an Veteran of OEF whose thoughts have been in the Middle East since 2001

[SaveAmerica]

1. Link to his thoughts on Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan

Well, now I'm full on crying, call me a baby.


http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/06/chuck-hagels-views-on-war-forged-by-vietnam-experience/

Badly burned after his armored personnel carrier hit a land mine in Vietnam, Chuck Hagel sat in a medical evacuation helicopter thinking of the horrors he had experienced during combat.

"If I ever get out, if I ever can influence anything, I will do all I can to prevent war," he would later tell his biographer, Charlyne Berens.
......

"Not that I'm a pacifist - I'm a hard-edged realist, I understand the world as it is - but war is a terrible thing. There's no glory, only suffering," he is quoted as saying in his 2006 biography, "Chuck Hagel: Moving Forward."

Hagel opposed the troop surge in Iraq, as did Obama, calling it, "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam." He similarly opposed Obama's surge in Afghanistan and called for deep cuts in defense spending.

[TwilightGardener]

2. It's Obama's decision, obviously, but Hagel was not terribly happy about

sending additional troops there a couple years ago, and said so publicly--he said something like "I'm not sure we know what the hell we're doing over there"...even though he was in Obama's administration already at the time. Oops, on edit--found it in the article you posted:

"Hagel has been critical of U.S. policy in Afghanistan. In 2009 he opposed Obama's 30,000-troop surge, telling the National Journal, "I'm not sure we know what the hell we are doing in Afghanistan."

[Bluenorthwest]

3. But of course he voted to go to war there in the first place, then voted to invade Iraq too.

His pattern is 'criticize it, then vote for it'. He authorized both Afghanistan and Iraq Wars as Senator from Nebraska. Many Democratic Senators and one Republican voted against the Iraq Resolution. Hagel voted for it after one of his very best 'I'm not sure' speeches. It was a good speech. But then he voted to let the bombs drop in spite of not being sure. Making the speech both good and moot.

[TwilightGardener]

5. Hagel was in agreement with the Afghanistan war. He wasn't torn about it.

Of course, he probably didn't think it would last 11 years. Iraq was problematic for him, but then you can imagine he was fairly prominent in the GOP at the time, and didn't want to go against his own party and President unless he knew for sure they didn't have a case concerning the WMD--especially when his Democratic Senate colleagues were mostly voting for the war (Biden, Kerry, Edwards, Hillary). He knew it was probably not a good idea, and gave in, and that is his fault--but look at the shit he is catching from the GOP/neocons for stuff as stupid as refusing to sign AIPAC loyalty letters. His later opposition ultimately ended his political career--that is a lot to sacrifice. What did Democrats have to lose at that time by being against Iraq? Point is, you can't have higher standards for him than for Democratic party members--anyone would have forgiven Democrats for not going along with Bush's wars, and yet most of them chose to go along with it, probably for fear of looking weak on defense and terra.

[stultusporcos]

4. The best case scenario to get out of Afghanistan is 18 months from the day the the draw down starts

that is how long it will take to get all the troops and equipment out without making things even worse than they are now.

"Amateurs study tactics, armchair generals study strategy, and professionals study logistics"
Gen Omar Bradley

[SaveAmerica]

6. Draw down is going on now and has been going on for a while

So I disagree with you. If President Obama set a time-frame that is expedient for whatever his reason/needs and is shorter than the current draw down dates, it will be executed quickly and with no question to safety (see troops leave Iraq between October and December '11 and 82nd Airborne leave Afghanistan before Christmas '12).

I've experience that includes the clearing of troops from a large area in Iraq that happened quickly and left equipment, gear, computers, and other tax-payer funded doo-dads across the sand. Same **** different desert, it can be done. I also spoke as little as 4 days ago with someone who was part of the Iraq Exodus in '12 and heard of the conditions. If they want it done, it gets done (it's the US freaking military, the world's most expensive; they can do what they set their mind to. That's why it's ridiculous that we're still in A'stan 11 years later).

As a last note; please consider before you add your snarky quotes to your posts that you don't know the experience of a poster, no matter how much more you feel you have.