Novak on Hagel on Iraq
Posted on April 30, 2007 - Filed Under American Politics |
There’s a reassuring piece by Robert Novak in today’s Washington Post in which he recounts a recent conversation with conservative Republican Chuck Hagel, who is probably the most prominent Republican opposed to the ongoing war in Iraq. When asked about the Bush administration’s oft-repeated claims that withdrawing from Iraq would leave a safe haven for terrorists, from which they could launch attacks on US soil, Hagel replied that:
“That’s nonsense,” Hagel replied. “I’ve never believed that. That’s the same kind of rhetoric and thinking that neocons used to get us into this mess and everything that [Donald] Rumsfeld, [Paul] Wolfowitz, [Richard] Perle, [Douglas] Feith and the vice president all said. Nothing turned out the way they said it would.”
Novak goes on to write:
It is “nonsense,” Hagel said, because “Iraq is not embroiled in a terrorist war today.” Hagel, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, cited “national intelligence” attributing “maybe 10 percent” of the insurgency and violence to al-Qaeda. Indeed, he described Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds as opposed to al-Qaeda: “They don’t like the terrorists. What’s happened in Anbar province is the tribes are finally starting to connect with us because al-Qaeda started killing some of their leadership and threatening their people. So the tribes now are at war with al-Qaeda.”
“So,” said Hagel, “when I hear people say, ‘Well, if we leave them to that, it will be chaos’ — what do you think is going on now? Scaring the American people into this blind alley is so dangerous.”
While it most be admitted that Hagel stands more or less alone in GOP on this matter (others may share his view but are loath to express it themselves), I still find it heartening to hear such frank remarks from the American right. Too often elements within the US media succeed in portraying the Democrat’s proposals for phased withdrawal as irresponsible and shortsighted, so it’s nice to find broader political support for their plans.
However, I’m still not fully convinced that pulling out of Iraq will improve matters. The idea that all the warring factions in Iraq will come together and forge peace if they hear that the Americans are leaving is unrealistically optimistic, and there’s a very good chance that an out-and-out civil war will follow any substantial troop redeployments. That is not to say that the US forces should remain for the Iraqis’ sake, but simply that proponents of redeployment should be more honest about the likely consequences. As regards terrorism, I think the administration is exaggerating the risk of Iraq becoming a base of operations for Al Qaeda. Why would a country in the midst of civil war be more suitable than the stateless Pushtan border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan, or indeed anywhere else for that matter? If nothing else, a US withdrawal would destabilise the region, raising oil prices in the process.
If Americans decide that they have had enough and don’t want to find themselves in the same situation ten years from now then a withdrawal is inevitable, but the likely negative consequences of such a move should not be papered over by anyone, least of all the Democrats, who run the risk of the scuttle blowing up in their face. Having said that, staying the course doesn’t look like the better option. When he spoke to Congress recently, the head of US military operations in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, seemed to suggest that it could take years to stabilize Iraq. Realistically, he has until autumn, at best, before most Republicans join Chuck Hagel in demanding that the US ‘cut and run’, as they used to phrase it.
Comments
Leave a Reply
