Breaking - Hagel Finally Speaking - "White House Tried To Destroy Me"

[norseamd]

In an exclusive interview, Chuck Hagel said the Obama administration micromanaged the Pentagon, stabbed him in the back on the way out -- and still has no strategy for fixing Syria.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/12/18...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

[UglyCasanova]

Do you have a link where I don't have to register by chance?


Edit: nm it says it exclusive so I'm guessing not, I'll register when I get to work.

I voted for Barry on Hope and Change but he has definitely turned out to be just another politician

 

[Brainonska511]

Do you have a link where I don't have to register by chance?


Edit: nm it says it exclusive so I'm guessing not, I'll register when I get to work.

I voted for Barry on Hope and Change but he has definitely turned out to be just another politician

Noscript blocks any popup from the site about registering.

 

[norseamd]

Noscript blocks any popup from the site about registering.

Exactly. I went like 2 years using google cache just to read the site, but Noscript lets me read it just as it is one the website without any nagging from FP to register.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Funny I'm perfectly fine with no strategy in Syria. I see it as no strategy is better than an unrealistic shitty strategy. I'm done sending troops, I'm done building shit so it can be destroyed, I'm done propping up corrupt guys, I'm done spending money so it can be stolen or embezzled from the top to bottom, I'm done dealing with back stabbing fucks.

 

[dank69]

Funny I'm perfectly fine with no strategy in Syria. I see it as no strategy is better than an unrealistic shitty strategy. I'm done sending troops, I'm done building shit so it can be destroyed, I'm done propping up corrupt guys, I'm done spending money so it can be stolen or embezzled from the top to bottom, I'm done dealing with back stabbing fucks.

I'm with you bro.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I never thought Hagel was a particularly good pick and this article isn't particularly any more flattering to him than it is Obama. If "micromanaging" kept us from another quagmire, good.

 

[Jaskalas]

Obama's handling of Syria is regime change through ISIS. By arming Syrian terrorists. Fermenting Islamic terrorism is not a winning strategy. That's exactly what Bush did wrong in Iraq and your President continues the same Neocon policy. You may celebrate him doing it "on the cheap" but the result still came back to hit us in San Bernardino.

The last two Presidents have made this world a much more dangerous place.
Your next nominee was also responsible as Sec of State, but you don't care and will gladly elect another Neocon.

 

[norseamd]

Your next nominee was also responsible as Sec of State, but you don't care and will gladly elect another Neocon.

When was Sanders ever Secretary of State or a Neoconservative?

 

[thraashman]

When was Sanders ever Secretary of State or a Neoconservative?

You gotta wonder what would happen as far as foreign policy for each candidate.
Sanders would be the only one I think has a legit chance of fixing any issues over there but would acknowledge there's no quick fix or easy solution.

Clinton and Rubio I figure would be about the same and the strategy would have things not changing a whole lot.

Trump would start insulting any foreign leaders who disagreed with him, try to nuke something, bomb everything he could regardless of whether or not it was a valid target, and probably coax Russia and China into using their own nukes through sheer belligerence. He'd then insist his ideas were perfect and his memory was the best while Boston, LA, NY, Chicago, and DC lay in ruins as nuclear wastelands.

Huckabee would pray and expect his god to fix it. Then when it didn't he'd say it's because of gay people.

Carson would launch an all out assault on chickpeas.

Ted Cruz would refuse to work with or negotiate with anyone, then carpet bomb the region, and not understand how 100 times more civilians were killed than members of ISIL.

Carly Fiorina would go to the middle east and take charge of ISIL only to bankrupt them when she legitimately tried to run it correctly.


So ... maybe we should elect Carly

 

[UglyCasanova]

What about Rand?

 

[thraashman]

What about Rand?

If you're asking me, I got nothing for Rand. Honestly I forgot he was still running.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

You gotta wonder what would happen as far as foreign policy for each candidate.
Sanders would be the only one I think has a legit chance of fixing any issues over there but would acknowledge there's no quick fix or easy solution.

Clinton and Rubio I figure would be about the same and the strategy would have things not changing a whole lot.

Trump would start insulting any foreign leaders who disagreed with him, try to nuke something, bomb everything he could regardless of whether or not it was a valid target, and probably coax Russia and China into using their own nukes through sheer belligerence. He'd then insist his ideas were perfect and his memory was the best while Boston, LA, NY, Chicago, and DC lay in ruins as nuclear wastelands.

Huckabee would pray and expect his god to fix it. Then when it didn't he'd say it's because of gay people.

Carson would launch an all out assault on chickpeas.

Ted Cruz would refuse to work with or negotiate with anyone, then carpet bomb the region, and not understand how 100 times more civilians were killed than members of ISIL.

Carly Fiorina would go to the middle east and take charge of ISIL only to bankrupt them when she legitimately tried to run it correctly.


So ... maybe we should elect Carly

Actually, I almost agree with all of your caricatures.

I just have to go back in time and look at the entire history -- post-WWII -- when it boils down to "drawing a red line."

The Founders, I think particularly Adams, had warned of "foreign entanglements." But we had Dean Acheson's "misstatement" attributed to encouraging Grandfather Kim's invasion of S. Korea. The public was told one thing about Iran's Mossadegh; we installed the Shah whose brutality increased as his grip weakened -- no explanation needed for appointing Richard Helms as Ambassador to Iran in 1976. In that case, Syria and Iran are parallel aspects of proxy-governments in the Cold War.

We had a complete disconnect between what the public knew and what was going on in Vietnam -- and today, we still see a prevalence of a mythical understanding of it. Then, GHWB's ambassador to Iraq, April Glespie, "misspoke" in such a way that it can be attributed to the invasion of Kuwait. The WMD fiasco just continued that family tradition.

Add up all that has been spent from Korea to Iraq, and the possibility that the Cold War might have ended around 1965 -- still to see the collapse of the USSR under its own weight and its own error with Afghanistan.

In this, I see the Russians as copy-cats. We put Atlas missiles in Turkey? They put them in Cuba. We set up a proxy state in Iran? They set one up in Syria. We ignored the failure of "Vietnamization" and inserted some 200,000 American troops -- bombing Cambodia? They put troops into Afghanistan.

So to extract ourselves and the world from this vicious cycle of blundering, it's going to take a lot more than simplistic assumptions about Syria, Russia, Al Assad, ISIS, Iraq and Iran -- coupled with another "surge" of military entanglement.

 

[BoberFett]

You gotta wonder what would happen as far as foreign policy for each candidate.
Sanders would be the only one I think has a legit chance of fixing any issues over there but would acknowledge there's no quick fix or easy solution.

Clinton and Rubio I figure would be about the same and the strategy would have things not changing a whole lot.

Trump would start insulting any foreign leaders who disagreed with him, try to nuke something, bomb everything he could regardless of whether or not it was a valid target, and probably coax Russia and China into using their own nukes through sheer belligerence. He'd then insist his ideas were perfect and his memory was the best while Boston, LA, NY, Chicago, and DC lay in ruins as nuclear wastelands.

Huckabee would pray and expect his god to fix it. Then when it didn't he'd say it's because of gay people.

Carson would launch an all out assault on chickpeas.

Ted Cruz would refuse to work with or negotiate with anyone, then carpet bomb the region, and not understand how 100 times more civilians were killed than members of ISIL.

Carly Fiorina would go to the middle east and take charge of ISIL only to bankrupt them when she legitimately tried to run it correctly.


So ... maybe we should elect Carly

I still don't like you, but that was pretty damn funny.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Funny I'm perfectly fine with no strategy in Syria. I see it as no strategy is better than an unrealistic shitty strategy. I'm done sending troops, I'm done building shit so it can be destroyed, I'm done propping up corrupt guys, I'm done spending money so it can be stolen or embezzled from the top to bottom, I'm done dealing with back stabbing fucks.

Yep, however unrealistic this is but the longer this shit drags out, the more convinced I become that the only way to deal with this is to do everything in our power to divorce ourselves from that entire region of the world as much as possible. Cut economic ties, cut military ties, cut everything, and just let the people in that region figure it all out for themselves. It seems like absolutely everything we do, without exception, just makes matters worse. Plough all the resources we can spare into electric cars, nuclear power, fracking, domestic oil reserves and alternative energy sources to wean ourselves off middle eastern oil, then just do everything we can to forget about that part of the world altogether. Either the ideas which motivate groups like ISIS will lose credibility, or the various disparate factions will eat each other alive.

There's only one way to win a war against a group like ISIS and that is to destroy their ideas. Say NATO bombarded ISIS territory and turned every single ISIS fighter into ashes, that wouldn't destroy the ideas that motivated them. In a few months, another group would rise up with a new leader proclaiming himself the "true" caliph and the whole ugly process would begin all over again.

 

[norseamd]

Yep, however unrealistic this is but the longer this shit drags out, the more convinced I become that the only way to deal with this is to do everything in our power to divorce ourselves from that entire region of the world as much as possible. Cut economic ties, cut military ties, cut everything, and just let the people in that region figure it all out for themselves.

And how well has this been working out?

 

[SP33Demon]

Funny I'm perfectly fine with no strategy in Syria. I see it as no strategy is better than an unrealistic shitty strategy. I'm done sending troops, I'm done building shit so it can be destroyed, I'm done propping up corrupt guys, I'm done spending money so it can be stolen or embezzled from the top to bottom, I'm done dealing with back stabbing fucks.

That's awfully libertarian and isolationist of you to say.

 

[SP33Demon]

Yep, however unrealistic this is but the longer this shit drags out, the more convinced I become that the only way to deal with this is to do everything in our power to divorce ourselves from that entire region of the world as much as possible. Cut economic ties, cut military ties, cut everything, and just let the people in that region figure it all out for themselves. It seems like absolutely everything we do, without exception, just makes matters worse. Plough all the resources we can spare into electric cars, nuclear power, fracking, domestic oil reserves and alternative energy sources to wean ourselves off middle eastern oil, then just do everything we can to forget about that part of the world altogether. Either the ideas which motivate groups like ISIS will lose credibility, or the various disparate factions will eat each other alive.

There's only one way to win a war against a group like ISIS and that is to destroy their ideas. Say NATO bombarded ISIS territory and turned every single ISIS fighter into ashes, that wouldn't destroy the ideas that motivated them. In a few months, another group would rise up with a new leader proclaiming himself the "true" caliph and the whole ugly process would begin all over again.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

That's awfully libertarian and isolationist of you to say.

Sure is

 

[werepossum]

Funny I'm perfectly fine with no strategy in Syria. I see it as no strategy is better than an unrealistic shitty strategy. I'm done sending troops, I'm done building shit so it can be destroyed, I'm done propping up corrupt guys, I'm done spending money so it can be stolen or embezzled from the top to bottom, I'm done dealing with back stabbing fucks.

Pretty much this. Bush had a successful strategy on Iraq. He removed a brutal dictator, established a democracy, and allowed the people to select their own leaders and form of government. Obama had no strategy on Syria; he has floundered around, setting a red line he could not enforce, and generally looked incompetent. And yet, the results are exactly the same. EXACTLY the same.

Knowing we are going to end up with the exact same jacks hole no matter our strategy or how it is executed, let's get it cheaply, in lives and treasure. This area is a shit hole, it has been a shit hole for hundreds of years, and it will continue to be a shit hole for hundreds of years. Spending a trillion dollars and thousands of American lives to pretend for a few years that it isn't a shit hole is not a smart thing to do, and the opinion of a Republican who hates Republicans does not change this. Chuck Hagel's Middle Eastern strategy would not work one whit better than Bush's or Obama's, and everyone knows it.

And since no one else is going to say it:
Holy crap, Chuck Hagel is still alive?

 

[werepossum]

You gotta wonder what would happen as far as foreign policy for each candidate.
Sanders would be the only one I think has a legit chance of fixing any issues over there but would acknowledge there's no quick fix or easy solution.

Clinton and Rubio I figure would be about the same and the strategy would have things not changing a whole lot.

Trump would start insulting any foreign leaders who disagreed with him, try to nuke something, bomb everything he could regardless of whether or not it was a valid target, and probably coax Russia and China into using their own nukes through sheer belligerence. He'd then insist his ideas were perfect and his memory was the best while Boston, LA, NY, Chicago, and DC lay in ruins as nuclear wastelands.

Huckabee would pray and expect his god to fix it. Then when it didn't he'd say it's because of gay people.

Carson would launch an all out assault on chickpeas.

Ted Cruz would refuse to work with or negotiate with anyone, then carpet bomb the region, and not understand how 100 times more civilians were killed than members of ISIL.

Carly Fiorina would go to the middle east and take charge of ISIL only to bankrupt them when she legitimately tried to run it correctly.


So ... maybe we should elect Carly

Sanders couldn't fix Syria; they already have socialism and a very strong central government, his only answers to every problem. But I second your nomination of Fiorina as President of ISIL.

If you're asking me, I got nothing for Rand. Honestly I forgot he was still running.

. . . said 99.9999% of all Americans.

 

[norseamd]

Sanders couldn't fix Syria; they already have socialism and a very strong central government, his only answers to every problem.

His twitter feed does not necessarily disagree with your statement. Well maybe only the very last part you said. That said he is the least terrible candidate out of the choices we have right now.

 

[werepossum]

His twitter feed does not necessarily disagree with your statement. Well maybe only the very last part you said. That said he is the least terrible candidate out of the choices we have right now.

Possibly - although that's like saying someone is the most attractive woman on the East German Olympic shot put team or the manliest man selling Mary Kay Cosmetics today.

 

[kage69]

Pretty much this. Bush had a successful strategy on Iraq. He removed a brutal dictator, established a democracy, and allowed the people to select their own leaders and form of government.

You do know we put Maliki in power, right? As well as what he did with it, with our blessings? He used the military and police to prevent Sunnis from running for office in this democracy. This has coalesced into the struggle against ISIS and Iran having a new client state. How the hell is that an example of successful foreign policy?!

That's a pretty low standard for what constitutes "establishing a democracy," in fact I'd say Cheney's Iraq project is a far better example of what never to do.

Iraq 2.0 is the single worst foreign policy disaster ever committed by our country, and no amount of lipstick is going to change that pig.

A decent read to refresh some memories... https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...d6a8a4-f7ec-11e3-a606-946fd632f9f1_story.html

"In short, Maliki’s one-man, one-Dawa-party Iraq looks a lot like Hussein’s one-man, one-Baath Party Iraq. But at least Hussein helped contain a strategic American enemy: Iran. And Washington didn’t spend $1 trillion propping him up. There is not much “democracy” left if one man and one party with close links to Iran control the judiciary, police, army, intelligence services, oil revenue, treasury and the central bank. Under these circumstances, renewed ethno-sectarian civil war in Iraq was not a possibility. It was a certainty.

I resigned in protest on Dec. 31, 2010. And now, with the United States again becoming entangled in Iraq, I feel a civic and moral obligation to explain how we reached this predicament.

The crisis now gripping Iraq and the Middle East was not only predictable but predicted — and preventable. By looking the other way and unconditionally supporting and arming Maliki, President Obama has only lengthened and expanded the conflict that President Bush unwisely initiated. Iraq is now a failed state, and as countries across the Middle East fracture along ethno-sectarian lines, America is likely to emerge as one of the biggest losers of the new Sunni-Shiite holy war, with allies collapsing and radicals plotting another 9/11."

 

[master_shake_]

You gotta wonder what would happen as far as foreign policy for each candidate.
Sanders would be the only one I think has a legit chance of fixing any issues over there but would acknowledge there's no quick fix or easy solution.

Clinton and Rubio I figure would be about the same and the strategy would have things not changing a whole lot.

Trump would start insulting any foreign leaders who disagreed with him, try to nuke something, bomb everything he could regardless of whether or not it was a valid target, and probably coax Russia and China into using their own nukes through sheer belligerence. He'd then insist his ideas were perfect and his memory was the best while Boston, LA, NY, Chicago, and DC lay in ruins as nuclear wastelands.

Huckabee would pray and expect his god to fix it. Then when it didn't he'd say it's because of gay people.

Carson would launch an all out assault on chickpeas.

Ted Cruz would refuse to work with or negotiate with anyone, then carpet bomb the region, and not understand how 100 times more civilians were killed than members of ISIL.

Carly Fiorina would go to the middle east and take charge of ISIL only to bankrupt them when she legitimately tried to run it correctly.


So ... maybe we should elect Carly

So many truths here.