Chuck
Hagel's Challenge To America
By Kevin Zeese
31 January, 2007
Countercurrents.org
Last
week Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) spoke with strength, clarity and emotion
about the need for every senator to take a stand on the Iraq War. There
are moments in the Iraq War dialogue that create a paradigm shift in
the Congress and the nation, e,g, when Rep. Murtha called for withdrawal.
The statement by Sen. Hagel, whose comments are rooted in the experience
of Vietnam, should be one of those moments. And, if he runs for president
he may turn the election upside down with a Republican anti-war candidate
running against a Democrat who is fuzzy on the war.
Hagel's Military Experience
Hagel has one of the most
pro-military voting records in Congress. He scores a mere 5% on the
authoritative Peace Majority Report scorecard on peace and security
issues. To get a sense of where he stands in relation to other senators,
McCain scored 4%, Lieberman 26%, Clinton 56%, and Feingold 74%. So,
Hagel is not someone who votes against the military, in fact he is a
loyal supporter of the Department of Defense.
He is also someone with military
experience that grounds him in the realities of war. His official biographies
describe Hagel as a Vietnam War veteran who served in the U.S. Army
infantry, attaining the rank of Sergeant (E-5) from 1967-68. He received
the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, Purple Heart, Army Commendation Medal
and the Combat Infantryman Badge. But that perfunctory report does not
tell the whole story and the impact it has had on Senator Hagel.
By coincidence Hagel served
in Vietnam, in the bloody year of the Tet Offensive in 1968, with his
younger brother Tom. Chuck Hagel was 21 and Tom was 19 and the two nearly
died together twice. They fought in the 9th Infantry Division south
of Saigon. The first time they almost died was when the soldier in the
lead position on patrol triggered a bobby trap. The Hagel brothers had
just been rotated off the lead position a few minutes earlier and when
the blast occurred not only did it kill the soldier in the lead, but
it left Chuck with a major wound to his chest, that bled until his brother
stopped it with bandages. Tom then found out that he had shrapnel in
his left arm.
The second near death experience
involved a mine blowing up under the Armed Personnel Carrier in which
they were being transported. The explosion set Chuck on fire, burning
his face so it was covered in bubbles and bursting his eardrums. His
brother was knocked unconscious and Chuck managed to drag him out of
the APC. They found themselves under attack from machine gun fire, but
fellow soldiers had heard the blast and returned to save them.
Vietnam shaped both Chuck
and Tom. Tom reacted strongly and bitterly feeling guilt about participating
in what he saw as war crimes, suffering from depression and alcohol
abuse. He became a criminal defense lawyer and a law professor. He also
became a liberal Democrat who supported Sen. John Kerry in the 2004
election.
Sen. Hagel had a different
reaction. For years he continued to believe that the Vietnam War was
a noble cause. This created such a division between the two brothers
that the topic was off-limits at family dinners. Chuck suppressed his
feelings and took the approach of getting on with his life, claiming
he was just fine. He continued to have an ideological view of the world
including the belief that U.S. involvement in Vietnam was for the right
reasons. Suppression of the war's effects did not work well. He lived
in a small house on the edge of Omaha, Nebraska while he went to school,
had no social life and didn't talk to anybody. During that year somehow
he dealt with the war and began a more normal life. He started to read
about the history of Indochina, the French, the Vietnamese, and U.S.
policy. He began to realize there was a lot of dishonesty in the Vietnam
War and connecting the deaths with the dishonesty.
The final straw was listening
to White House tapes of President Johnson. They made him cringe. He
realized that the U.S. strayed from its "noble" origins into
a war that was false and fought to save face. The Washington Post reports
that Hagel remembers especially a conversation between LBJ and Sen.
Richard Russell (D-GA), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who
thought Johnson should get out of Vietnam: "It isn't important
a bit," Russell said. Johnson said he didn't want a war, but he
worried: "They'd impeach a president . . . that would run out,
wouldn't they?" He wrote in the Omaha World-Herald that "the
tough questions were not asked when we sent young men and women into
Vietnam. Where were our elected officials then? Eleven years and 58,000
deaths later, we lost. I don't want that to happen in Iraq."
Hagel tells fellow Senators: Facing up to Iraq is "the
essence of our responsibility"
When Senator Hagel speaks
about Iraq he is speaking with strong sincerity based on the real life
experience of war, and understanding that sometimes the United States
has been dishonest when it has fought wars. He also speaks as someone
who understands the challenge of veterans who have served in war. His
first federal political appointment was as Deputy Administrator of Veterans
Affairs under President Ronald Reagan. He continues to be active in
veteran's organizations, e.g. Disabled American Veterans, Friends of
the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Veterans
of Foreign War and Vietnam Veterans of America.
His criticism of the Iraq
War before the Foreign Relations Committee was personal "This is
a ping-pong game with American lives. These young men and women that
we put in Anbar province, in Iraq, in Baghdad are not beans. They're
real lives. And we better be damn sure we know what we're doing - all
of us - before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder. We better
be as sure as you can be," he said on January 25th. He co-sponsored
the Hagel-Biden Resolution opposing the increase in troops in Iraq saying
the planned troop surge is "not in the national interest."
Hagel, however, is not going
as far as many peace advocates are urging, saying "We are not talking
about cutting off funds, not supporting the troops. This is a very real,
responsible addressing of the most divisive issue in this country since
Vietnam. Yes, sure, it's tough....If you wanted a safe job, go sell
shoes. This is a tough business. But is it any tougher, us having to
take a tough vote, express ourselves, and have the courage to step up
on what we are asking our young men and women to do? I don't think so....
Can't we debate the most critical issue of our time, out front, in front
of the American people?"
And Hagel specifically addressed
fellow Senators "I think all 100 senators ought to be on the line
on this. What do you believe? What are you willing to support? What
do you think? Why were you elected?" He concluded his comments
saying:
"And I want every one of you, every one of us, 100 senators to
look in that camera, and you tell your people back home what you think.
Don't hide anymore; none of us.
"That is the essence of our responsibility. And if we're not willing
to do it, we're not worthy to be seated right here. We fail our country.
If we don't debate this, if we don't debate this, we are not worthy
of our country. We fail our country."
His fellow Republicans on the committee would not go as far as him.
Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), the ranking member of the committee while
critical of the president and recognizing "the tremendous investment
that sending more American soldiers to Iraq represents" worried
that the U.S. was depending "on theories or hopes that something
good may happen" still opposed the nonbinding resolution saying
"it's the wrong tool for this stage in the Iraq debate" and
would lead to an isolated president who "is deeply invested in
this plan" and who "may have less incentive to consult with
Congress on future Iraq decisions." He urged his colleagues not
to give in to frustration with a White House that has not listened to
the Congress in the past.
Senator John McCain (R-AZ) who supports the troop surge said "The
goal is to try to salvage this thing and not send additional troops
over with a message of disapproval from the Congress." His fellow
supporter of the escalation, Lindsay Graham (R-SC) said "We can't
have 535 commanders in chief, and if you think the U.S. is doomed to
fail, please remember that the enemy is listening."
Hagel was the lone Republican
in the 12-9 vote in the Foreign Relations Committee in favor of the
resolution.
A Republican Peace Candidate for President?
Senator Hagel is considering
a run for the White House. He won his re-election in 2002 with 83% of
the vote, the largest margin ever in a Nebraska Senate race. He worked
in the Reagan administration and was a darling of the party when he
was first elected to Congress in 1996 when he won a traditionally Democratic
seat from an incumbent Democrat. His military record and mid-America
personality had people talking about him as a presidential candidate
in 2000 and 2004. Like the leading Republican candidate, John McCain,
he was viewed as a straight talking maverick. Now, the two are on opposite
ends of the spectrum when it comes to the Iraq War and more and more
of his fellow Republicans in the Senate are uncomfortable with Hagel's
criticism of President Bush.
The Washington Post reports
that Hagel will decide in the next six weeks whether he is going to
run for re-election or run for president. And he told the Post that
he was considering a number of possibilities seeking the Republican
nomination or taking a more creative path, teaming up with moderate
Republican Michael Bloomberg the Mayor of New York and even the possibility
of a unity ticket with a Democrat.
His big hurdle may be getting
sufficient support in the Republican primaries. Currently McCain and
Guiliani lead in polls with 20% to 30% support with Hagel attracting
only1% of registered Republicans. Of course, these polls are very early
and may not mean all that much. Even among Republicans opposition to
the war is growing so McCain may find his support for sending more troops
to hurt him politically. Hagel has a more conservative rating than McCain
according to the American Conservative Union with Hagel at 96 and McCain
at 80. But, winning support from the conservative base of Republican
primary voters will be a challenge for Hagel because of his criticism
of the president in a time of war.
The argument that may convince
Republican voters is that Hagel may be the only Republican who can save
their party from the errors of George W. Bush. And, when they see his
conservative voting record they may get more comfortable. Further, Republicans
have long supported following the advice of President George Washington
to avoid "foreign entanglements" and President Eisenhower
resisted a major escalation in Vietnam. Hagel may find a niche in the
Republican Party that is enough to overcome the shrinking base of supporters
of the Iraq War.
Despite his conservative
credentials, Hagel is garnering support from liberal anti-war advocates.
Robert Scheer, who writes for TruthDig.com, wrote recently "Chuck
Hagel for president! If it ever narrows down to a choice between him
and some Democratic hack who hasn't the guts to fundamentally challenge
the president on Iraq, then the conservative Republican from Nebraska
will have my vote. Yes, the war is that important, and the fact that
Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, the leading Democratic candidate,
still can't or won't take a clear stand on the occupation is insulting
to the vast majority of voters who have."
And, McCain has also but
noted for sparring against conservative independent-Democrat Joseph
Lieberman, who supports the escalation in Iraq, on Meet the Press. The
segment has been making the rounds on YouTube under the title "Hagel
Spanks Lieberman." Lieberman is more and more at odds with Democratic
voters. He is even talking about possibly supporting a Republican in
the presidential election.
And, Hagel has not been positioning
himself on the war in order to run for president. His criticism of the
war has been ongoing. Last August he called for the troops being home
in six months and described the Iraq War as the worst foreign policy
error since Vietnam. He is not shying away from the politically uncomfortable
truth saying "We're losing in Iraq." Two months before that
he urged the president to start bringing the troops home before the
end of 2006. A year earlier Hagel described Iraq as "looking more
and more like Vietnam" and August 2005 said: "We should start
figuring out how we get out of there . . . I think our involvement there
has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think
the further destabilization will occur." At the outset of the war
he urged the president to send two to three times as many troops.
Hagel may present an upside-down
world for anti-war voters. His vocal opposition to the war is a stark
contrast to leading Democrats who are, at best, fuzzy on the war and
trying to put aside their pro-war voting records and rhetoric as they
have seen the mood of the electorate change. If the Republicans are
smart they will nominate an anti-Iraq War candidate and pull independents
and some anti-war Democrats to their party in 2008.
Kevin Zeese
is executive director of Democracy Rising and a co-founder of VotersForPeace.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights