So what's Hagel going to do about it? He's a United States Senator, not just some powerless pundit. What's his plan? These are the questions people need to be asking the moderate Republicans.

He's going to do exactly nothing Matt.  Just like all the "traditional conservative" Republicans who told me they couldn't stomach voting for Bush, but apparently changed their minds in the voting booth (if the statistics from the precincts in my neighborhood are to be believed).  These people are in the control of a political machine and an ideology of conformance/obedience that makes it impossible for them to take any significant action against the annoited leader or his annoited successor.

sPh 

Exactly Dr. Yglesias.

And since we understand Senator Hagel is a busy man we'll give him not an open-ended test but a simple multiple choice exam.

Here are your options Mr. Senator. Pick one.

1)  Bush goes to Europe and Russia, gets down on his knees and sucks European and Russian schlong, apologizes profusely in public, and begs them for troops.

2) Bush gets down on his knees and sucks American schlong, apologizes profusely in public, and begs us to accept a draft.

3) Both #1 and #2.

4) Bush declares victory and begins the withdrawal.

While I suspect that you are correct that nothing substantive will come out of Hagel's comments, I suspect his motive was sincere. If I had to find any political significance in his newly found concerns, I suspect that he is simply trying to put a little, just a little, distance between himself and a lame duck President. (Hagel in '08?)

But being a former resident of Nebraska (Hagel's state), if only for a couple of brief years while my future wife worked at UNKearney, I can say that Nebraskans as a lot are definitely staunch conservatives. However, they are *not* classic Bush Republicans. They can smell bullshit a mile away - literally. Hagel would not have said what he said if the sentiment of his fellow cornhuskers was not on the same wave length.

That's right, Senator Hagel, what is your plan?  The plan coming from the administration is to "stay the course", so what would you do, Senator Hagel?  You are a member of the majority party; give us deeds, not just words.

I just used the number available to me, Anon.

Of the 1738 military deaths in Iraq so far, 1369 are rated as combat deaths.  I added to the GWOT total 192 combat deaths in Afghanistan.

GWOT is America's 12th war.  I think it's time we started comparing The GWOT to the other 11 in terms of costs...and what we hope to gain from it.

the version I heard was John Podesta saying "Whenever somebody brings me a plan that relies on the moderate Republicans holding firm, I say, `Bring me another plan.'"

<p>&quot; 9. GWOT.............................1,561&quot;</p><p>&nbsp;<br /> By what count is this, exactly? As of today there are 1739 US casualties from Iraq alone.<br /> </p><strong />

Since the war affects us all would it not be nice to see some kind of bipartisanship? I read in the Boston Globe today that the American military has been meeting with insurgent leaders. This does not add any credence that we are winning in Iraq. In fact it sounds more like we are not doing so well. It would be nice to see the democrat and republican senators put aside their differences at least long enough to solve this problem, then they can go back to what ever, but this should be a priority and a bipartisan effort.

How are they not classic Bush Republicans.
 
Just a couple of quick thoughts: They are very pragmatic rather than emotional as an electorate. If you compare the conservative nature of NE to, say... TX, you will find a couple of stark differences. Nebraskans, while certainly religious, are much less under the thumb of some great evangelical movement. They honestly believe in and practice small and confined state Government. Texas' bureaucracy is as hypocritically bloated as almost any blue state. The rural nature of the state makes local politics seem almost like southern Minnesota (another region I am familiar with), Iowa or South Dakota, while very unlike NE's neighbor to the south, Kansas.

True, as a state they voted for Bush, Dole, Bush and Reagan but if the Cornhusker's ever put a candidate for president forward, he would look a lot like Bob Kerrey, a Democrat, or Hagel, who looks more and more like McCain.

Well, you should be counting the 40000+ out-of-action troops as well since they are out of the fight. They are not dead, but out of the fight is just as bad, if not worse.

Good point, Matt.  But it would help if the Dems had a plan to show the way.  Ah, but Biden has a plan. Want to hear it? Here goes:

1. Regain confidence of the public by reporting to congress more often (Yeah, sure. that'll teach those insurgents. well, whatever.) 

2. Have the French train 3000 Iraqi cops. (I only hope the Daily Show doesn't get wind of that one.)

3. Have NATO provide 3000 troops to guard the borders. Since that's DOA (and Biden knows it), maybe the Minutemen could help. Hey Minutemen, how about harassing 20 million dark-skinned people and getting paid for it?  What'd ya say?

4. Use the reconstruction money, for God's sake!  Here's a good hiring line: "Build your neighborhood sewage system and be the first boy on your block to come home in a box!"

5. Get the Sunnis into the game for crying out loud (geez, who's ever thought of that? Biden's an original!)

That's not a plan. That's political posturing: extra strength crapola! I see no difference between Hagel and Biden: both voted for the war, and both are utterly clueless about what to do.

Exactly, positively, spot on, nailed it right on the money.

Did I mention I agree?

All of these guys are spouting hot air mixed with laughing gas, enhanced with the strong odor of bullshit.  

The reason is simple. There is no possible plan that includes our staying in Iraq that will lead ot "victory." 

And the reason for that is equally simple, and should be obvious by now.

We are the problem. As long as we are the problem we cannot be part of the solution. 

The insurgency is not so much about fomenting a civil war, or gaining the upper hand in a new government , it is about getting rid of the occupying American forces.  That is why it has widespread support. That is why it targets police and Iraqi guards, who are seen as puppets of the occupiers, whether they be Sunnis or Shias. The insurgency will not stop until we leave.

This is not to say that if we leave everything will immediately become peaches and cream. There has been a lot of damage done to that society and it will take some time, and perhaps some bloodshed, to restore a functioning society. But Iraqis are not stupud, they are not uneducated, they are not crazy. They want a decent life like anyone else.  They just want it on their own terms, in their own way, without foreign interference from infidels. Does that seem unreasonable?

If we set up a program of restorations/reparations, a real program of tens of billions, (less than what we are spending now, by the way) and a phased withdrawal, perhaps with the addition of UN or other international peacekeepers for a transitional period, the back of the insurgency would be broken.  They would have nothing to be insurgent about. They would have the perfect right to fight among themselves to hammer out a new government. I don't know exactly what that would look like, and maybe neither do the Iraqis. But it would be theirs.
 

As long as we stay we make trouble. To claim that if we leave Iraq will descend into chaos is both counterintuitive and foolish.  Iraq has descended into chaos. Because of us. Our staying won't help stop that.  Our leaving will.  And this means abandoning those new permanent bases, getting out of the green zone, and letting them keep their own oil, which we will be glad to buy. And giving up the insane idea that we can solve their problems when we can't even solve our own.

Who knows? Maybe, if we give them enough actual freedom, an enough help to rebuild their country, by themselves, they may even like us again someday. And maybe a few others will, too.

The alternative to leaving is not some ephemeral "victory."  It is humiliating. costly defeat.

Why supposedly smart people, like Hegel and especially Biden, Ms. Clinton, and so many other Dems who oppose the war but tow the line of "we can't leave now, we must finish the job," can't see this is, frankly, beyond me.

Is it because they are afraid of being tarred as ones who would "cut and run" and being called weak? If so, then they are weak.

Maybe he's genuinely concerned. I guess a politican can show a little honesty once in a great while.

But I suspect  that Hagel is really thinking about 2008. He may be gambling that by 2008 Iraq will be such a monumental catastrophe that it could threaten to bring down any GOP candidate. So, by distancing himself from W now, he may be hoping to stay ahead of the curve of public opinion so it doesn't run him over in 2008.

Another note on this: he hasn't staked out an antiwar position. He's calling for more troops, more money etc. He's arguing for escalation. I think this part of the 2008 strategy - not to run against the war, but as the 'real' tough guy who can win the war that W is botching.

Never mind the fact that we don't have much left to escalate with short of a draft or just gettng genocidal and nuking most of Iraq. Not that voters will necessarily pick up the BS of course.

As for what he'll actually do about the situation right now, I think we can expect to see two things from Chuck Hagel:

1) Jack

and 

2) Shit

Same goes for McCain and the other "moderate" Republicans. Over the last 5 years they have proven themselves about as useful as a superfluous third nipple.

Even if they wanted to do something about it, they don't seem to have much power in the party. I doubt Bush, Rummy, or "Big Time" Dick will listen to them. In fact, as Cheney's attack on Hagel shows, doubting Republicans are just as much a target of Rove's new "Liberals are losing us the war" smear campaign. Get behind The Leader or we'll sic the GOP base on you.

Not that i disagree with the many posters who think Hagel will do nothing (i liked the line that he will do two things: jack and shit), but i'm willing to wait until tuesday evening.

if, after bush delivers the stay-the-course speech we can all anticipate on tuesday night (the only new thing is that he will actually make reference to how this won't be easy), hagel (and mccain, and anyone else who might actually have questions about bush's excellent adventure) comes out and admires the president's "vision" or "command" or "levelling with the american people," then we can write this guy (and his fellow travellers) off altogether.

which is what i expect to do, but that's why they play 'em on the field.

Because, as we all know, the modern Republican party lacks ideas. That's why they don't have a plan.

Kerry won exactly 1 county in Nebraska (Thurston).

I believe that's 1 more than he won in either Kansas or Oklahoma. 

The prospect of that number pushing past the death toll on 9/11 is not lost on Karl Rove, I am sure.  Impossible of deflection.

 For the dickhead above who wants to pretend that "combat deaths" are somehow more significant than "others"...

 Are those "others" any less fucking dead?

  And...Are you at all familiar with the way DOD "cooks the books" on such things? - They sure as hell did in Vietnam...And I doubt very much if that's changed...

 Anyone that stupid/naive has no business commenting on such matters...

Actually FWIW, KS had 2 counties for Kerry.  OK had none.  I found that in a few minutes.  Could you look next time?

What's Hagel's plan?

Why, to be reelected, of course.

I think a lot of elected Republicans want to distance themselves from the reality-denying world of the Bush administration. Too many voters are saying, "WTF?", and most of these guys aren't stupid. But they also realize that if the solid front of their party comes apart, they will be in trouble. Therefore, they will admit to some of the reality, but stand behind Bush.

Why do you guys expect Hagel to do anything when you can't get Biden or Lieberman to propose a withdrawal.