Former US senator Chuck Hagel says the United States should build coalitions of common interests instead of engaging in wars and using force to impose its will on others.

Hagel, a former Republican senator from Nebraska, wrote in a Washington Post article published Thursday that the US should take lessons from its previous useless war in Vietnam and try to address the 21st century threats through engagement and not the use of force.

Hagel warned that the United States should drop the idea of winning its overseas wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Iraq and Afghanistan are not America's to win or lose. Win what? We can help them buy time or develop, but we cannot control their fates."

The former Senator reiterated that leading two wars that have killed more than 5,100 Americans, and injured 35,000 at an annual cost of a trillion dollars, shows Washington has forgotten its Vietnam lessons.

"No country today has the power to impose its will and values on other nations," Hagel warned.

"The US response, engaging in two wars, was a 20th-century reaction to 21st-century realities."

The White House should clearly define a strategy that accounts for the interconnectedness and the shared interests of all nations, the former Senator said.

"Every great threat to the United States -- whether economic, terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, health pandemics, environmental degradation, energy, or water and food shortages -- also threatens our global partners and rivals."

Hagel said that, "Addressing these threats will require a foreign policy underpinned by engagement -- in other words, active diplomacy but not appeasement."

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=105284&sectionid=3510203

I also prefer diplomacy over wars and International bodies (viz. U.N.)

If this is a reference to Afghanistan allow me to illuminate everyone on facts about the Haig Accords and other agreements made by the UN and member nations, they only apply to nation honoring the terms of the rules of conduct in a war. groups like the Taliban and Al Qieda do not conform to these rules. They hide behind human shields and kill indiscriminately.

We never learned our lesson in Viet Nam where we should not have been involved with in the first place. First of all you either have the resolve to make total war or nothing at all.

There is a time for diplomacy and a time for war period. It is a necessary evil. When faced by a hostile belligerent like the Taliban there is no negotiation. All they will do is smile in your face and put a knife in your back. They use terror and indiscriminate killing as part of their war. Keep in mind a Holy War is very different from a conventional war.

Unfortunately our military hasn't got the balls to fight these bastards on a level they will understand. To fight Holy Warriors you need to find ways of taking the wind out of their sails. One of them is to find out what their beliefs are and play on them.

These fools (the Taliban and Islamic extremists in general) fear defilement. To be polluted with something impure will in their minds keep them from heaven. To fight terror you need to use psychology as much as bullets. they hide behind human shields you blast the civilians they hide behind. You have to make it so the civilians are more terrified of the consequences of harboring the Taliban more than the Taliban itself. Knowing it will rain death from the sky will make the civilians run every time the Taliban comes to town costing the Taliban support. Sad BUT TRUE!

Now conversely it is unfair to leave the civilians unarmed in the face of the Taliban who are armed. Handing them rifles and ammo, food and economic assistance is a great way of winning their hearts especially when you post rewards for captured Taliban dead or alive (and pay out more if they are alive!). Money talks, Bull**it walks!

Now back to psychology. Islamics revile pigs in general. Eating pork is considered defilement but getting shot with a bullet dipped in pigs blood? Meaningless to us but to the Taliban and Islamic nutcases? In their mind they will be denied heaven. How many of them do you think will want to wage Holy War on us knowing they risk being defiled in a way that will make their god turn them away? In World War I, Gen. John Joseph "Black Jack" Pershing ordered troops to execute terrorists in the Philippines with bullets dipped in pig's blood, then bury them with the blood and entrails. That tactic worked marvelously! If we fought the Taliban the same way they would be scared S***less of us. Again we haven't got the balls to make real war.

If people like this were open to negotiate in good faith then diplomacy would help but in this fight forget it, they will not stop until they kill us or we kill them. That is what a Holy War is all about, wiping out the other side utterly! Do not think for a minuet that playing happy little word games with an opponent with the wherewithal to kill people over religion will help. They only thing they understand is being crushed under foot. Obama has no clue how to deal with the aggressors we face.

Granted my tactics may horrify the UN but SCREW THEM! If it were up to me I would bring back Horse Cavalry because vehicles in Afghanistan are not the greatest idea considering the locals screwed the Russians good on horseback. The terrain is too rough for mechanized Infantry to be very practical and too high altitude for air cavalry to work effectively either. Again the Russians found this out the hard way.

Again I would say diplomacy first if we were facing an enemy we could get to negotiate in good faith. The Taliban? Death to them all! We need to kill them to the last one. This is not an act of Genocide! This is an act of retribution for their actions.

Also again it is unfair to leave the civilians unarmed because they need the capacity to defend themselves and arming them would make more friends among the Afghanis then hollow promises and occupation!

Take a few steps back to see the big picture and tell me how and why the Taliban became the enemy of USA? How did they get to power? What's their reasons to attack US military?

I'll give you a hint:

1994-1997: US Supports Taliban Rise to Power
Journalist Ahmed Rashid, a long-time expert on Pakistan and Afghanistan, will later write in a book about the Taliban that the US supported the Taliban in its early years. “Between 1994 and 1996, the USA supported the Taliban politically through its allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, essentially because Washington viewed the Taliban as anti-Iranian, anti-Shia, and pro-Western. Between 1995 and 1997, US support was even more driven because of its backing for the Unocal [pipeline] project.” He notes that many US diplomats “saw them as messianic do-gooders—like born-again Christians from the American Bible Belt.” [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 326]

Selig Harrison, a long-time regional expert with extensive CIA ties, will later say that he complained at the time about how Pakistani ISI support of the Taliban was backed by the CIA. “I warned them that we were creating a monster.” [Times of India, 3/7/2001]

There is evidence the CIA may have helped supply the Taliban with weapons during the first months of their rise to power (see October 1994).



1996-September 11, 2001: Enron Gives Taliban Millions in Bribes in Effort to Get Afghan Pipeline Built

The Associated Press will later report that the Enron corporation bribes Taliban officials as part of a “no-holds-barred bid to strike a deal for an energy pipeline in Afghanistan.” Atul Davda, a senior director for Enron’s International Division, will later claim, “Enron had intimate contact with Taliban officials.” Presumably this effort began around 1996, when a power plant Enron was building in India ran into trouble and Enron began an attempt to supply it with natural gas via a planned pipeline through Afghanistan (see 1995-November 2001 and June 24, 1996). In 1997, Enron executives privately meet with Taliban officials in Texas (see December 4, 1997). They are “given the red-carpet treatment and promised a fortune if the deal [goes] through.” It is alleged Enron secretly employs CIA agents to carry out its dealings overseas. According to a CIA source, “Enron proposed to pay the Taliban large sums of money in a ‘tax’ on every cubic foot of gas and oil shipped through a pipeline they planned to build.” This source claims Enron paid more than $400 million for a feasibility study on the pipeline and “a large portion of that cost was pay-offs to the Taliban.” Enron continues to encourage the Taliban about the pipeline even after Unocal officially gives up on the pipeline in the wake of the African embassy bombings (see December 5, 1998). An investigation after Enron’s collapse in 2001 (see December 2, 2001) will determine that some of this pay-off money ended up funding al-Qaeda. [Associated Press, 3/7/2002]

there are plenty more stuff:

http://www.historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=taliban&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go

Afghanastan is one that can't be won.
The only way is to nuke 'em and you'd have to nuke 'em til they stayed down.

Correct. Even the Soviets couldn't beat the Afghans, and the advantage for the Reds was even greater back then (if I understand correctly).

WRONG! The Afghani people are not the enemy, The Taliban is.

Also, remember this, America makes all its enemies. Clinton gave the Taliban 54 million to stop flooding us with opium. Clinton is the biggest F up in American government not counting Obama. The electoral college keeps voting these frauds in, not us!

Like I said, ARM the Afghanis! Kill all the Taliban. And on top of that get the hypocrites out of our Fn government!

Our politicians are the stupidest pack of imbeciles I know. Only a hand full of our elected officials have any sense. The rest are career politicians we need to get out of our government!

True. Sort of. (Not such a great idea to make more enemies by arming people to fight other people. We should have learned this lesson about interventionism already.) Which is why it made no sense to go to war against all of Afghanistan to take out terrorists (especially without the Constitutionally requisite Declaration of war )

Having an armed populous goes against the grain of our Government.
If they were to advocate giving guns to Afghanis, folks here would sheite a brick.

The problem is that the Taliban has guns while the Afghani poor do not. They need to be able to defend themselves. We cannot save them. They have to ultimately save themselves and having the ability to fight back sure helps.

People in this country are too damn Jaded and have their heads stuck so far up their a@@e@ to see or admit the reality of the situation. America is not the police force of the world and Russian and China sure are not going to do dick there considering they have their own problems to deal with.

Like I said occupation is not the answer. Arming their civilians is! We need to REALLY act like their friends instead of oppressors.

you can't argue wih them

they have no idea of the history or the tactical on the ground situation or the goals of the conflict

all they have are ideological catch phrases and knee jerk responses

I gave it up a long time ago. there is no place for reasonable discussion on these threads

just a lot of hyperventilating and repeating of the latest popular right/left propaganda

as for the topic of the thread

The United States never learned the lessons of Viet Nam

They STILL allow politics to influence the waging of the war. They should give it over to the generals and just say "win" and let em go to work

I agree wit' cha' Andy. Arm 'em and let them fight their battle.
However, the US Gov. don't believe citizens should be allowed to protect themselves.

Here, here!!