The letter to the editor in the April 10 edition of The Citizen by Maj. Gen. (Ret) Wheeler with the title, “Sen. Hagel, where were you when ...?” raises several issues addressed to the staunchly conservative Republican senator from Nebraska as they relate primarily to his positions on the Iraq war and terrorist-initiated attacks both in the United States and abroad.

I do not know how the senator may reply to Gen. Wheeler’s query and I do not know where Senator Hagel was when the incidents, starting in 1993 and ending in late 2000, cited by Gen. Wheeler, occurred. One thing that I do know is that from 1967 until 1968 a much younger Chuck Hagel served his country as an infantryman in Vietnam, rising to the rank of sergeant and receiving a Purple Heart and Combat Infantryman’s Badge.

During this same period of time when Chuck Hagel answered the call to duty several prominent, high-level, present-day Republicans when confronted with the choice of whether or not to serve their country in a combat zone chose either duty in a stateside Air National Guard unit or opted for “other priorities” by way of several deferments.

Senator Hagel does not have to bow to anyone when it comes to verifying his patriotism and willingness to sacrifice personally on behalf of his country.

Concerning the Iraq war, Gen. Wheeler notes in his first paragraph that Senator Hagel voted on a measure on April 9, “tipping the scales of a serious measure on Operation Iraqi Freedom” and then proceeds to state in the following paragraph that a family member, of whom I am sure he is justly proud, “wants us to win this war we did not start.”

I have followed the lead up to, and conduct of, the war in Iraq with great interest and this is the first instance that I can remember where Iraq is accused of having started the war.

The Bush administration cited Saddam Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction and having strong ties to al Qaeda (both subsequently found to be untrue) as the basis for preemptively invading Iraq, but Saddam Hussein starting the war is a rationale that I never remember even the strongest proponents of “regime changing” Iraq proclaiming.

The primary “where were you when” set of questions requesting responses from Sen. Hagel relates to the period between the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 (Sen. Hagel entered the U.S. Senate in January 1997) and the sinking of the USS Cole in late 2000.

It should be noted that during this time-frame the Clinton administration was in power and the inference is that they basically turned their backs on countering terrorist organizations.
I am not an apologist for the Clinton administration’s approach to combating terrorism and have no idea as to their view of the problem; this will be eventually judged by future historians.

What I do know is the following: all of the same intelligence available to the Clinton administration concerning the terrorist threat was made available to the Bush administration upon their entering office in January 2001. The Bush administration was additionally warned by the outgoing National Security Advisor that the new administration’s main foreign policy challenges would be al Qaeda and terrorism.

According to the initial Bush administration Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O’Neill, the first Bush cabinet meeting was extremely interested in the removal of Saddam Hussein and there was no discussion of al Qaeda.

The fiscal year 2002 Department of Justice proposed budget reduced FBI funding and assets for counter terrorism.

And, finally the infamous Aug. 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Briefing item noting that Osama Bin Laden was planning attacks in the United States was basically ignored and there was no increase in threat level directed by the Bush administration. Result: The events of 9/11.

Bottom line: in view of the foregoing, if you are going to castigate the Clinton administration for lack of action concerning the terrorist threat, you had best direct the same guilty charge to the Bush administration.

In listing the litany of un-responded-to terrorist acts, it is interesting that the list compiled by Gen. Wheeler omits what is considered to be the first and undoubtedly the worst of all terrorist attacks prior to those of 9/11, that of Oct. 23, 1983, in Beirut, Lebanon, which resulted in the deaths of 220 United States Marines, 18 sailors and three soldiers.

What effective retaliatory steps were taken by the Reagan, I repeat Reagan, administration? None!

In addition, United States forces were withdrawn from Lebanon by Feb. 26, 1984. If you are going to accuse the Clinton administration of “cutting and running” from Somalia in 1993, how about applying the same standard to the Lebanon withdrawal by President Reagan nine years earlier?

Finally, as we approach the fourth anniversary of the infamous declaration of “mission accomplished” in Iraq, we are told that if we fail to succeed in Iraq we will face a “catastrophic” situation which is “unacceptable.”

If “success” (whose definition is never quite defined by the Bush administration) is truly that important to the future national security of the United States, why are we “surging” with only 30,000 or so troops?

The situation is either “catastrophic” or it is not; President Bush cannot have it both ways.

If “catastrophe” must be avoided at all costs, why not flood Iraq with a force level approaching 500,000 U.S. troops and guarantee “success”?

Could it be that we do not have the necessary forces available and a draft would be necessary to ensure “success”? If we cannot afford to “lose Iraq,” why not level with the American people and require the necessary, broad-based sacrifice (the draft) to ensure “success”?

P.S.: It should be noted that while there is broad, on-going discussion concerning “success” in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan grows more dire with each passing day. A resurgent Taliban is preparing for yet another, and undoubtedly more widespread and destructive, spring offensive. Osama Bin Laden and his al Qaeda cohorts who, unlike Saddam Hussein and Iraq, actually caused 3,000 U.S. deaths on 9/11, continue to roam the mountain regions of the Afghanistan/Pakistan border areas while flagrantly displaying total disregard for President Bush’s highly touted, but totally ineffective “you can run, but you can’t hide” proclamations.

Wade J. Williams

Colonel, USA (Ret)

Peachtree City, Ga.

login to post comments