home > by publication type > interviews > Hagel Urges Shift in Iraq Policy, End to Partisanship
Email
| Interviewee: | Senator Chuck Hagel, Nebraska |
|---|---|
| Interviewer: | Robert McMahon, Deputy Editor |
May 8, 2007
Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) was one of only two Senate Republicans to vote in favor of attaching troop-withdrawal timelines to Iraq war funding legislation. President Bush vetoed that measure but Hagel says Bush must acknowledge that the majority of Congress and the American public have lost confidence in his Iraq policy. He calls on the administration to accept conditions in new Iraq war funding legislation that link U.S. engagement to Iraqi political reforms. Hagel also urges an end to the politicking surrounding discussion of Iraq. “We have to sand down the sharp partisan edges that have now really dominated much of this debate,” he says.
Senator, there’s now a great deal of attention focusing on September as a date for this temporary funding legislation to perhaps come to a head. What kind of legislation could you support?
We are working right now to craft a compromise conference report that will receive enough House and Senate members’ votes and a report that the president will sign. I’ve said I think we should take all the extra [non-military] money out and focus just on the money the president asked for. And then there needs to be some conditional language in the report. I think you’ll probably see the specific dates taken out of there. I want to see different language options, and that’s the way it works up here. It’s hour to hour. And in the end, I have confidence that we will find a resolution to this that will allow the president to get the funds, and at the same time, there will be some new conditions, at least some general parameters for America’s continued involvement in Iraq.
So parameters that go beyond what is seen now as open-ended conditions about what the United States would like to see the Iraqi government do. You just visited Iraq. Could you describe your impressions of how the Iraqi officials are dealing with the various problems there?
The situation in Iraq is complicated, and it is getting worse all the time. Until there is a political reconciliation by the Iraqi government—between the Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Kurds—there will not be a resolution. As Gen. [David] Petraeus, Secretary [of Defense Robert] Gates, and our ambassadors have all said, there will be no military solution for Iraq. There must be a political accommodation made by the Shiites and Sunnis principally to find common ground where they can form a consensus government that will address the large issues and challenges that face Iraq. The military can’t do that. We can’t impose anything. [Any breakthrough] will come as a result of a political accommodation, bringing some reconciliation. How that might come about? What kind of a government might you see in Iraq? I don’t know. But that’s up to the Iraqis.
From your position on the Senate Intelligence and Foreign Relations Committees, and your understanding of what’s going on in Iraq, what proportion of the violence is sectarian as opposed to these dramatic al-Qaeda attacks on marketplaces, not only in Baghdad but in Ramadi and other towns?
Well, first of all, those are not all al-Qaeda attacks. We’re not sure. Many of those are Sunni extremists. Some are al-Qaeda. You have militia on militia. There are terrorists in Iraq. Al-Qaeda is in Iraq. But as the National Intelligence Estimate said, this is a violent, sectarian war complicated further by an intra-sectarian war. So it’s not just Sunnis killing Shiites, but it’s Shiites killing Shiites. And that’s the predominant part of why we’re seeing the violence in Iraq. The extremists, the terrorists, and al-Qaeda are using this violence. But this violence is being driven through a sectarian problem that needs to get resolved. Only through a political resolution will this become in any way a functioning government that gives the country and the people of Iraq any kind of a future.
In Congress you’ve indicated this has become more of a political debate than it should be. But by the same token, some say the Democrats’ gains in the 2006 midterm elections have galvanized Congress to debate these issues that were ignored. How do you see the way this is now unfolding?
I don’t think we’ve made really any progress at all here trying to bring [about] some consensus in the Congress, and within the administration, coming together to find a responsible way out of this for the United States. We have to sand down the sharp partisan edges that have now really dominated much of this debate. This should be a debate about the interests of our country. This should be a debate about the future of foreign policy of America, about the interests of the Middle East, and the future of Iraq. That’s where the debate should reside, not a partisan debate.
What the American people want us to do now, their elected members of Congress, is not to play politics with it, [but] to fix it. The administration has to come a ways here too. The people of this country, the majority of the Congress, have lost confidence in the policy of this president in Iraq. That policy needs to change. It needs to shift. This president must understand that. He should work with the Congress. I mentioned Baker-Hamilton. That was an opportunity the president had to find a new bipartisan consensus, a new center of gravity for a policy in Iraq going forward. They chose not to do that. I’m sorry they did. But nonetheless they did. But we should try to extract the sharp partisanship out of this debate as much as we can.
You have deferred a decision on running for any office in ’08 as of yet. What is your timeline at this point?
I’ll make a decision. I have to make a decision in the next few months, and that’s the timeline I gave, and that’s the timeline I’ll stick to.
Did the two debates [Democratic and Republican] give you any new thoughts?
I have to tell you I didn’t see either debate. Those are all kind of silly right now. The fact is, you’re in April and May, these guys can’t develop any policies. They can’t take serious questions. It’s way too early. There’s so much going to happen here. If they want to do that, that’s up to them. But I think it’s a little silly.
Global Economy in Crisis
Expert Conversations on World Events
In The Closing of the American Border, Edward Alden goes behind the scenes to tell the story of the Bush administration’s struggle to balance security and openness in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
In Termites in the Trading System, Jagdish Bhagwati reveals how the rapid spread of preferential trade agreements endangers the world trading system.
America Between the Wars explores how the decisions and debates of the years between the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Twin Towers shaped the events, arguments, and politics of the world we live in today.
Complete list of CFR Books.
This report lays out a thoughtful agenda for U.S. policy toward the Democratic Republic of Congo, arguing that what happens there should matter to the United States--for humanitarian reasons as well as economic and strategic ones.
In this report, CFR Senior Fellow Michael A. Levi analyzes the potential use of deterrence in preventing terrorist groups from acquiring nuclear weapons and recommends a new approach to U.S. declaratory policy, as well as ways to improve U.S. capabilities to determine the sources of terrorist attacks.
Complete list of Council Special Reports.
This report argues that the United States must lead with domestic action on climate change and proposes a U.S. negotiating strategy for a global UN climate agreement that includes commitments from all major economies, while also promoting a less formal Partnership for Climate Cooperation that would focus the world's largest emitters on implementing aggressive emissions reductions.
This Task Force report examines changes in Latin America and in U.S. influence there, while taking account of the region's enduring importance to the United States. The Task Force offers an agenda for U.S. policy toward Latin America and identifies four critical areas that should provide the basis of a new U.S. approach.
About Independent Task Forces at CFR.
“ The Logic of Zero:” Ivo Daalder and Jan Lodal say Washington must lead the way to a world without nuclear weapons. The first step will be dramatically limiting the U.S. nuclear arsenal's declared size and purpose.
To order Task Force reports, Council Special Reports, and Critical Policy Choices, please call, fax, or order online from our distributor, the Brookings Institution Press: phone +1.800.537.5487, fax +1.410.516.6998.
For information on other reports that are not for sale, or for general publications information, please call +1-212-434-9516 or email publications@cfr.org.
To request permission to reuse Council materials, please email publications@cfr.org or fax +1.212.434.9859.
Please include the complete information of the requested work—author, title, sections/pages to be copied or reprinted, and number of copies to be made—along with a brief description of where and how you would like to reuse the work.
You may also request permission for Council material through Copyright Clearance Center. For more information, please click on the link below.
Copyright 2008 by the Council on Foreign Relations. All Rights Reserved.
