Hagel: Military Strike in Iran is 'Not a Viable, Feasible, Responsible

[cal04]

Hagel: Military Strike in Iran is ‘Not a Viable, Feasible, Responsible Option’

Sen. Chuck Hagel has joined the long list of officials and experts who believe that no good military options exist in Iran.

“I think to further comment on it would be complete speculation, but I would say that a military strike against Iran, a military option, is not a viable, feasible, responsible option,” he added. … “I believe a political settlement will be the answer. Not a military settlement. All these issues will require a political settlement,” Hagel said. Stating that no good military options exist doesn’t mean the U.S. should take the military option off the table. What it means is that the U.S. needs to get off the sidelines and engage Iran directly, as Hagel has urged in the past:

Iran is a regional power; it has major influence in Iraq and throughout the Gulf region. Its support of terrorist organizations and the threat it poses to Israel is all the more reason that the U.S. must engage Iran. Any lasting solution to Iran’s nuclear weapons program will also require the United States’ direct discussions with Iran. The United States is capable of engaging Iran in direct dialogue without sacrificing any of its interests or objectives.



http://thinkprogress.org/

[dchill]

1. ‘Not a Viable, Feasible, Responsible Option’

So, they're gonna do it, then.

[mr_hat]

2. Nah ga.

One can only hope.

[monktonman]

3. not a viable, feasible, responsible president.

of course they're gonna do it.

[HereSince1628]

4. I hope he's right, but I'll have one of those that he is drinking.

Anything that yields optimism...

[dchill]

9. You can have one of those he's drinking...

but in order for it to have the same kick that he gets, you've gotta be megadosing mood-altering anti-depressant drugs at the same time. Oh, and you've gotta be bat-shit crazy, too.

[leftchick]

5. Richard Clarke must not have read "A Clean Break"

the goal is 'NO END GAME' Richard....

<snip>

FORMER COUNTERTERROR CHIEF RICHARD CLARKE
“e’ve thought about military options against Iran off and on for the last 20 years, and they’re just not good, because you don’t know what the end game is. You know what the first move of the game is, but you don’t know what the last move of the game is. … I don’t think there’s any doubt that the intelligence community and the defense department believe Iran would respond with terrorism. … So they would respond if we hit them militarily, if that was the first move. The second move would them striking back with terrorism, including in the United States. And then what’s the third move? What’s the end of that process?”

it is worth reading all of those responses at the link. Murtha's is good but I don't know who he thinks will stop the chimp.

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. Good for Hagel. This is about War and Peace, I'll praise a Republican

If a Republican is willing to say this they deserve praise. Too damn many Democrats aren't willing to say this. I have a diary running about Democrats and Iran on Kos today:

"Is Iran Too Hot for Democrats to Handle?"
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/13/102053/401

[justice1]

7. Take it with a grain of salt

What he says and how he votes are two different things. His record shows he is one of the strongest Bush supporters out there.

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. Not always on Foreign Relations though

The fact that he is saying this in public now has positive value, that is what I am granting him here, no more no less.