Iraq War: Is Chuck Hagel antiwar?

Markos Moulitas (Daily Kos) seems to think so: Hagel: Hagel: "Iraq could be worse than Vietnam" 06/26/05.

But the Omaha World-Herald article he quotes has Hagel saying that he wants to intesify efforts to win, without defining how that would be any different from the disastrous course Bush has taken.  And it says this:

He lays part of the blame on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who argued before the war that he needed only 150,000 American troops in Iraq. That caused more casualties than were needed, Hagel said.

"We still don't have enough troops," he said. "We should have had double or triple the number."

Is that his solution?  But in another 140 thoussand or 280 thousand troops?  Is he going to sponsor the legislation for massive military conscription?  It also quotes him as saying:

The United States has only about six more months to begin to turn things around in Iraq, he said.

"I believe that there can be a good outcome in Iraq," he said. "I also believe there could be a very bad outcome for Iraq. I believe we have a very limited time for that good outcome."

Just what is he prepared to do to push his Party's Dear Leader Bush to adopt a different course?

Because so far, it just sounds to me like he's trying to duck any responsibility for the disaster that Bush and his team have created in Iraq.  Understandable, but not very helpful.