Many of those coming out in favor of Chuck Hagel’s presumptive nomination to be Secretary of Defense appear motivated less by love for Hagel and more by dislike for his opponents. The trend follows a common one in Washington. During the Cold War, there were anti-Communists and anti-anti-Communists. In the aftermath of 9/11, there were anti-terrorists and anti-anti-terrorists. The drawback in Washington is that the policy debate is often driven less by principle than by standing in opposition to perceived opponents. Nothing shows this more than the ad hoc coalition rally around Chuck Hagel who see nothing wrong with a man whose interpretation of honest policy disagreement is to question the loyalty of those who have the temerity to disagree with him.
It is likewise ironic to see progressives so obsessed with “neocons” (though most of those they label as such are not neoconservative) that they, in effect, form a coalition that makes a mockery of their own philosophical positions. I believe in a colorblind society in which jobs are based on qualifications rather than superficiality. The quotas often put forward by those on the left sound often sound like reincarnations of the infamous James Watt quote. Still, many progressives do believe in quotas and diversity of skin and sex rather than diversity of opinion. Therefore, it is ironic to see the pro-Hagel coalition in effect becoming the lobby for old, white, multimillionaires.
Perhaps the most misguided argument for a John Kerry-Chuck Hagel duo at the State and Defense Department is the idea that they are best suited to prevent war. This not only shows that many progressives have repeated conspiracies about their opponents’ lust for war for so long that they actually believe their own mantras, but also believe that appeasement—or generous “incentive packages”—for those who want to keep to diplomatic speak—rather than credible defense ameliorates conflict. Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s national security advisor, appears to make this argument. While Peter Beinart may like to label Hagel a new Eisenhower, a better parallel might be Dean Acheson, President Truman’s secretary of state.
On January 12, 1950, Acheson gave a speech in which outlined U.S. interests in Asia:
In the first place, the defeat and the disarmament of Japan has placed upon the United States the necessity of assuming the military defense of Japan so long as that is required, both in the interest of our security and in the interests of the security of the entire Pacific area… The defensive perimeter runs along the Aleutians to Japan and then goes to the Ryukyus. We hold important defense positions in the Ryukyu Islands, and those we will continue to hold… The defensive perimeter runs from the Ryukyus to the Philippine Islands. Our relations, our defensive relations with the Philippines are contained in agreements between us. Those agreements are being loyally carried out and will be loyally carried out… So far as the military security of other areas in the Pacific is concerned, it must be clear that no person can guarantee these areas against military attack. But it must also be clear that such a guarantee is hardly sensible or necessary within the realm of practical relationship.
Acheson continued to advise those states not covered by the defensive perimeter to resist on their own or rely on the United Nations. “It is a mistake, I think, in considering Pacific and Far Eastern problems to become obsessed with military considerations,” he explained.
The Brzezinski’s and Hagel’s of that day applauded, but there was a very different reaction in Pyongyang. Kim Il-Sung heard Acheson’s speech and determined that the United States would no long stand in the way of his ambitions. It was soon after that he launched the invasion of South Korea, a conflict which would take a half million lives.
Hagel’s neo-isolationism—or non-interventionalism, if some analysts prefer—may sound good in some quarters, but if the desire is to keep the United States out of war—a truly noble endeavor—then the best way to do so would be to place someone at the helm of the Pentagon who would counsel standing America’s ground rather than turning inward.
It’s time to drop the fiction that this choice is about war or peace. The debate is rather over the best way to maintain peace: through strength or through conciliation. The simple fact is this: Kerry at State coupled with Hagel at the Pentagon will make conflict more likely.
Kerry and Hagel don't make war less possible, but they make war less winnable, since neither of them seems to believe the US is the good guy.
I hope Chuck Schumer will finish his alleged study of Chuck Hagel and quickly come out against him. n nThere are many reasons to oppose Chuck Hagel besides Israel, anti-semitism and Iran. n nTo me he is the stereotypical Archie Bunker type bigot. His policies have been anti gay (even now after his late and self serving apology he doesn't support equal benefits for gay military families. He is anti-African American (with a 17/100 rating from NAACP and admires Strom Thurmond as a great role model. anti Woman (vs choice and contraception) n n and n nHagel has drawn additional heat from insiders who claim he lacks the credentials needed to manage a department as large and essential as the Pentagon. n n“Yes, Hagel has crazy positions on several key issues. Yes, Hagel has said things that are borderline anti-Semitism. Yes, Hagel wants to gut the Pentagon’s budget. But above all, he’s not a nice person and he’s bad to his staff,” said a senior Republican Senate aide who has close ties to former Hagel staffers. n n“Hagel was known for turning over staff every few weeks—within a year’s time he could have an entirely new office because nobody wanted to work for him,” said the source. “You have to wonder how a man who couldn’t run a Senate office is going to be able to run an entire bureaucracy.” n nOthers familiar with Hagel’s 12 year tenure in the Senate said he routinely intimidated staff and experienced frequent turnover. n n“Chuck Hagel may have been collegial to his Senate colleagues but he was the Cornhusker wears Prada to his staff, some of whom describe their former boss as perhaps the most paranoid and abusive in the Senate, one who would rifle through staffers desks and berate them for imagined disloyalty,” said Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon adviser on Iran and Iraq. “He might get away with that when it comes to staffers in their 20s, but that sort of personality is going to go over like a ton of bricks at the Pentagon.” n nMultiple sources corroborated this view of Hagel. n n“As a manager, he was angry, accusatory, petulant,” said one source familiar with his work on Capitol Hill. “He couldn’t keep his staff.” n n“I remember him accusing one of his staffers of being ‘f—ing stupid’ to his face,” recalled the source who added that Hagel typically surrounded himself with those “who basically hate Republicans.” n nSources expressed concern about such behavior should Hagel be nominated for the defense post. With competing military and civilian interests vying for supremacy, the department requires a skilled manager, sources said. n n“The Pentagon requires strong civilian control,” a senior aide to former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told the Free Beacon. “It’s already swung back in favor of the military over the past five years. A new secretary of defense should push it back in its rightful place, but it’s doubtful Hagel would be that guy.” n n“It’s not clear that [Hagel] has the standing, the managerial prowess, or the willingness to gore some oxen,” said the source. n nOne senior Bush administration official warned that Hagel is ill informed about many critical foreign policy matters. n n“He’s not someone who’s shown a lot of expertise on these issues,” said the source, referencing a recent Washington Post editorial excoriating Hagel’s record. “That [op-ed] was extraordinary.” n n“Only in Washington,” the official added, “can someone like [Hagel] be seen as a heavy weight. He’s not the sharpest knife in the drawer.” n nHagel is likely viewed positively by the administration mainly because he is a Republican who often criticizes his own party, the source said. n n“He’ll dance to a tune played by the White House,” said the former official. “That I think is the real problem.” n nAs lawmakers consider a deal to avoid sweeping budgets cuts and tax hikes, Hagel’s support for slashing spending at the Pentagon has irked many defense hawks. n n“This is a time when a secretary of defense needs to be raising hell about the sequestration cuts,” said the Rumsfeld aide. “It’s not clear that Hagel has any interest in picking that fight.” n nHagel’s reluctance to chastise Iran also remains a central concern. n nAs chief of the Pentagon it is expected he would avoid planning for a military intervention should Tehran refuse to end its clandestine nuclear enrichment program. n n“The military brass is already reluctant to offer up any military options on Iran even though it’s their job to have something on the books and to leave the options of the commander in chief open,” said the Rumsfeld aide. “Hagel will only reinforce these worrisome tendencies.” n n“Chances are he’ll view any legitimate effort to talk about military options with Iran as some plot by the ‘Israel Lobby’ to box him in,” the source said.