This isn’t like most of the other Chuck Hagel endorsements, which have hurt him more than they’ve helped him. Ambassador Ryan Crocker’s support is actually meaningful, especially for someone like Hagel, who was a big critic of the Iraq war while Crocker was ambassador to that country. He pens a strong defense of Hagel at the Wall Street Journal today:
Mr. Hagel understands far better than most the evils of Hamas and Hezbollah, both backed by Iran. He also appreciates the importance of looking in and among those groups for fissures that might lead to internal debate, dissension or division—or even to areas of agreement with the U.S. In the months after the 9/11 attacks, I negotiated with Iranian officials regarding Afghanistan; it accomplished a little of both, spurring agreement on some issues and internal debate among the Iranians on others.
Chuck Hagel understood this, as he understood the importance of the unsuccessful talks I had with the Iranians in 2007, when I was serving as U.S. ambassador to Iraq. The failure of those talks helped convince Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that a diplomatic solution to Iranian interference in Iraq wasn’t possible, at which point he decided to use his army successfully against Iranian-backed militias.
Most of the argument is made in personal terms that are moot; Crocker reassures that Hagel’s heart is in the right place on Israel, and that he understands the magnitude of the Iranian threat. But for the rest of us judging him based on his public record, the evidence just isn’t there.
The endorsement may also be too late to matter. Even if President Obama hasn’t made up his mind yet, both sides are digging in and the fight is becoming increasingly bitter. Obama wouldn’t just be picking a battle with Republicans. Plenty of liberal Democrats, most recently Barney Frank, have also opposed the possible nomination. The gay community is still wary of Hagel’s position on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and women’s groups are lobbying for a female secretary of defense now that Hillary Clinton is leaving the State Department.
The longer Obama waits to make a decision, the more divisive the issue will become. And unless Hagel has a lot more supporters of Crocker’s caliber waiting in the wings, he’s not going to be able to match the level of the opposition. Maybe that doesn’t matter to Obama; at the end of the day, it’s still his choice. If he wants Hagel badly enough, then he’ll suffer through the fight.
Guess you missed Jamie Kirchik's critique of Hagel solely on his alleged 'homophobia'. nI give Kirchick credit for taking the spotlight off the increasingly bizarre Jewish battle over Hagel. n nAt this point, I expect Ashton Carter for SecDef, with the real surprise being the next SecTreas.
Ashton Carter does appear to have very good intellectual qualifications as well as experience. There is also Michèle Flournoy who may make the grade. I am not sure of their pro or anti Israel sentiments. Carter does however appear to recognize the dangers in an Iranian nuclear capability. That, in itself, would make Israeli leaders more comfortable.
there's no one in the Middle east or western world who doesn't recognize the dangers of the Iranian nuke program, vandag. n nFlournoy is also a pretty darn good alternative, but she's a pragmatist rather than an ideologue and a big believer in diplomacy rather than a bomb-firster…….not the sort of person that the Israeli right-winger "kill them for us" crowd is looking for.
"there's no one in the Middle east or western world who doesn't recognize the dangers of the Iranian nuke program" How I wish that were true. n n"…….not the sort of person that the Israeli right-winger "kill them for us" crowd is looking for" Remind me – what anti-Israel canards are you NOT willing to spread? I remember there have been some I just can't recall what they were.
we made it through the Cuban missile faceoff–but then as noted I'm skeptical they willk entirely succeed. Easy googling shows one semi-verified N. Korean atomic test (4.3 Richter scale spike) but their systems proceed in patches. . and they are the rumored Iranian partner. True, there's A.Khan's network but imo it doesn't feel like Nov 1962 yet
you may be overestimating Iran's importance to Israel right now. And that includes the Israeli right, right now. nEx FM Lieberman is on record as saying it isn't an Israeli-first initiative and this thing comes and goes across the radar–Ehud Barak's pronouncements can be disregarded. nThe Russian immigrant community, which is huge, and a big portion of hawkishness vis a vis the eastern front is also from reports extremely secular, Russified to the bone, and not puritanical–their horizon of expectations (and ties, still, to Russia's Putin) doesn't automatically enroll them in an Iranian military expedition…my bet is on flux and irresolute lack of decision for months… n nbut then personally this old pooch isn't convinced that Iran is getting the help it expected to get a working model.
I quite agree that the opposition to Iran's getting a nuke ain't anything but broadly-based. the iranian bomb threatens the Saudis and their little buddies more than it threatens israel…. and US opposition is firm and not based on Israeli urging and shared by all of Western Europe.
my thought is that the US with O is not as steadfast as you suggest in the long haul, that Israel is not as set on war as is charged by Bibi's detractors and that the full capabilities of Iran are continuously being re-evaluated–all is flux, particularly given the developing O 2nd ad and the Israel election. I don't sense a big fight if Hagel is nominated.
not bad, Alana, but you fail to understand Obama's reason for delay. he's just letting the Alpaca lobbyists shoot their tiny wad and exhaust themselves (as well as everyone's patience with them).
btw I've come across plenty of Hagel supporting fru fru over AIPAC opposing Hagel, but Commentary isn't AIPAC. Not that there would be anything wrong with AIPAC, the much maligned "Jewish lobby" defending itself against charges of treason, but perhaps, as you are determined to convince us there is a many tentacled Jewish-Israel-Lobby-AIPAC octopus at the heart of opposition you might find for the record, one … accurate …. quote of AIPAC concern or opposition. n nAll I can come across are unsubstantiated charges that AIPAC or the Jewish lobby or the neocons or the "war party" are slandering Hagel but no actual evidence that AIPAC has actually organizationally taken a postion. n nSurely a beard who regularly stands up for those who seek to isolate Jews, deploying barnyard epithets and factoids from nowhere can find at least an expresion of concern. n nLet's have a quote. n nFor grins, let's say there's a distinction between pure "evolved" *real* Jews and AIPACy Jews who can be ethnically ghettoed by those pushing the dual-loyalty meme about the "Jewish lobby" without the *real* Jews being concerned. n nSure. n nStill facts are facts. n nI'm on AIPAC's mailing list. I did a mail search for "Hagel" and nothing came up. n nThere was one e-mail from Bill Kristol's Emergency Committee but zippo from AIPAC. n nWhere's the wad? n nCredibility depends on more than shpritzing.
" but Commentary isn't AIPAC" It is in the minds of the conspiracy theorists, J Street, HuffPo, the blame Israel first crowd, the Jew haters, and their apologists.
well, weird weather ahead–& Hagel, heck, Iran may be the least of it–chaos being not lack of control, simple anarchy, but increasing perturbation in sensitive systems–wings of the butterly etc. etc. Familiar curse of liviing in interesting times…fiddlers on the roof not just schmalz
I know some J Streeters, aha…. and they surely don't equate AIPAC with Commentary……… n nthey have disagreements with AIPAC, strong ones, but don't loathe AIPAC to THAT extent.
sorry, it's still a canard. You misrepresent what Bibi said. n nFor all this truculent mulishness you are spreading a smear. You owe everyone's ring a pucker and as in the story about the Baal shem Tov, the palace, and the tzar's minister, the turd is in your own pocket. n nBibi did not not not call on the US to bomb Iran. n nWhat he explicitly said was that to have an effective deterrent to *avoid* the need for military force when it was too late for other options, the United States and Western powers needed to declare effective red lines of what activity would incur military action so that Iran would be deterred from crossing those red lines in the first place. n nMAD is such a deterrence policy on steroids, between powers who have nuclear weapons. n nThis is not some subtle hint hidden at the back end of the very article you link to.. n nIt is the fifth paragraph of your own source: n n—– n"I believe that with a clear red line, Iran will back down."
I'll give your pucker a ring sometime. n nbut Bibi threw in that throw-away line after the ship was well underway.
That's a relevant point for sure about AIPAC not taking formal positions (? if consistently accurate), as noted I have nothing from them. n nNo, personally I discount statements from those who speculate what and why the hypothetical "pro-Israel community": will do, whatever the nominal affiliation and allegiance of the speculator–but the Josh Brock quote qualifies imo for the organizational expression of concern so you have that. n nThat would make you and Alana then mutual friends. Must be some interesting brunches. n n
she and Eli were at my son's wedding. but Alana and I have nothing in common. I'm an ugly old fart and Alana is cute as a bug's ear and looks like she's just out of high school. n nI wouldn't too heavily discount what Eli says about AIPAC. he's as well-sourced with them as anybody
quite an extended family all around…& all the more so intriguing if A & E were there together, but enough gossip…there are all the adages of young at heart and true beauty and they better be true for all the altercockers everywhere…for sure it seems like a fair report–but then I am not shocked shocked they have an organizational stand nor believe they are puppet masters n nlong story short in comparing the wiley old redacters of the scriptures with som much of today's polemics–they saw human nature clearly in considering leaders, kings, and politicians. They didn't throw out salt and sechel when considering powers and principalities or their limitations. We end up in debates ot clashing abstractions: Bibi as demon vs. Bibi as noble upholder of the ideals of Israel and the Jewish People capital J capital P. & etc. etc. & etc. imo Bibi in matters of peace and war is as much constrained by his own personality and expedience as he is motivated by the far horizons of some overarching vision–often its Shamir-ism draped in grand gestures. & now he's being outflanked on his right by younger guys who are less restrained in promising glory without consequences…that Jewish Home guy is recyling secularly rebooted Kookism and Bibi will be hard put to match it….
Dub, Dub, same elegance of expression that I have come to associate with you. If you practice hard, you may yet become another Cloture. Don't forget asher yotzer when you are done. n nAs besht has already pointed out, you have either totally misread or totally misrepresented the WSJ article that you linked to. I wll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is the former, whether from haste, wishful thinking or both I cannot say.
By the way, Dub, that Rabbi that you mentioned that you have? You might want to ask him to teach you about something called Motzi shem ra. And something else called nivul peh.
thanks, but the rabbi is currently in California and can not speak as the rabbi is undergoing a long series of operations removing things riddled with tumors….. and ain't going to be getting better. n nfeel free to supply the info that you wish me to have. n n